row seats to the conventions. tonight, the congressional budget office releases its economic forecast. joe biden makes a stop in detroit and later a history of the senate filibuster. according to the congressional budget office, the federal deficit will be over $1 killion. a recession could happen if congress does not reverse several policies by the end of the year and that unemployment is expected to rise to 9% in the second half of the year with low inflation. we talked about that forecast with a reporter who covered the briefing. we are joined by eric recovered the press conference. what is the biggest news to come out of the outlook? >> the big news is that there is fiscalng on the

cliff. it refers to a series of automatic spending cuts and tax increases that will take effect in january. cbo estimates this will cause a significant recession next year. they are predicting 0.5% negative growth. that would be a recession by many measures. it had warned of negative growth next year but it is much deeper than that what they had one before. they are looking at 3% contraction of the economy if congress fails to act on the fiscal cliff. >> what actions might they take to address the forecast when returning in the fall and what can they get done before the election? >> doug elmendorf said in a press conference that congress should act in september when it

comes back and acting sooner is better than later because already the economy is anticipating the fiscal cliff and growth has been stunted. we saw from the press releases they came out right after the reports that that there remains a stalemate in congress. the automatic spending cuts that are set to take place were put in place because the super committee last year failed to come up with a bipartisan deal. last month, senator patty murray warns that democrats will allow it to take affect to pressure republicans to get to a balanced bill. republicans are refusing to do tax increases and have passed a measure that would avoid the fiscal cliff, or the spending cuts by cutting social programs. >> the director also discussed

alternative scenarios. what were they? >> they do two things. they look at what the lot is going to happen and current policy which looks like what they have done in the past. typically congress has extended the bush era tax cuts. they have avoided a severe drop in medicare payments which have been scheduled to take effect and they have passed in the alternative minimum tax. otherwise it was supposed to affect wealthier taxpayers. all of these things happen. we would see tepid 1.7% growth according to them. but the deficit would continue. we would be at a trillion dollars next year. that would be the fifth year and over 10 years, 10 trillion dollars in deficit compared to the current law which is about

three trillion dollars. >> he said it would lead to conditions that will be considered a recession. here is that out of the norm for his press conference? >> it is not declare recessions. that is more of a branch decision. sometimes recisions have to be two quarters of negative growth. perhaps this would take place with one deep quarter. but basically he is saying in the press conference that this looks like a recession. >> and unemployment was not too rosy, either. >> unemployment would rise from 8.2% to 9.1%. and he's still looking at 8%

unemployment next year. republicans are all over the president saying that he is to blame for this. democrats are saying he produced the jobs act and congress needs to pass it. >> you can read his money blog and follow him on twitter. thank you for the update. >> good morning. thank you for coming. i am doug elmendorf. cbo released this update to the

economic outlook. i would like to summarize the report and my colleagues and i will be happy to answer your questions. we estimate that the deficit this year will be 1.1 trillion dollars, 7.3% of the economic output, or gdp. down from about 10% in 2009. this is the force year in which the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. federal debt will reach 73% of gdp by the end of this fiscal year, the highest level since 1950, and about twice since 2007. we are prepared baseline projections that reflect the assumption that current laws remain unchanged. they are designed to serve as a benchmark in considering changes. substantial changes to tax and spending policies are scheduled to take effect at the end of

this year under current law. whether lawmakers will allow those changes to unfold will play a crucial role in determining the path of the federal budget and the economy. we have prepared projections under an alternative fiscal scenario. many policies will be continuing. i will talk about the baseline first and then turned to the alternative scenarios. among the policy changes due to occur under current law, the ones with the largest impact on the budget are the reduction of tax relief enacted since 2001 are set to expire. a sharp reduction in medicare payment rates are scheduled to take affect.

automatic enforcement procedures specified by the budget control act to restrain spending are set to go into effect. extensions of unemployment benefits and a reduction in the payroll tax to social security are scheduled to expire. those sharp reductions in taxes and federal spending and increases in taxes will lead to a dramatic reduction in the federal deficit, trimming it by almost $500 billion next year. that would probably lead to a recession early next year. our forecast shows continued modest growth in the economy for the rest of 2012 but a drop of output of nearly 3%. we anticipate output will expand in the second half of next year and beyond.

the unemployment rate will rise to about 9% in the second half of next year in our forecast under current law. those spending reductions will also lead to small deficits throughout the coming decade and a declining path of debt relative to gdp. our baseline budget projections remain unchanged show deficits close to 1% of gdp. the small deficits falls from 73% of gdp to 58% of gdp in 2022. that's what we think will happen during the baseline. projections under an alternative fiscal scenario that incorporates the following

assumptions. all expiring tax provisions except the current payroll tax reduction are extended indefinitely. the index for inflation after 2011. medicare's payment rates are held constant at their current levels. the original caps on discretionary appropriations are assumed to remain in place. the alternative policies would lead to budgetary and economic outcomes that would differ in the near-term and in later years from those in our baseline. the deficit would exceed $1

trillion for 2013. deficits would remain at large the route the coming decade. revenues would be about 18% of gdp. federal spending would be much higher, about 23% of gdp. the increase in outlays compares to a historical experience relative to gdp for social security and the major health care programs. it is partly offset for all other federal benefits and services taken together. with such large deficits, debt would climb to 90% of gdp, higher than any time that shortly after world war ii. the economy would be stronger in 2013 and 2014.

economic growth would be modest and we would not anticipate a recession. the unemployment rate would move slowly down rather than up. escalating federal debt would increase the chance for a crisis. the government will lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. rising debt would hinder savings, reducing income relative to what would occur with smaller deficits. the policies assumed a path of federal debt that would be unsustainable. therefore, the key issue facing policy makers is not whether to

reduce budget deficits relative to those that would occur under current policies but when and how. if lawmakers do not reduce the deficit, they will need to reduce that later. at some point we will need to adopt policies that require people to pay more in taxes, except less in government benefits and services or both. in closing, i want to acknowledge the more than 120 people at cbo involved in the production of this report. the staff of the joint committee on taxation provided the able assistance. i appreciate to those people for their talents and dedication. thank you. we're happy to answer your

questions. >> if the fiscal cliff is avoided, the 1.7% growth is weak. why is that? >> the evidence suggests that the following financial crises, economies tend to have more severe slumps and more gradual recovery. then is the case following recessions do not follow financial crises. in the united states today, think demands for goods and services is being held back by a number of factors. the building of our housing stock leading to the financial crisis. there are a large number of unoccupied houses today, quite a bit fewer than a few years

ago because it housing construction has been so weak. assault with good credit have been able to borrow for mortgages and a good rates. there is weaker demand for housing construction then normally coming out of recessions in the united states. another factor holding down economic growth has been restraint in spending in hiring by state and local governments. normally hiring is a factor boosting the economy and has not been the case this time. there has been a tremendous loss of household wealth in the stock market and the value of homes that people own. despite these factors, we and

others have not been able to predict the nature of this recovery. there have been a number of developments that i think outside this country that have mattered as well. the situation in europe is of great deal of concern. that is a risk that would highlight and their problems have been a drag on this economy and have the potential to be a larger dragon. we do not entirely understand what is going on in the economy. we're in the process of producing a report on the slow recovery, work that has come out of dark forecasting worked that we are trying to explain to people what we do see going on and we hope to have that report out shortly. >> projections of going over the fiscal cliff seemed the worst than they were.

why is that? >> relative to the report that we released in may, we have lowered our projection of economic growth for next year. that is primarily due to a reassessment of the underlying strength of the economy. the economy has been growing at a modest pace for the past few years. we have pushed down a little bit in how strong we think growth would be in the absence of fiscal tightening. fairly small shocks can matter. a large amount of fiscal tightening. that is a large shock, negative shock pushed the economy into a significant recession.

yes. >> you mentioned the threat that we would lose our ability to borrow cheaply. when is the magic tipping point coming or the bond rates are going to spike up? bond rates continue to fall. >> interest rates depend on a number of factors. one is the amount of treasury debt. other factors are important, as well.

rates are low right now despite the level of debt for a few reasons. the weakest of the u.s. economy. the preference by many investors to hold -- the rates are low because they reviewed as safer than many of the alternatives in the u.s. financial system. a second factor is the views of investors of our assets relative to assets in other countries. serious banking and fiscal problems in europe. people are moving out of european markets and into ours. so, between the situation in the u.s. economy and the situation in foreign economies, it is not too surprising that rates are low. in our projection, rates

increased gradually. they do not rise very much because we have a recession in response to fiscal tightening. we think the federal reserve would undergo further action to stimulate the economy and that would hold down short-term rates and longer term rates. by the end of the decade, the rate in our production is back up to 5%, which is closer to a more typical level. it is possible for rates on our debt to spike upwards at some point. when investors have lost confidence in the government's

ability, they can start selling the securities rapidly and push up rates very fast. that is a risk for us and we talked about. it is difficult to know whether there is a particular tipping point or what it might be. it depends on the amount of debt and also on conditions in the international financial system. and also on investors' expectations for policy-making. i think countries with high levels of debt have much less risk of fiscal crisis than countries with may be somewhat lower levels of debt or people believe it is rising. expectation about policy and

confidence in the ability of a government to manage policy are important and that is a hard thing to quantify in some way. >> congress is coming back in september. what should congress do? >> we do not make recommendations. our responsibility to the congress is to offer them our best assessment on what will happen under current law and what might happen under alternative policies that congress is considering. they need to make the decisions themselves. we talk about different choices that the congress has. it will look in this report at

current law base line and the alternative scenarios. that is not an either-or choice for congress. people who have worried about the short-term economic consequences of this sharp fiscal tightening have proposed extending some of the expiring policies and letting certain policies expire as written into current law. and then more hiring by businesses. we did in long report last fall laying out a collection of fiscal policy options, doing our best to assess the bang for the buck, how strong the economy would be for every dollar and every criteria can matter in the resources as well.

we have offered to the congress i hope a clear sense of the different possibilities, but the choice will have to be up to them. we think that economic growth right now is being held back by the anticipation of this fiscal tightening. both in terms of the possibility of a sharp downturn but also uncertainty about what will happen. it is the expectation of a weak economy and the uncertainty of what might turn up. the sooner that is resolved, then the stronger we think the,

it would be in the second half of this year and next year. we said it was being held down by about half a percentage point from the expectation of fiscal tightening. that remains our view and is consistent with views of forecasters. hard to know for sure because lots of factors effect the economy. >> your revenue estimate for 2012 is $133 billion less than the government collected. can you relate that to this chart that you have. these extraordinary numbers where you have historically high levels of people being unemployed for 27 weeks or more. this is the new normal with

these high levels of long-term unemployment? >> we show a picture on page 31 of the report of long-term unemployment which is on extraordinarily high in this country. we do not expect long-term unemployment to remain at that level indefinitely. we do think that unemployment will remain higher than it would have been because of the lingering effects of the recession and recovery. people who lose jobs sometimes find jobs fairly quickly but sometimes not. when they do not, it has longer-term consequences for their jobs and for their employability. people lose skills or don't keep up with processes and sometimes employers might not be

as good and that could be an employer's decision about hiring them. we expect the employment rate to be a little higher than it would have been in the absence of this recession and slow recovery. that does hold down output and incomes and tax revenue. in addition to the loss of labor input in the economy, there will be less physical capital because investments have been low in the recession and recovery. it is rising rapidly by it is that low level. we think that productivity will be a little lower than it would have been. there is a box in chapter two that talks about the lasting a fax of the recent recession and

the ensuing economic weakness. we think the level of output at the end of the decade will be about 1.5% lower than it would have been. that corresponds to a reduction in revenue of about 1.5%. other things affect the forecast. the recession and the slow recovery matter for our future economic capacity. but that's not the principal factor leading to wide deficit under current policies. if we had economic growth that was a lot stronger, we would

still end up with large deficits by the end of the decade under current policies. >> i wanted to clarify the magnitude of the fiscal tightening. would it be -- the largest reduction in spending or -- >> the largest reduction as a share of gdp in any single year since 1969. >> 1969 would have been the vietnam drawdown? >> i do not know. the deficit will fall by 3.3% of gdp. the reduction in 1969 was slightly larger than that. >> so it would be bigger than any intentional round of

deficits since we started to reduce the deficit 30 years ago. >> i'm not sure what is intentional. the biggest one-year reduction as a share of gdp. >> in the alternative, can you give any indication of which ones have degraded or have the least impact of economic growth? >> we have not tried to break down the pieces of fiscal tightening. most of the narrowing of the deficit comes from increases in tax revenues. the much smaller share comes from reductions in spending.

just by the amount of dollars being moved, the increases in taxes probably have a larger economic effect than the reductions in spending. the effects depend on the policies. we do these analyses, we have different things for different policies. i do not know dollar for dollar. the alternative fiscal scenario has deficits that are much larger. changes in tax policy and changes on the spending side. >> getting back to the take away for congress. would you say this raises the stakes for them to act?

>> i think the stakes of fiscal policy are high right now. i didn't know anybody who disagrees. we have very serious budget challenges and serious economic challenges in this country. on the decision that congress makes about policy, that can have profound affect on the budget and the near term and longer term economic output. i think the stakes are high in the fiscal policy decisions that will have to make shortly. >> can you talk about a change in the entitlement programs and costs for revenue? >> we have in this production

our forecast for medicare spending. medicare spending has, and lowered the we expected this year. that has been true for several years running. over the past three years, we have marked down our projection in medicare spending for 2019 by about $100 billion for technical reasons. for the program specific factors come we marked down medicare. the slower growth in medicare spending is consistent with slower growth of health-care cost more generally in the economy. in our projections for from march for the cost of the coverage provisions of the affordable care act, private

premiums have been growing more slowly than they had been before. that was one factor that causes us to mark down our projections. we had seemed slower growth in medicaid as well. what is going on in federal health programs is not entirely clear. presumably the weak state of the economy is a factor. given the magnitude of the slowdown in national health spending and the timing of the slowdown, which seems to have started before the recession, we think there are structural

factors at work as well. the structural factors that are probably happening include slower growth of spending on prescription drugs. there are some patent expirations and fewer new blockbuster drugs. restructuring the way health care is delivered. what is causing that is not completely clear. that could be due to providers concern about payment rates or changes in the way providers are getting paid in medicare and by private insurers, more household pay more out of their own pockets in deductibles or cost sharing 1 they are getting health services. there are a lot of possibilities. people in the health-care system understand the imperative to find ways to work more efficiently. how to connect up that set of

activities is very hard and we do not know to what extent the slowdown we have seen in the federal health programs will persist or not. fiscalou're revenue in year in 2007 was greater than the fiscal year 2012. has a been a period where revenues have not been recovering to where they have been and is a cause you to change the way you look at forecasts for the next 10 years? >> revenues have been a smaller share of gdp for the past 10 years than in many decades. much of that reduction in revenues relative to gdp is a

natural -- of the weakness of the economy. we have a progressive tax code and people that slipped out to lower tax codes pay lower fraction. another big piece of what has happened in revenue is the policies that have been enacted. the 2% reduction in the payroll tax rates under social security has cost the government money. part of what is going on has been a great weakness of corporate profits, especially in the financial sector. we are a little surprised by how weak tax revenues are and we do not know what is going on

there. the detailed tax return data used to parse out data comes out with some lag. we can seize the total amount of revenue being collected. one factor in the projection is expectation buyouts on the low part of tax receipts fades over time. he tax receipts come back up conditioned on the tax policies that will be in effect. if we are wrong about that, there is some permanent shift and tax revenue could be lower than we think. the labor share of national income and there is a picture on page 43 that shows labor income as a share of gross domestic income.

you can see there is a gradual downward trend in labor and come as a share of gross domestic income. it has been quite sharp and this downturn. we anticipate that labor income will come back a little bit as a share of total income. a large number of people out of work. it is not too surprising that wage growth has been restrained. it is lower than we would have expected. we anticipate it will rebound to stop the closing to the average of the past few decades. that might turn out to be incorrect.

we try hard to have our projections be in the middle of the range of possible incomes. we think there are significant risks of the actual budget or economy performing worse or better than we have written down. >> recent reviews show the potential for more rapid recovery possibly due to the low level of -- you're talking about the box on the left and they seem to disagree with that. >> i have not read what they have written. we talk about risks to our economic forecast being stronger housing investments that we have written down.

a large number of vacant homes. we have had a low level of construction for the past several years. housing -- building could come back more strongly that we think. we mentioned other upside risks. strong rebound in business investment and hiring. businesses are sitting on a lot of liquid assets. if they felt more optimistic about the future economic path and chose to do more investment and hiring, that could also jump-start a favorable feedback loop in which hired would lead to more hiring and more spending by households and further investment in business hiring. that is related to the comet

that is underperforming. i do not know beyond that what they have said. >> i want to get back to the difference between your outlook for next year and why it has done worse. how much of it is due to the fiscal cliff being steeper than you thought at how much is the general worsening of the extoled economy? >> relative to our production in january, the fiscal cliff is now steeper because congress enacted an extension of the payroll tax reduction to the end of 2012 and an extension to the end of calendar year 2012. that kept the deficit larger in 2012 and it keeps the economy

stronger. by boosting the economy in 2012 without boosting the economy in 2013, it has led to a larger fall off. an important reason why we're looking for a more negative of fact, more negative outcome of the economy than we expected in january. since the january forecast, we have lowered our assessment of the underlying growth of the economy. i have not tried to parse that out. the magnitude of the slowdown in economic activity is significant. with this sharp tightening of fiscal policy, we are looking to start at a reduction in its gdp at an annual rate of about

3% which would represent a significant recession. we are looking under those conditions, the unemployment rate to rise just over 9% by the end of next year. the contrast is quite stark. we don't have that kind of recession in the alternative. the unemployment rate is about 8% next year. >> you were saying -- >> under the alternative fiscal scenario, 2 million more jobs under current law, according to

our forecast. the difference in outcome for next year is very stark. the difference in budget outcomes at the same time is stark as well. the alternative scenario runs up debt about $1 trillion. the next few years and later in the decade, the current law baseline and the alternative fiscal scenario policies have different effects on the budget and the economy. >> how do you get to the unemployment rate under the alternative around 8% -- how do you get to two million jobs. >> the labor force is about 155

million people. 1.1% is not quite two million. when the economy is weaker, more people stay out of the labor force. the stronger economy draws more people into the labor force and that would be true under our current baseline projections. those extra people are employed and that factor tends to hold up their right a little higher. those pieces together and up to two million. >> you are talking about how and when we deal with the deficit. when will this become a problem, a bigger problem with

the economy and financial markets? how long can we put this off? >> well, we do not know how long this can go on for. the large deficits have a number of negative consequences for the economy. they tend to reduce saving and investment. they lead to larger interest payments. that makes it harder to achieve certain budget outcomes. a third consequence is larger deficits reduce the room to maneuver on the part of the government. people talk about fiscal capacity. that is what i said when i started. 35% of gdp before this recession.

it now represents twice as large a share. if the debt stays or rises further, our country were to encounter some further need due to domestic problems or international problems to spend more and borrow more, we would have less capacity to do that. a larger debt it means a larger risk of a fiscal crisis. when any of those factors will and that binding is someone that forces' actions is not clear. what is clear is that waiting to make decisions until action is forced turns out badly. it having to address a large imbalance between spending and

taxes and a point when a country cannot borrow any more ends up acquiring drastic changes that people don't have time to plan for or just to. earlier policy action is better than later policy action. how quickly one and commence a set of policies is more complicated. the last time people have to plan, the greater risk of knocking a slowly-growing economy off-track. there is a difficult tradeoff is how quickly one element policies to reduce deficits. agreeing on what the policy changes will be is better to happen sooner.

any other questions? >> this is your last one until january-february next year? >> that is correct. we release a new outlook for the economy in january of each year. we anticipate a very interesting and of the year here. ok? thank you very much for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thursday, the proposals to help home owners with their mortgages. then the president of the national organization of women talks about her group post of priorities. and neil munro.

"washington journal" is every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> i am not in the habit of breaking my promises to my country. and when we tell you we are going to change washington and stop leaving our country's problems for some generation to fix, you can count on it. [applause] and we have a record of doing just that. the strength, experience, a judgment and backbone to keep our word to you. >> you have stood up and said and not to the politics of the past. you understand that the greatest risk we can take is to try the

same politics and expect a different result. you have shown what history teaches us that in defining moments like this one, the change we need does not come from washington, change comes to washington. >> c-span has aired every minute of every convention since 1984 and the countdown continues with less than a week to go into our coverage of the republican and democratic national conventions on c-span, c-span radio, and online. all starting next monday with the gop convention with new jersey governor chris christie and senator john mccain and former governor of florida jeb bush. speakers include julian castor and former president bill clinton. >> in detroit today, vice

president joint -- joe biden criticized mitt romney for saying obama is out of touch. the vice president out of the recovery of the u.s. auto industry and linked mr. romney with the plan past year earlier this year. he is introduced by a gold matter but -- gold medal boxer. this is a little less than an hour. ♪ [cheers]

[crowd chanting "usa!"] >> thank you. i do not know who you are more excited to see, me or toure -- joe biden. [laughter] i am proud to represent my

hometown of flint, michigan. [cheers] for me, the olympics were a time to represent my country, even possibly bring home the gold. and the amazing about the olympics, you learn about the world. but as much as you learn about them, you love your own country. new field of fire when people from other countries show you what it's like to represent your country in the world. and it good when you have a president and vice president representing you. we have at times, but what we have not, we just get up and keep going. we keep fighting with the

president and the vice president to have our back. -- who have our back. [applause] when things are looking bad for the auto industry here in michigan, they bet on us. for young people like me and my friends, they are betting on us by putting an education for all of us, helping our schools get better, and helping us in education. they are fighting for those basic values that i see back home in michigan. hard work and fair play. i know about preparing for something that goes every four years. it is tough. you make sacrifices. but it is worth it because you know you are part of something bigger than yourself. that is what this election is about. and something vice president joe biden understands. he knows the working town like scranton, pennsylvania. he knows the price you feel in

never giving up, always getting up, and fighting for what is right. ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to introduce the vice president of the united states, joe biden. [cheers and applause] >> isn't she amazing? she -- folks, hasn't isn't she amazing? [cheers] i want to introduce you to another athlete, not a gold medalist, but a heck of a lacrosse player. this is my granddaughter. going into 8th grade. [cheers and applause] and i think she came because kirsch was going to be here. [laughter]

i am so happy to see you all. that is pretty impressive. i have to tell you something. a watching you, clarissa, it reminded me -- some of you have heard me say this from afar. my dad had just one saying. i have played sports, but it was nothing like this child. i played sports and i thought it was the essence of what was most important in my life in high school and college. my dad would have only one thing to say when he would watch me play football or baseball from the time as replying in fourth -- i started playing in grade. he would say, joey, just get up. you get knocked down, just get out. the child, you know how to get up. [applause] my dad used to say, the measure

of a man or woman was not hot -- not whether they got knocked down, but how quickly they get back up. and guess what, detroit is getting back up. [cheers and applause] detroit is getting back up. and i tell you, -- where is john conyers? hey, big guy. thank you for the passport into the district. i know this is your district. and john is one of my great friend and my whole career. great to see you, buddy. and congratulations. i understand represented clark is here. where are you? hey, how are you doing, man? the only thing i don't like about him is that he is always better looking than i am. but i like him alive. -- like him a lot. and a guy who has -- and someone who has been my friend for a long time sandy conners. i know he is here somewhere.

great to see you. thank you for being here. for any congressman to come in here to hear the vice presidency, it is like a you have done that before. i also want to thank anita williams, the principle of the school. she said to me earlier, welcome to the best high school in detroit. [cheers] and coach rice, where are you? a coach, how are you doing? i understand some of your ballplayers are here. hey, guys. it i understand you got a big gain coming out. go get them, guys. and you guys only big. you know why? if i was not here, you would be out there on the grass. [laughter] i used to love anybody getting me out of preseason football

practice. if any have you ever played football, if they tell you they like preseason, they are nuts. look, folks, i will try to get right to it. i'm impressed by the crown. thank you all for coming out. [applause] i am not ready to go a couple of rounds with clarissa, but it is hot in here, folks. the country in november will face one of the starkest choices it has had in my memory. because there will be no wondering who stands where, no wondering what direction this country is going to go depending on who gets elected

or reelected. and governor romney is a decent man, a good family man. [boos] no, no, no. i disagree with him on an almost everything politically, but he is a good man. when he selected his running mate, those stark differences even became more stark. [cheers] congressman ryan, who is again a good family man, a good man, he has given definition to the vague commitments that governor romney has made. now we know congressman ryan and the republicans in the congress, as one person said, they have already passed in the republican house what governor romney is promising to pass to the whole nation. i say to my friends in congress, it is a little bit like two governments running

against one another. there is no mystery here. and they are straightforward about it. how to use an old football metaphor, they are not hiding the ball. they are telling us exactly what they're going to do, and they have done it. they have done it in the house. and ladies and gentlemen, they call their new economic plan, what they are talking about, they call their plan -- and they call it new and they call it gutsy. but i say there is nothing new about giving a millionaire a tax break. and there's nothing bold about cutting medicaid and medicare and education and research and development in order to pay for that tax cut. [applause] not only is it not new, folks. it is not fair. it is not right.

and the people who will pay the price are the working class folks and middle-class folks in this country. [applause] they are the ones who will pay the price. and there is overwhelming evidence. if this policy will not grow the economy again. it will not grow it. it did not before. and, we have seen this before. and it will not grow the economy now. folks, we have seen this movie before. we know how it ends. it ends with a great recession of 2008. throwing millions of people out of work. it was a catastrophe for the middle-class and working-class. falls, we cannot go back to those days. we have to move forward. ladies and gentlemen, the president and i have a very different way forward than our republican friends.

we know the history of this country, and from our experience we know you do not grow the great economy of this nation from millionaires down. you grow it from the middle out. [applause] that is how you grow it because by the way, folks -- [applause] by the way, folks, when the middle class is growing, the poor have a way up, and the very wealthy do very, very well. everybody benefits. what this is all about when you cut it down to its core, it is about american having an opportunity to have a decent standard of living, a decent job, to be able to own their home and not grant it. it is a place where hard work is rewarded and taking responsibility is expected.

look, folks, my dad had an expression i heard my whole life from the time we had to move from scranton, pa. when he had to find a better job to take care of his family. that is how i got to wilmington, delaware. here is what he would say -- no joke. he would stick to my job is about how lot more than a paycheck. it is about -- he would say, a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. it is about your dignity. it is about your place in the community. it is about being able to turn to your child and say, honey, it is going to be ok. that is all, it is going to be ok. and believing it. too many people where i come from, here in detroit, around the country, too many people are not confident about being able to turn to their kids and say, honey, is going to be ok,

because they have been battered. americans, through no fault of their own, have been stripped of their dignity. and millions more who have jobs have had to live for the past five, six, seven years with stagnant wages, no increases, making it increasingly difficult to care for their families. i talk about the longest walk a parent can make. the longest walk a parent can make is up a short flight of stairs to a child's bedroom -- and i mean this sincerely -- to say, honey, i'm sorry, but daddy lost his job, mommy lost her job, or the bank says we cannot live here anymore. honey, you cannot play on the little league team next year, you cannot sing in the choir.

we have got to move, honey. my dad made that walk. when i was going from third grade to fourth grade. when he made the walk, he said, but it is going to be ok. we're or to move 157 miles away to wilmington, delaware, because that is where uncle frank was. when he got enough say, he would bring us all down. a lot of you know people who have made that walk. a lot of you know people who are going to bed tonight and will be staring at the ceiling wondering whether or not there will be able to live in their house five months from now. am i going to be here? am i going to be ok? are my kids going to be ok? i wonder how many of you knows somebody where mom and dad sat at the kitchen table in the last couple of months and said, who is going to tell saundra that she cannot go back to school at the college or community college next semester?

we just do not have the money. how are we going to tell her? folks, and i mean this sincerely, when the president and i ran the first time, we knew how tough it was going to be. we knew the devastation that had been visited on this country by the great recession. even we did not know how extensive it would be. no one did at the time. but we were determined to to restore dignity and pride to hard-working american people, to provide them with the ability to care for their family. if there are over 4.5 million people today i am proud to say that are making a different walk. not of the stairs to their kids' bedroom, but a walk to the manufacturing plant where they are allowed once again to make the best automobiles in the world. [cheers and applause]

the walk from the assembly line to the car and they go home and say, honey, i am proud of what i'm doing. it walk from the graduation stage at the community college to a four-year college to a high-tech company that just closed down its operations in china and came to detroit or michigan. [applause] -- detroit, michigan. [applause] and walked back home to the dinner table to say to the kids, my does not have to work two jobs anymore. dad is ok. i have a job again. that is what is going on in the neighborhoods i come from. that is what people are looking for. we've got a long way to go. there are still on awful lot of

people out there still hurting. but things are starting to come back. we have been fighting to help people keep their palms, help them keep their health care, keep their child care, so they can work and know someone is going to take care of their child, protect them from predatory lending and wall street abuses, and encourage american companies to in source instead of outsource. [applause] they have a vote in the congress -- but we had a vote in the congress. all we said was, look, instead of doing like we have been during the last 30 years, instead of giving a company a tax credit in the millions of

dollars for going into a factory in michigan or delaware, unbolting the machinery, putting it in the belly of a ship or in the belly of a plane and taking it to china, instead of getting a tax credit for doing that -- we reward people for moving. we cannot keep them from going, but we can stop giving them a break if they do go. [applause] we came along and for john said to these guys, look, -- and john said to these guys, look, let's give a tax break to the guy who unbolt the machine in singapore and brings it back to michigan. [applause] it is kind of simple, right? i mean, not complicated. they all voted no. they said no.

[boos] we should be discouraging outsourcing, not encouraging it. clive governor romney has done, but "washington post" said romney and that companies he owned at bain capital pioneered outsourcing. [boos] as elected officials would say, when i saw her party on that about a month and a half ago, the romney campaign with sai, vice-president biden does not understand. he does not understand the difference between outsourcing and offshore in. [laughter] can you picture id now? two people in the unemployment line. one turns to the other and says, were you outsourced or offshored? what difference does it make? you do not have a job. [applause]

i guess that means they are bad guys. they just do not get it. they do not get what happens in the street, in the neighborhoods. they do not get what happens when people do not have these jobs. [applause] republican obstructionism has slowed our progress, but it has not stopped it. [cheers] in spite of governor romney's insistence "let detroit go bankrupt" we rescued the automobile industry. [cheers and applause] saving 1 million jobs -- [crowd chanting "four more years"]

with your help, we will. look at what has happened since we came out of bankruptcy, 200,000 jobs created. a commitment -- and you are seeing it here in michigan -- a commitment of almost $30 billion to be reinvested in the united states in equipment in plants, which will create another 10,000 jobs. we passed the toughest wall street regulation in history, turning wall street back into what is supposed to be, and allocator of capital, not a casino. [applause] folks, we improved education, raising standards and demanding more of teachers, students, all of us. my mom had an expression. she used to say, children tend to become that of which you

expect of them. we expect a lot of you because you are capable of a lot. [applause] we did common sense things that you would have thought of before. we took the $60 billion that we would be paying banks over the next 10 years to put through in loans for students to go to college, federal laws, and we said, look, you guys are ok. we are not going to pay any more. we're going to take that $60 billion and put them into pell grants to help people go back to school. [applause] the banks were not doing anything wrong, but it was a waste of money. in this neighborhood, in every neighborhood across america, instead of 6 million kids in

school because of pell grants, there are 9 million. [applause] and by the way, i have been in and out of iraq and afghanistan over 20 times. my son spent a year in iraq as a captain. i am seeing firsthand as my congressional friends have seen the sacrifices this 9/11 generation has made. faults, may be the most important thing we have done is that we believe the only truly sacred obligation our nation has is to care for those who we send to war who come home injured and in need. [applause] by guaranteeing them health care as long as they live and giving them the opportunity for

education that they are entitled to. [cheers and applause] we even had to fight with these other guys over whether or not they would support giving businesses tax breaks if they hired a veteran stock and an $8,000 tax break if they hired a wounded warrior. it was a fight. we should not even be talking about that. [applause] anymore than we should be talking about why we should pass a violence against women bill. why are we talking about? [cheers and applause] we have cut middle-class taxes every year we have been in office. federal taxes for middle-class families are at their lowest level since the eisenhower administration. we cut small business taxes to help them grow. we helped millions of families modify their mortgages so they

could stay in their homes. and we help more than 1 million refinance their mortgages, saving $3,000 per year. we could do it for another 12 million if the republicans could just get out of the way. [applause] and it will not cost the government a penny. [applause] i hope some of you guys graduating from this great school next year are born to go to a 4 year college or a community college. my wife teaches at a community college and she says the best kept secret in america is a community college. [applause] here is what we did with our congressional delegation. we went out there and said, do you realize there are 600,000 high-tech manufacturing jobs going unfilled in local communities. why? because over the years we lost the tool and dye makers, the

generation of specialists. these are new technologies. all people need our certification. what did we do? we partnered with colleges and companies and we said to the company, what training do you need it? and we set that up in the community college, so you can graduate and go directly to a manufacturing job averaging $50,000 a year. [applause] the kind of jobs, i might add, that even mitt romney cannot export. [laughter] look, the result. 29 straight months of private sector job growth. 4.5 million private-sector jobs. i have a million new manufacturing jobs. the fastest growth since the 1980's. and by the way, it would have been another 1 millionth or 2 million jobs created if they had who supported our jobs bill.

that is what the experts say. [applause] i know over the years of lot of democrats have said to sandra and to hanson and to john and i, why is it that republicans are able to reduce what they are saying to a bumper sticker? they are against taxes and for the military and so on. why can't we do that for you -- what can we do that? i've got a bumper sticker for you. osama bin laden is dead osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive. [cheers and applause] you want a bumper sticker, that sums it up. it tells you what the great president of ours has already done.

he has guaranteed it measurable progress not enough, but it is important progress. governor romney and congressman ryan are running on a theme as well. their theme is how "restore the dreams and greatness of this country. but what they are not telling you is that the very plan that the congressman voted for in the last 14 years, the very economic policy that the governor supported as a governor and as a businessman is the very same policy that is what america's greatness is in jeopardy. [applause] i find it fascinating. make time to see one of your republican friends that says we can do better. ask them the following question. the congressman and a governor acknowledged that president

obama and vice president biden inherited a really difficult economic situation. that is what they say, right? what else could they say? ask your republican friends how they think we got into this difficult situation. [cheers] what happens? how did this calamity land on america? it was just going on a great one day and then all of a sudden, bam, the great recession. [laughter] my granddaughter has a little cousin, my fourth granddaughter. her name is natalie. if she were here she would say, did casper the friendly ghost do it? [laughter] how these things happen? what they did not tell you was

when congressman ryan was elected to the congress in 1998 during the democratic administration, we have a balanced budget and the middle class was driving. [applause] what they did not say that the day we were sworn in in january 2009, we were -- we inherited a deficit, a bill of $1 trillion when the president sat behind his desk. and a middle class that was devastated. and now it is amazing. they have discovered the middle class and they care about it. tey are running to save the middle class. john, you have met my dad before. my dad was a high-school educated, graceful, decent man.

he is to have an expression. his name was joe. when someone would say, joe, let me tell you what i value, my dad would go like this. he would say, don't tell me what you value. show me your budget and i will tell you what you value. [applause] that is fair, right? i value women in the work force. i do not employ any, but i value them in the work force. [laughter] let's take a look. let's be objective. stand back and take a look at what these guys value. ares look at what they proposing. let's look at their budget. and governor romney says in the first 100 days if he is elected, he will repeal the wall street reform legislation that we have passed and let the big banks once again write their own rules. [boos]

he then says he wants to continue the same policies that have encouraged the outsourcing over the past two decades. he wants to make massive cuts -- i mean, massive cuts in education. ask john and the other congressmen. they tried to pass and they voted against it in the house. barack, michelle, and joe and i were literally waiting to go into a an event together and i think it was michelle that said, you know, not a one of us -- and this is serious -- not a one of us -- my wife, jill, who is a community college professor, me, michelle, barack, none of us would be standing where were if it were not for college assistance [applause]

and these guys want to wipe it out. they make massive cuts in medicaid, forgetting that a significant number of the people on medicaid were thrown onto medicaid because they lost their jobs through no fault of their own. if the budget that they support, which passed the house and got defeated in the senate, the one that romney is pushing, if that were to become law, 19 million people on medicaid today, including 1 million seniors, would be thrown off. 75% of all the people in a home getting care, 75% are women. where are they going to go? do they think about the consequences? what will happen if that happens? 19 million.

massive cuts proposed for future generations of social security. romney put forward a detailed plan of social security. if you are in your 20s by the time you are old enough for social security, you get $4,000 less than someone gets now. if you are in your 40's, you'll get $2,000 less than someone gets now. massive changes in health care. allowing insurance companies to once again make the world. not a joke -- literally. repeal obamacare, and guess what, no longer does an insurance company have to keep you on a policy. they can tell you, guess what, you have hit your limit. we have -- you have gone through chemotherapy for eight months and we will not pay for it anymore. that was before we passed obamacare. massive changes in health care. they say, it will not affect

anybody, which is not quite true. i will not go into the detail, but under 55. they say, you will get a voucher. the government will give you a set amount of money to go out and find your own insurance policy. right now, it is guaranteed. if you have medicare, you go to the doctor and pay a copay and the government pays the rest. the experts have looked at it. totally non-partisan. they said it would cost seniors an average of $4,600 a month more for their health care. when my dad was dying, i had the great advantage of having him live with me.

and my mom, the last four years of her life, living with me. toward the end -- and you pay a lot of money as vice president and you paid me a good salary when i was a senator. i have four kids and they are successful. it was still a troubled -- still a struggle to take care of my mom's bills. no complaints. it was an honor. but we had to lie to my mom and tell her, no, this is all covered by your medicare and this is all covered by the sale of your home, which it was not. do you know any parent who wants to be a burden to their children? i do not know anybody who wants to do that. folks, they changed the whole deal, and they do all of this stuff i have not mentioned. and they kick 200,000 kids out of head start. [boos]

i could go down the list, but you are standing and i will not take more of your time. here is the deal. why are they doing all of this? they are doing this in the service of being able to provide these massive tax cuts for the wealthy. i go into a lot of detail of what you already know in your gut. but let me give you two examples. when romney and the republican friends say they want to extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthy, let's just take one group of people. that poll tax cut will cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. do you know where $500 billion of that goes? you'll think i'm making this up. it goes to 120,000 families in america. that is not a joke. half a trillion dollars, which

means they've got to cut half a trillion dollars somewhere else or balloon the deficit. a half a trillion dollars goes to 120,000 families. and on top of that, governor romney has been straightforward and not hiding the ball. he said to my watch a $1.60 trillion tax cut for people making $1 million, and on top of that, another tax cut for those making over $250,000 a year. five times te median income. ladies and gentlemen, this is not only a giant price tag, but it increases the deficit. i'm going to sound like a policy guy, and i'm sorry. i sound like a senator, which i was proud to be. the non-partisan tax policy center -- this is one of those

thinktank groups that go and objectively look at all of the proposals that we always come off with. they said, if these tax cuts go through, it will mean the average middle-class family with a child, one or more children, will have their income taxes go up -- their taxes go up $2,000 a year. this is real. in order to give $500 billion to 120,000 families. this is not class warfare. i come from the wealthy little state of delaware. rich folks are just as patriotic as poor folks. the difference here is that nobody has asked anything of them. and they are not even asking for this. romney calls the president out of touch. [laughter]

out of touch. swiss bank account, untold millions in the cayman islands, refusal to release your tax return. [laughter] they call my president out of touch? come on, get real here. [cheers and applause] folks, this is not your father's republican party. and this is not even mitt romney's father's republican party. [applause] this is a different group of people. they have a very fundamentally different vision for america, one that is totally different than ours. our vision rest upon a prosperous, a growing middle class. and we see a future where my granddaughter that you just met has every piece of what opportunity my grandson has.

[applause] we see an america where women get equal pay for equal work. [cheers] for real. we're getting hill does not risk bankruptcy, where no millionaire pays a lower rate than a middle-class family. where we provide access to college for every qualified kid, regardless of what neighborhood they come from. [cheeers] we not only -- we become, once again, the leader in manufacturing in the world. where is it written that we

cannot do that? an america where, once again, instead of ranking 16th, we rank number one in the percentage of our population that graduates from college. where science is valued, innovation is encouraged -- we see an america with the middle- class kids taxes cut, not race, where social security is protected, where medicaid is expanded, where medicare fulfills its mission. we see a future where we maintain our sacred obligation to keep faith in our veterans. as the president said, this is a make or break moment for the middle-class. it really is. so much is at stake. folks, i have not even talk about foreign policy. i have not even talk about what the supreme court would look like after four years of the romney administration.

look, i believe we are going to win. let me tell you why. to winve we're going because, in the and, throughout our history, every presidential election has come down to one of fundamental thing as it relates to the candidates -- who has the most character, who has the character of their convictions, and who has a vision? folks, it will not surprise you -- on that score, i do not think it is even close. it is not even close. i am absolutely convinced, absolutely convinced that the american people are seeing that. they see our guy -- he has a backbone like a ramrod. he does exactly what he says he

is going to do. as your congressional delegation here can tell you, i spent four hours to six hours a day with him every day since we got elected, with the exception of the last five weeks we were both campaigning. we only need two days a week now because we are both on the road. folks, i can tell you -- i have known eight presidents, i have never once, in all the time i have been with this president, including our private meetings which we have once a week, we have lunch -- i have never once, in the difficult decisions he had had to make, heard him ask me or anybody else, what are the politics of this for me? not one single time. [applause] i am absolutely certain we are going to rebuild this country,

stronger than it was before. i am absolutely certain we are going to rebuild the middle class, stronger than it was before. i know, as you know, that given -- given half a chance, the american people have never let the country down. not once. i know, and i remind leaders everyday, that it has never been a good bet to bet against america. never, never, never. ladies and gentlemen, let's meet at this moment. let's meet this moments together. with your help, we will win michigan, and we will win this country. thank you, and god bless you. may god protect our troops. thank you. this is what it is all about. getting up. getting up. thank you all.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we are in the countdown to the convention. in five days, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the republican convention from tampa, live on c-span, your front-row seat to the convention. next, a look at the history of the senate filibuster, and the former u.s. house parliamentarian talks about the effect of recent procedural changes on how congress operates. later, the latest economic forecast and the congressional budget office. our road to the white house coverage continues tomorrow with mitt romney campaign in new mexico, where he will announce his energy plan. live coverage begins at 12:55 p.m. eastern. tomorrow night, we will profile congressman paul ryan, his running mate. we will look back at key moments in his political career from the c-span video library, focusing on his approach to

government spending. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> i am not in the habit of breaking my promises to my country, and neither is governor palin. when we tell you we will change washington and stop leaving our country's problems for some unlucky regeneration to fix, you can count on it. [applause] we have got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment, and backbone to keep our word to you. >> you have stood up, one by one, and said, and off of the politics of the past. you understand, in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try to take -- try the same policy with the same players and expected results. you have shown what history

teaches us -- in a defining moments like this one, the change we need does not come from washington. become -- change comes to washington. >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions since 1984. our countdown continues, with less than one week to go in to our live coverage of the republican and democratic national conventions, live on c- span, c-span radio, and streamed online at c-span.org, all starting next week with the gop convention, with chris christie and the keynote address, as well as senator john mccain and former governor of florida jeb bush. democratic speakers include julian castro, delivering the keynote address, and first lady michelle obama and former president bill clinton. >> from time to time i will watch the proceedings of the house and the senate floor -- interviews with people that are

of interest. i have the c-span app so i can check in and see when there is good stuff on. in my american government class, i can get the live feeds from the floor of the house and senate. i will have them watch out for five or 10 minutes and try to have some conversation. >> he watches c-span on comcast. c-span -- treated by america's cable companies in 1979 and brought to you as a public service by your cable provider. >> an attorney argues that the senate filibuster is unconstitutional. along with the group common cause, he is suing to have it abolished. the american constitution society host his talk about the history of the filibuster. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> seeking a closure to the

senate filibuster -- is it constitutional? the american constitutional society was founded in 2001 as one of the leading progressive legal organizations, consisting of more than 200 lawyers and law student chapters in 47 states and the district of columbia. we regret -- rapidly growing network of lawyers, law students, scholars, judges, policymakers, and other concerned individuals who work for positive change by shipping the public debate on important legal and constitutional issues. by bringing together powerful ideas and passionate and taunted makes a difference in the constitutional, legal, and public policy debates that shaped our democracy. for more information, please visit www.acslaw.org, or feel free to see me or the president

of the georgia voice chapter or one of the co-president of the georgia state students chapter after this. turning to this afternoon's program, are peter presenter will first be giving a presentation outlining his premise that the use of the filibuster in the united states senate is unconstitutional. he is a nationally recognized lawyer with more than 50 years of experience representing plaintiffs and defendants. he is widely known as one of the top attorneys in the united states in antitrust law, and was named one of the top-10 file lawyers in the united states by the national law journal. he attended the university of georgia, where he graduated from the college cum laude and phi beta kappa, as well as the law school, where he graduated magna cum laude. prior to entering private practice, he clerked for the esworth,e clement hains

junor. he currently serves as one of the founding partners of a law firm. his career has consisted of a strong commitment to provide a litigation, including death penalty, habeas corpus, and other civil-rights and constitutional cases. he has served as president and director of the atlanta legal aid society, chairman of the national board of common cause, and chairman of the public defender standards council from 2003 until 2007. he is the author of various articles on constitutional law and local governmental issues. he has spoken at seminars sponsored by the american bar association, the state bar of georgia, the atlanta bar association, and the university of georgia cle on topics including antitrust law, banking

law, criminal antitrust problems, as evidence, ethics, practice and procedure, georgia civil procedure, and uniform can ncommercial code. he is no stranger to constitutional litigation. he argued in front of the supreme court and prevailed in the case of westbury versus sanders, when the supreme court held that congressional districts must be apportioned based on population. this overruled the previous case, where the supreme court held that the apportioning of congressional districts was a political question beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts. on the topic of the constitutionality of the senate filibuster, he published an article in the summer of 2011 of the "harvard journal on legislation," titled "the senate filibuster, the politics of obstruction." copies of the article are

available outside for reference after the program. further, as he discussed today, on may 14, 2012, he filed a complaint in the lawsuit common clause versus biden. in that case, he challenged the constitutionality of the filibuster in the united states senate. after he discusses this important constitutional topic, he will shift to a dialogue discussion brought up in his presentation. this will be between him and professor eric siegel. prof. siegel graduated from emory university and received a jd from vanderbilt law school, where he was research editor of the law review. he then clerked for the chief

judge for the united states district court in the northern district of georgia and the honorable albert henderson of the 11th circuit court of appeals. following -- prof. siegel works for a law firm and the department of justice, he worked there before joining the faculty of the georgia state university college of law. he teaches a federal court and constitutional law, and his articles on constitutional law have appeared numerous law reviews. he has been a frequent contributor to constitutional commentary. prof. siegel has served on at an executive committee on federal courts, and has given numerous speeches on constitutional law questions and the supreme court. he is also the author of a new book, "supreme myths, why the supreme court is not important and it's justices are not judges."

following this dialogue, we will take questions in the audience. also during the conversation as well. i want to thank both of them for appearing with us this afternoon for what is sure to be a substantial investigation of constitutional law. i would like to remind everyone to come after softens. when you are asking questions to the panelists, -- everyone to turn off your cell phones. when you are asking a panelist, let's county with the microphone. i now turn over the floor. thank to bring much. -- thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. let me start with the proposition that when moses came down from the mountain, one of the 10 commandments was not that there shall be a right of unlimited debate in the senate.

when the bush burned in the desert, a voice did not speak to that there shall be a filibuster rule and the senate. it is not a part of the constitution. it did not exist at the time the constitution was adopted. it was prohibited in english parliamentary practice since 16 04. it was prohibited by rolls of the second continental congress. guess what -- it was prohibited under the first roles of the united states senate, adopted in april of 79, a senate which had many framers -- 1789, a senate which had many framers of the constitution as members. the house did the same thing. they both adopted the previous motion from english parliamentary practice as a role, which allowed the majority at any time to call the

question and end debate in this senate and house. where we are today is a historical anomaly the i will trace for you. let's talk about the problem. the first filibusters' did not occur until 1841, 15 years after the constitution was adopted -- 50 years after the constitution was adopted. the average was one every three years in the 19th century. in the early 20th century, the average was one per year. that continued until about 1970, when the average 1970 and was one a year. in that period, they were largely directed at civil rights bills, anti-lynching bills, and clement bills, voting rights bills, and were primarily led by southern centers.

you will see the change beginning in 1970. you see particular spikes 1992- 1993-1994, when clinton was elected and democrats controlled the house and senate. you see a drop off in 1995 with the republican revolution so that the filibuster's -- the senate was no longer controlled by democrats, nor was the house, therefore there was less filibuster as far as the republicans were concerned. ucb spike again increase -- you see the spike increase in 2006. that was when democrats took control of the senate and house. all of a sudden, the number of filibuster's spikes. you see the drop in the spike with the 2010 elections in which republicans take control of the house and there are fewer bills

coming from the house to the senate. -- to be filibustered. nevertheless, the filibuster is the predominant role of procedure in the senate that dominates everything the senate does. therefore, it dominates everything congress does. in many respects, it paralyzes many of the functions of government. this is a chart that shows you the number of filibuster's increasing. when i say filibuster, it is a misnomer. the filibuster rule is not a rule of debate. it is a rule of silence. it is a rule of censorship. it is a role which allows it, under senate rules, the objection of a single center to a bill or in nomination or, in your terms, a whole, to force the senate to go through the process that will require a motion to proceed. the senate cannot begin debate

on anything without unanimous consent. if a single senator objects. once a single senator objects, if the majority leader decides the matter is important enough that he wants to take it on, he will file a motion to proceed, which is asking the permission of the senate to begin debate on a bill or a nomination. the motion to proceed is a debatable motion. guess what -- it can be filibustered. not only in "mr. smith goes to washington." also in the sense that, in order to proceed, there must be 60 senators present and voting to vote closure on that motion. the person who put the hold on the bill can slink away like a thief in the night and never be identified, never speak, never debate, never explain him -- himself or herself.

the senate cannot proceed unless you can get 60 votes. then you begin debate -- you cannot and debate without another vote for cloture, which can require another 60 votes. you go to the closure process. even after closure is voted, the senate cannot actually close debate and take the vote without the expiration of 30 more hours of senate floor time during which the pending bill is the matter before the senate and nothing else can be discussed. the senate essentially plays tiddlywinks, whatever, until that 30 hours expires. the report service has said this whole process can require 12 to 14 days of senate floor time. the senate and the needs 170 days a year. as you can see, it is the equivalent of trying to run out the clock, even if you do not

oppose things. the problem begins with rule 22. april 22 was adopted in 1917. not for the purpose of enabling senators to hold the floor in debate, as strom thurmond did in 1957, for 27 hours to oppose a civil rights bill, or mr. jimmy stewart did in "mr. smith goes to washington." it requires, as a result of an amendment in 1975, an affirmative vote of 3/5 of the senate to close debate. what that means is that the voting of falls entirely on the proponents to get 60 senators present and voting. the opponents do not have to do anything. absences the same thing as a no vote. abstention is the same thing as a no vote.

the burden falls entirely on the proponents, and the opponents do not have to speak, do not have to debate, do not have to explain themselves. it gets even more complicated. the senate cannot heal itself. unlike the house, and and its rules by majority vote, the senate has a role, part of this rule 22, that says that it takes 60 votes to close debate on everything but one thing -- a proposal to amend the sacred senate rules. that requires 67 votes. as a practical matter, it is impossible, particularly in the polarized days of the senate, he essentially impossible, since occurred infilibuster 1841, for the senate to allow the majority to close debate

when it has heard enough and would like to vote. henry clay, in 1841, immediately moved to restore the previous question motion as part of the senate rules. what happened? his motion was filibustered. it is only one of 100 or more attempts that have been made since then to reform the senate rules, most recently at the beginning of the last congress in january of 2011. the problem is caused by a rule 5. that is the result of a deal made, an amendment negotiated by in johnson when he was still leader of the senate in 1959 to overrule an advisory opinion for richard nixon in 1957 to the fact that>> at that time the ses

the not said a continued for more -- from one congress to the next. in 1959, they added to the rule the provision that says the senate rules continue from one congress to the next. and can only be amended as provided by the rules. that takes you to rule 22 which takes a two-thirds vote. the rule is not a rule of debate. it is not a role of deliberation. the defenders of rules say this protect the rights of the minority to be heard. this gives us the opportunity to deliberate fully and fairly and hit off hasty action. yet let's one senator denied the majority to debate, to deliberate, to explain their

positions. it gives the minority a total power to prevent the majority from debating bills. if you do not get 60 votes, the senate is powerless to act. if there is not -- it does not protect the right of the minority to debate. it gives the minority the power to prevent the majority from debating. it does not foster the liberation. it gives the minority the ability to prevent deliberation. but does not promote compromise. it promotes gridlock and gives the minority and incentive not to compromise. if you are, if you want to make obama a one-term president as mitch mcconnell has announced at the beginning of the administration, how do you do that?

you filibuster every major administration proposal. then you argue, as is currently being argued, the president is not a leader. he is not affected. he cannot solve all our problems or get anything done. it does not promote accountability. it prevents accountability. a senator can put a secret hold on the nomination or when unanimous consent is saw to begin debate -- is sought to begin debate, all the senator has to do is attacked. he did not have to explain himself or state a reason. he can go fishing in alaska, he can go hunting with the former vice president. his absence is all the opposition he needs. the filibuster does promote

obstruction. as we have seen since 2006. during the first half of the congress elected in 2006, there were an average of 2 filibuster's a week. in the 19th century, there was one every three years in the first three-quarters of the 20th century, there was an average of one per year. it promotes hypocrisy. it gives the minority party in the senate the ability to run against the majority party by saying they cannot get anything done, let us. why can't they get anything done? because the minority party filibuster the proposal. it prevents the president from filling judicial -- from filling

judicial and executive vacancies. they cannot be filled and they will not be filled this year. there are numerous vacancies in the executive branch. they have been slowed down for months. president obama connected is correct -- commerce secretary confirmed. brandi financial crisis, tim geithner had no assistance because assistance was being held up in the senate confirmation process. this is the most recent development in the whole old buster saad up. it gives the minority the power to nullify existing laws. -- in the whole filibuster. it gives the minority the power to nullify existing laws. his nomination was filibustered

and held up for nine months for the stated purpose of preventing the agency from implementing a statute already passed. not because his qualifications were opposed but because they wanted to prevent the implementation of the statute and force it amendment or repealed. he took the position with a recess appointment. 3 nominations to the nlrb had been held up. the national labor relations board does not have a quorum. it cannot function without a quorum. you can get it by preventing the nomination. the nomination of peter, nobel prize-winning laureate at mit to the federal reserve board was filibustered.

because those in the senate want to abolish the federal reserve board. if you do not want it to function confidently, the best way is to try to get it abolished and prevent the appointment of competent people to the board and prevent the board from functioning. it encourages hostage-taking. i will give you a bunch of examples. richard shelby in january of 2011 put holds on every pending presidential nomination because he would try to blackmail the senate into fast tracking a government contract to a government contractor in mobile, alabama, who was a major political contributor. larry craig held up the commotions but every general in the department of defense -- for

every general in the department of defense because he wanted the to aorce to station 4 c1's station in idaho. there are many other examples where one senator tried to extract something he could not get by majority vote. i was interviewed recently by someone he said it is the rule up a defenseeld appropriation bill to get money for energy-saving wind turbines. my answer to that is that is not the way democracy is supposed to work. it is not supposed to work by a black male and hostage taking. -- blackmail and hostage taking. consideration of nominations requires an aunt -- unanimous consent.

the senate prides itself on being this meeting of gentleman philosophers. that operates by unanimous consent. but rules that were made for a kinder senate do not work in a senate governed by a trench warfare principles of partisan politics. if there is an objection to a request to deny a motion to proceed for unanimous consent, there has to be a motion. it can be filibustered. that gives the minority the power to do precisely that which the framers constitution did not intend they be able to do. the federalist hamilton talks in two places about supermajority

voting. he says be rejected it. because it would give the minority the power to embarrass the administration and destroy the energy of government. since mitch mcconnell says his most important objective is for president obama to be a one-term president, traditional -- judicial nominations, 91 vacancies, 32 of which are judicial emergencies cannot be filled. many have not been filled for several years. none of them will be filled between now and the election and inauguration of the new president. 18 district court nominees currently pending. 15 have unanimous republican support. they cannot get confirmed. nominees have had seven times --

obama nominees have had seven times as many boats as bush nominees have in eight full years. hundreds of nominations have been filibustered. peter diamond, i mentioned. richard cordray. and the nullification, holding up an office -- holding up nominations to prevent the implementation of existing legislation or force its appeal. let's look at the instances -- republicans block debate on the buffett rule. gop blocked debate on a financial oversight bill. republicans blocked u.s. health paid for 9/11 workers. republicans in senate blocked a bill on the debt loan rates. loan rates.t

none were voted on the floor of the senate. while the senate claims to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, and has a rule that denies the majority the ability to deliberate. here are examples. the fairness act had majority vote. never got debated. sovran security act. majority voted 52. never debated. 59 votes, 57 votes, 53 votes at three different times. never reached the floor for debate. the dream act -- 55 votes. public safety employees cooperation act -- 55 votes. bring jobs home act -- 56 votes. buffett rule -- 51 votes. nomination to the ninth circuit. 52 votes. nomination of judge to the

tennis circuit who lack the support of both republican senators -- to the supreme court who had the support of both republican senators. the opposite party may win an election and get the bill -- to fill those vacancies. the same people who return blue slips abstain which is the same as a no vote on closure. his nomination never is debated. he has never confirmed, never reaches the floor. there is an article reporting that as of october 2010, there were over 400 bills that passed the house pending in the senate and were -- and would die before the end of that congress. as edmonton before, changes in filibuster are subject to being filibustered -- as i mentioned

before, changes in filibuster are subject to being filibustered. the result is the senate cannot heal itself. the filibuster rule which is not a filibuster rule at all in terms of speaking with the entire burden on the majority and allows the obstructionist to evade accountability. the filibuster is a historical accident. moses did not put it on the tablets. there was no right until the -- unlimited debate at the time the constitution was adopted. filibusters were not allowed and in the second continental congress because both parliament and the congress question motions to part of its rules. they are also inconsistent with

the principle of majority rule. one of the things that led to the adoptionont the articles of confederation required supermajorities of nine of 13 states to pass anything. five states could do with a call secede which means just do not go, boycott the session and you could not meet or if they met, at 5 states opposed the building of a warship, i did not happen. if five states oppose the levying of a tax, it cannot happen. that is why it led to the convening of the constitutional convention. the framers of the constitution debated supermajority voting for decorum and the passage of legislation.

they rejected it. decorum in the constitution -- a quorum in the constitution. in the senate, it is not a majority. if a single senator objects, the senate cannot do any business. it cannot debate, i cannot vote. it can do nothing. article -- the article is clear in saying the passage of bills as by majority vote. why do i say that? ordinary rules of contacting structure. the constitution says when a bill was first passed the senate and house -- it goes to the president. does not say majority vote. t's as pastorate -- it says

pass. but the president vetoes a bill and it comes back, it must past -- passed house and senate by a two-thirds vote. the addition of two-thirds vote the second time around tells you than aan something other two-thirds vote the first time around. since day one, the house and senate have interpreted pass to me by majority vote. but the rule shortcuts that process. shirts -- in short circuits it, allowing a single senator or the absence of 60 affirmative votes to prevent a matter from ever being submitted to a final vote for passage.

there is also the provision which you know from contact law as well as constitutional interpretation. providing a list of things the one done are not done excludes other things being added to the list. we have none other than chief justice roberts in the recent affordable health care opinion recognizing that role in which he cites the enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers. the constitution's express control of some powers make it clear that it does not express public powers. i mentioned the federalist papers. madison and hamilton defended the decisions of the framers in the papers against various attacks, including those coming from george mason who was one of the participants in the federal convention proposed supermajority voting as a condition of the enactment of

navigation laws. hamilton says supermajority voting would give the minority in-on the majority. the greater number would be subjected to the lesser number. in its real operation, its effect is to embarrass the administration and the majority must conform to the minority and a smaller number will overrule the greater. that could the been written in 206-210. you would think he was talking about contemporary things. madison conceded there would've been had bandages requiring secret majority voting. it would that provided additional protection for the majority.

he said these considerations are outweighed. this is particularly appropriate in light of the hostage taking. the minority would take advantage of the supermajority vote requirement. i cannot think richard shelby has ever read the federalist papers. but if you recall in the health care debate, there was the cornhuskers compromise to get the 60th vote on closure. they exempted nebraska of the additional help your taxes that would have to be paid. there was the louisiana purchase in which to get mayor landrea,

but provided $300 million of extra funds to extort and reasonable indulgences or to exempt themselves from unreasonable sacrifices. hamilton returns to it again in the 75th edition of the federalist papers. again says all provisions that require more than a majority have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government, and to subject a sense of the majority to that of the minority. then he says, if two-thirds were required, it would amount in practice to a necessity of unanimity. in the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed, is a history of impotence, perplexity, and disorder. senate issay today's

impotent? would you say is perplexed? and what you say it is a body of disorder? -- and would you say it is a body of disorder? here is an article from february of 2010. the first rules of the senate adopted immediately after the constitution provided no right to filibuster. this is the action of history. as the great aaron burr left his office, he gave a farewell address. he said the senate rules have become complex. the need to be shortened. one of the rules they might eliminate is the previous question motion. because during my four years as

vice president, it has only been in a vote once. what does that prove? it does not prove the rule is unnecessary. it proves during the time he was vice-president, senators conducted themselves as junta and philosophers who are were willing to hear each other out to debate. when they heard the debate, they were willing to vote. and only on one occasion to the senate feel necessary to invoke the rule to end the debate before somebody thought he had his say. that did not result in a filibuster. the first filibuster does not occur until 1841. to that tradition of in and philosophers who are willing to hear each other out and then decide things by majority vote continue for the first 50 years.

between 1806 and 1917, there was no rule. filibuster occurred once every three years. in 1917, the senate adopted ruel 22 -- rule 22. not for the purpose of guaranteeing senators solike the light -- like the late jesse helms the right to hold the floor of the senate and prevent the senate from debating a mechanism when none existed previously to allow the senate some out and debate and bring matters to a vote. the united states senate is the only legislative body in the world that cannot act when its majority is ready for action. he said that a little group zero

willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the united states helpless and contemptible. i have given you the history, one per year in the first 30 years after the closure. the current senate will allow the silent filibuster. as a result of the 1977 amendment which sifted from two- thirds of the senate present and voting. if you ever scented yourself -- if you absetned yourself, 26 senators could change the rule. when you went to 60 votes, you have to have a quorum and 60 affirmative votes. that is what led to the silent filibuster. complex -- if conflicts

with the principle majority rule and to the text of the constitution which is that bills are supposed to be made by an orderly procedure in which they are passed by the house, the senate, go to the president. if he vetoes them, they must pass a second time by a two- thirds vote. it upsets the checks and balances. it allows the minority to prevent the majority from exercising its powers to give advice and consent to nominations to the federal courts. it prevents the senate, amending its own rules by a majority vote. the constitution says each house can make its own will. it is the minority a veto power over all senate provisions in gives the region gives them the power to nullify by members of

the house. members of the house to abide by the pop -- constitutional process. it has 59 votes. it does because it never reaches the floor for debate. it conflicts with the core klaus. it says -- the quorum clause. it takes 60 votes of one senator objects. that process has been short circuit by the will in the senate. it is an attempt to add to the exclusive list of situations in which the framers did carve out exceptions to the majority rule and required a two-thirds vote.

because some actions were deemed by them to be too important to be decided by the majority. it takes away from the vice- president one of his only two powers -- to vote in case of a tie. he can preside over the senate but if you have 60 votes, -- it the part -- it deprives the senate. it upsets the structure of the great compromise. before i get to the structure, hear the media here are the examples where a majority rule are required. impeachments, overriding a presidential veto, ratification

treaties, a menace to the constitution. about the great compromise. the great compromise was one of the most hotly debated issues at the constitutional convention. the house seats based on population. the senate seats assigned to for state. -- two for state. that is in the constitution. even under the great compromise, the majority of senators elected from a majority of states have the power to pass any bill or confirm any nominee over the objections of the majority -- of the minority.

the 60 vote requirement essentially reverses that. it gives a minority of senators representing 21 of the 50 states which may have as little as 11% of the u.s. population the power to veto bills and nominees, even though they have the support of 59 senators representing 89% of the country. that is not what the framers intended. it also violates article one section 5 which gives the senate the power to amend -- to adopt rules. that power is by majority vote as are other things in the constitution. it also violates the rule that you know from blackstone which

is that one legislative body cannot bind the hands of another. the gives a decision made by senators the power to prevent the current senate from amending its rules in any respect. these rules were not immune from judicial review. it may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights. more recently, justice brandeis -- the construction given to his roles by the senate when it affects persons other than members of the senate -- the question is necessarily a justiciable one. it is long been settled bubbles

of congress are traditionally -- that the rules of congress are traditionally cognizanle. ble. the one house veto and in many other cases. people who are challenging our common cause, four members of he house and 2 of our representatives and 3 dream act beneficiaries, these are students of the united states brought to the country when they are minors. all three have graduated from high school with honors in

college with honors. one of the three has cried dewitt from law school with honors. all are subject to deportation from the united states and have been denied a path to citizenship even though the dream that had 59 votes in the senate. and was held up solely because of the 60 volcker rule. we are confident the courts should hold the rule unconstitutional. will the result be? exactly of the result that roberts did in the affordable health care act case. sever the supermajority vote provisions for rule 22. leaving the rest in attacked which would mean the senate would have the power for the first time since 18 06 to call

to question whether to begin debate or and debate by majority vote. if the senate did not like that rule, and guess what the senate could do? it could buy a simple majority vote amend its rules and, with a new rule of parliamentary procedure. as things currently stand, the senate cannot heal itself and no one outside the senate, not the house of representatives is 400 bills died without being voted on, not the person his proposals are being beaten in the senate, not the federal of judiciary that cannot fill the vacancies, the only agency in government and second steps in is the federal courts. thank you very much.

professor eric segall will now take over. [applause] >> thank you very much. we will now move into the discussion portion. >> thank you for coming out today. that was great, emmet. i want to make three minutes a brief comments, ask one question and then turn it over to you for questions. i think presentation raises three questions. it's the to the foster a good idea? -- is the filibuster a good idea? to me, the answer is it is a talent -- a terrible idea.

someone can defend it if they want to. second, is unconstitutional in the sense of citizens as senators, do we think this particular procedure violates the constitution? i think the answer to that probably is yes. though i am less dogmatic about it. there is a third question. the very hard question. raised by the loss it wishes should a federal court declared the senate filibuster rules unconstitutional? that is much more difficult. i want to say yes. in my scholarship pat, i am not quite sure. i will ask a couple of questions that i think he will get from judges on that issue.

i will leave a size for a moment issues of standing in the political question doctrine for a minute to review might get back to that. i think the hardest question will get from your judge is the following -- article 1, section 5, gives the senate the right to conduct its own internal procedures. a bill -- even if you are right, pass means majority vote. it does not tell us when the senate has to vote on the bill. article one, section 7, does not say anything about that. section 5 gives the senate the right to conduct its own procedures. where do we draw the line? between those procedures that get in the way of majority rule such as the various committee rules we have the in the senate that are really silly but

probably not unconstitutional. but they get in the way of majority rule. the filibuster rule which may be the most silly and the most anti majority, there has to be a line somewhere. the senate is allowed to govern itself. how do you draw that line? >> the issue has been settled by the supreme court. in 1892, the supreme court held while each house of congress have the power to prescribe its own rules, they cannot adopt rules the conflict with other divisions of the constitution or violate fundamental rights. the united states case which i put on the screen and the decision by justice brandeis, the senate confirmed an appointee to the commission. the senate rules provided they could be considered a confirmation in three days. the confirmation occurred before christmas.

they came back after christmas and interpreting its own rules said that meant 3 legislative days and we do not like mr. smith after all and be resend his appointment. justice brandeis had no difficulty saying when the rules of the senate affect persons outside of the senate. the question is solely a question of law, he held. while we the court give great deference to the senate's interprets -- interpretation, they rejected it. it held that smith could not -- his appointment could not be rescinded. could the senate adopted a rule that said during the impeachment of andrew johnson were bill clinton, it is too hard to get a two thirds vote to cnovict so

let's require only 60 votes. would that be constitutional? obviously not. what if they said it is too hard to get 67 votes to confirm a treaty. let's have 60 votes. would that be constitutional? no. there are other examples. take congressional districts. the argument in the congressional district case was the constitution convinced in the first instance to the states the power to draw congressional districts. and then reserves to congress the power to make those regulations. that was argued by the defendants to indicate a textural commitment to exclusively to the political branches, not to be judicial branch to interfere. the supreme court rejected that argument.

the argument that -- if the senate -- an article one, section 5 when you give the power to each house to make rules make them sacrosanct, have you believe that it will adopted by one house probably over the objection of the other has greater immunity from judicial review than a bill that has been passed by both the elected branches of congress, signed by the elected president. if it conflicts with the constitution, what is the result? it is a judicial question, i question of law for the courts. bills and statute adopted by popular elected officials and signed by a president can be declared unconstitutional by the courts, then obviously a rule adopted by only one house without the consent of the other can still be held.

>> i think he might at following response from a judge -- i will can see for the moment that this case is adjustable -- is justiciable. the senate said in a bills that affect african-americans have to get two-thirds votes [inaudible] question.t htthe this senate has adopted a lot of rules pursuant to article 1, section five. that in the way of majority rule. the judge would have jurisdiction to decide whether they are unconstitutional. because a lot of what the senate does gets in the wake of majority rule, why is the filibuster the one example you

are pointing out to me that i should declare unconstitutional when in fact the power is given to the committee chairman in the senate to get in the way of majority rule. >> the simple and correct answer to that is unlike the house of representatives, and also has rules of that type. the house rules can be amended or suspended. at any time by simple majority vote in the house. there is no comparable activity in the senate. while it is correct that there are bad procedures and so forth in the senate, if the senate has the ability to say they are in the way, the majority wants to change them, they can change them.

rule 5 and 22 deprive the senate of that ability. the self correcting mechanism for majority vote simply does not exist in the senate. it is fatally wounded by a decision to follow the advice of aaron burr. enough that he shot alexander hamilton and try to organize louisiana into an independent jurisdiction and avoided a conviction. his most lasting and negative contribution to the united states of america is the device which he gave to the senate in 18 05 to drop the previous question motion from its will. >> here's my last question. it seems difficult to argue the majority rule is a bedrock constitutional principle in a

country with the following undisputed facts -- the words majority will not appear in the constitution. the senate as may be the least majoritarian body in the world, given that the people of wyoming have the same amount of influence at the people of california. we did not vote for the president of the majority rule. we have this silly and electoral college. and there is no mechanism in the united states constitution for a national referendum. unlike colorado and georgia where 51% of the people can get together and do something. it turns out that the version of history you presented, playing devil's advocate, is one side of the story. the second side is the founding fathers were very afraid of majority rule which is why they did not put in any kind of referendum procedure.

and they were very concerned about the government being able to act effectively and quickly. i do not know if james madison were here today, i think his response might be -- i am glad the senate cannot do anything. the only time the government to act as when there is a partly unanimous -- virtually unanimous approval that the pro-government to do something. that is what we gave the senate the power in article one, section 5 to have its own will to decide from time to time how important it was that a majority carried the day. >> let me say first the devil is well represented. [laughter] the answer to the historical examples you gave are just like the two-thirds vote requirement in six places in the constitution and in two other amendments of the constitution. they are exceptions to majority rule. the great compromise which gave

-- resulted in unequal representation in the senate was not a matter principle but political sacrifice. without it, it would not have been a united states of america. the electoral college is the legitimate step out of that deal. the president is elected by electors from the state. the distortion in the senate is the distortion in the electoral college. those were exceptions that were it grudgingly made. there are no kabul -- comparable exceptions to article 1, section 7, which talk about passing legislation by a majority vote. there are no exceptions that sets every federal judge has to be confirmed by 60 votes. there are no exceptions of which say the appointment of peter diamond in the united states to

the federal reserve board can be vetoed by one senator from louisiana who ben liked federal reserve. that is not the way the system is supposed to work. nor should it work where someone can say at what money for wind turbines off the oregon coast and i will hold out a bill until the senate gives in to blackmail and i can get it. that is not the way democracy is supposed to work or the way the constitution was set up. we do have the authority with two guys named hamilton and madison who wrote directly to this issue, defended the decision not to require a supermajority for passage of legislation for reasons they stated which are as true today as they were then. >> i like to read too quick responses. - i lied.

2 quick responses. there are some things that were so important that would require two-thirds votes. that does not absolve the universe of things that might require two-thirds votes or more the majority vote. i think he made a better historical argument on that. >> mccormick edges that question. that was the debate when the house of representatives refused adam clayton powell for reasons not stated in the qualifications clause for running for the house. that was debated at the constitution. james dixon from pennsylvania who was a better lawyer than many recited blackstone postal rules. if you put an exclusive list of qualifications in the constitution, you are tying the

hands of the house or senate and excluding other qualifications. that is precisely what the supreme court held. this is based on that principle. >> i would caution when this is argued in court that his opponent may suggest to him that history is not often the method of constitutional interpretation that people have used in the past. one final -- i am sure you did not argue history in many of the cases you won but i think federal judges will be a little concerned about entering as a matter of the merits. if you start second-guessing senate procedural rules, you have to have a stopping point. i think the filibuster probably is unconstitutional. i think that will be your

hardest argument. if there is a rule that says a senate cher does not have to get to committee, they can kill it by themselves. that is very anti majority will. why is that not declared unconstitutional? i think judges will be shy about getting into that. any questions from the audience? >> can you explain during the last administration, the republicans talk about something called the constitutional option to change the filibuster rule. can you explain that to us and why it is that the current senate can i utilize that procedure to change the rules? >> it is a fairy without a

foundation. let me tell you why. the theory was taht the -- that the senate was not a continuing body and therefore its rules adopted in a prior congress did not carry over. that is the will of the house. richard nixon issued an advisory opinion to that effect in 1957. when the senate rules to not have a division that cleared -- that declared in a self-serving declarations that we are a continuing body and our rules continue from 1 cents to the next, that was the effect of the 1959 amendment that put in rule 5 that said the senate is a continuing body. and it's will continue from 1 cent to the next. -- and its rules continue from 1 cent to the next -- 1 senate to the next.

no house of congress and no committee can violate its own rules. that is a procedural process problem. so they are. as long as a rule 5 arkansas 22 says he cannot amended by two- thirds vote, they cannot amend the rule. it is based on the theory that somebody will ask for the ruling of the chair. the presiding officer of the senate will say the senate is not a continuing body but our rules say it is because that rule is unconstitutional. that can then be appealed to the floor of the senate on a point of order and decided by majority

vote. what does the case to you about anything if nothing else? you do not decide federal constitutional questions by a show of hands, by majority vote within the elected branches of government. that is a legal question for the court. i believe the senate rule is unconstitutional but the senate cannot clear its own rule unconstitutional. it is not institutionally capable to do it. the whole nuclear option theory is a dog that will not hump. tom harkin, tom udall, proposed amendments to the senate filibuster rule on the first day of congress. on the theory that congress could do it. the senate could do it. lamar alexander got up and said i object because under rule 4, the senate cannot vote on

something on the same day as introduced without unanimous consent and i therefore withhold unanimous consent. the first day lasted over two weeks because they adjourned and recessed. when they came back, the day ended and the next day, the chair ruled you have to do it by a two-thirds vote. the senate that i have the power to declare its own rules unconstitutional and that whole hunt. is a dog that won't it won'd work. -- won't work. >> let me suggest that he is overstating a little bit. there are actions by the government that courts will never review under any circumstances. whether the president should

recognize it for a country -- a foreign country, the president has unlimited and total discretion to decide whether to recognize a foreign country and the supreme court will never hear a case where somebody challenges that discretion. there are cases of discretion where the courts will not interfere. i think it would be stronger for his argument to say if the senate thinks a prayer rule that its past is gone -- is unconstitutional and that the majority of senators want to change that rule, i would be in favor. i cannot think that case stands in the way of changing the rule. citizens, the house of representatives, police officers, i am an officer of the state, we all have an obligation

to obey the constitution. it is not simply for the courts to do. if 51 senators think something they are doing is unconstitutional, i would advise them -- change it. >> in descending senator will challenge the action then as being -- on the basis that the senate had no power to declare its own rule unconstitutional. they have to amend it in the ordinary process. >> and you win that case? >> i had enough confidence in the senate to think there were enough senators with courage to declare one of their own rules unconstitutional. i would also sell you a bridge. but there is no possibility the senate will declare one of its own rules which apply it as being part of what differentiates us from the house of representatives

unconstitutional. it is not going to happen. we're not going to merge with russia. >> when this case hit the newspapers and you start hearing about it, we are not going to talk about the merits until the court finds it has jurisdiction. i agree with emmet bondurant 100%. this is a lawsuit that should be heard. by the federal courts. it is an issue that should be resolved by the federal courts. how it should be resolved, i am a little less dogmatic. any other questions? >> i wanted to raise the issue of standing. in this case, we have the

dream act non-citizens litigants. what arguments are being made to the effect that they have standing? >> i think they do have standing. my prediction is the supreme court may find they do not. that would be a wrong decision. the best analogy i can give you is affirmative action. this is a real case. a contractor in jacksonville denied a city contract. a white contractor. he sued under the 14th amendment. the city of jacksonville said you do not have standing because you cannot prove he would have gotten the contract anyway. we may have given it to a different white person. are you might not have been qualified. the supreme court said that white firm had standing even though they could not prove they would have gotten the contract

because they have a constitutional right to a fair procedure. the court said that was an issue in the case. hear, the dream at -- act claimants have a right to have the dream at consider pursuant to a constitutional procedure. the injury is not the dream act passing or not. the injury is was this law given a constitutional procedure dure. -- proce >> chada was an indian citizen born in england, moved around the world who was subject to being deported and was held to outstanding -- helped to have standing. the supreme court sustained his

position and held unconstitutional the one house legislative veto. take the voting cases. a citizena citizen was denied te opportunity to vote, does not have to prove who he voted -- who he would have voted for him and he does not have to prove that a a fax of bailout -- of the outcome of the election would have been affected. he is injured when he is denied that opportunity to vote. he does not have to show that his vote would have mattered to the outcome of the election. there are similar examples. the allen case, which we site, is a case where the house un- american activities had a rule that said that witnesses could

ask to be examined it in camera to avoid public embarrassment. he made that request. he was subpoenaed to testify and he refused to testify. he was held in contempt. it went to the supreme court and the supreme court found that it is undoubtedly true that he had no vested right to testify in secret. while it is undoubtedly true that that committee probably would have said, hell no, nonetheless, he had a right under the senate rules to have a decision fairly considered and made by the committee. when they did not, he preserved that right in the only way he could which is by refusing to testify and they reversed his conviction for contempt. the analogy here is the dream that plaintiffs, before the

dream that was passed by the house, they had nothing. they identified that group of people is preserving the benefits of that legislation. it went to the senate. there was a motion for closure. it got 59 votes. it never got debated on the floor of the senate. and the process set forth by the constitution simply was not provided. that injured both of the dream act plaintiffs and the members of the house who voted for the bill because they have a right, i think, under the constitution to procedural due process. that is the process were the constitution says it will be followed in the senate in deciding whether to pass or not pass something. if the senate had voted it down, that is the way the democratic process works. it had been defeated three any legitimate processes, that is

what democracy is all about. sometimes you win. sometimes you lose. sometimes you get rained out. but you do have a right to have congress work the way the plaintiffs intended. and those people are injured and they are injured in a way that differentiates them from all of you in this room who i presume or not the children of illegal immigrants who were brought to the united states and were denied a path of citizenship. >> right. and the proof in the pudding is that, if the senate had as an internal rule that, we know that black people have a right to challenge that, even if they could not prove that the law had been passed anyway. i think we have to call it a day. >> the countdown to the conventions. in five days, coverage of the republican convention from tampa. live on c-span, your front road -- your front row seat to the

convention. tonight, a former u.s. house parliamentarian talks about the effects of procedural changes on how congress operates. and the economic forecast was from the congressional budget office. and vice president joe biden in a rally in detroit. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thursday, nela richardson discusses the obama administration proposal to help homeowners with their mortgage. then terry o'neil with the national organization for women talked about her group's priorities this election year. later, neil monroe, white house correspondent for daily caller on online media. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. now a look at how procedural changes in congress have changed how the institution works with former u.s. house

parliamentarian charles johnson. following his remarks, he takes questions from the u.s. capitol historical society audience. this is just over an hour. [applause] >> thank you, don. i did a brown bag. i did a brown bag presentation 10 or 15 years ago. brown was the head of the historical society. i think both people really enjoyed it. [laughter] so this is good. i am honored to be able to do this. as don said, my co-author and i have just submitted an updated version in paperback, which

will be only a quarter of the cost, which seems to have inhibited some of my so-called friends from purchasing it. [laughter] although i know cero has gotten more than it needs. in it, we have a revised liberties in talking to changes since the 2009 version, which had been considerable. what i want to do is start off by reading the last paragraph of my portion of the new preface to give you a sense of the trends and the process is put in place in both houses over the last three years. but it is definitely a follow on on what we read about through our co-extensive 40 years.

and for the same 40 years, we served in those respective offices and has a lot of exchanges. brian lamb, three c-span, was kind enough, after i did the title three years ago, to host us on q&a and it got some coverage, some surprise viewers. my most amusing moment during that was when brian in the middle of the interview held up the book, which i had given him. he said, charlie, tell the viewers how much of this book costs. it does not seem to say anything on the cover. i said, brian, why are you asking me that? i gave you that book. but i had to it meant that it was a little pricey. but that was the publishers choice. but me redo this paragraph and we will go from there. then i would be -- let me read you this paragraph and we will go from there. then i would be happy to respond

to questions. this is what i say -- the institutional trends in congress thinks those described in pages 547 of the year earlier book -- suggest a retreat further away from the collegiality, navy, openness, and compromise that characterized earlier congresses. little institutional memory remains -- remained among members to unable recall of those practices and norms. increased partisanship and stalemate motivated by a win- every-vote mentality of house majority's and implemented by reapportionments, liberalized campaign financing and messaging, negative personal attacks, to which i would add the demise of second residences at the seat of government, and the consequence is a lack of

social interaction across the center aisle as the house meets very few weeks. constant editorialized press coverage and instant publication of political polling results demanding the immediate members responses. polls taken from televised press accounts, which suggests to some members that they respond immediately before they can think of what they will say. and manipulation of standing rules to restrict minority options have all contributed to the condition in the house. in the senate, some of those factors combined with constant use of the threat of filibusters to even begin consideration of measures requiring 3/5 votes to limit has enhance minority leverage beyond any imagined in the not-so- distant past.

that is kind of the way i wrap up my portion of this new preface, which my colleague describes as "melancholy." he does not necessarily say cynical nor would i admit that. but let's just take a few of the comments. clearly, what i will say is not any new information. writers and others have commented in books about these trends. i have not seen yet a good suggestion about remedies. but maybe we can talk about that toward the end. since i finished up that reading talking about the senate, let me import their briefly because i don't like to dwell on the senate could when i was work -- on the senate. when i was working in the house and i felt frustrated and confused, i would say to myself

that you are better off being in the house than in the senate. [laughter] and for a lot of reasons, that is true. in 1957, this is an interesting anecdote, but it speaks to the problem in the senate. richard nixon was in the chair on january 4 and some of the mainit does not get publicized . and hubert humphrey and others were beginning to prepare for in the 57 -- in the 1957 civil rights act. hubert humphrey had a parliamentary inquiry of the president of the senate, who happen to be richard m. nixon presiding in the senate, deliberately because he wanted to respond to this inquiry, knowing it was coming. it was not a point of order and the senate parliamentarians would say that, for that reason, it is not president. but it certainly speaks -- and

nixon, the parliamentarian order cannot preside in the new senate. that is an ongoing debate. last year, tom udall and others tried an unsuccessful right. -- and unsuccessful fight. the got a few concessions at the end. but nixon gives this long explanation for why he feels strongly that the senate, call it a continuing body with one- third turnover, can, by majority vote, ignoring its two-thirds requirement for setting off a debate, which is on rule changes, which is still true, can, by majority vote, adopt new rules. and that was kind of hitting. i don't know on whose be has, but some much else has happened since then in the senate that the senate would never admit,

certainly robert byrd would never have been admitted that that is a precedent in the senate. and then talking to marty gold later on about that, he said, oh, yes, nixon was trying to become funny with the pro-civil rights movement in 1957, which he felt was a poet -- a politically motivated nixon would make that comment. january 4, 1957, you can find that. in our book and elsewhere, there is a young lady here who has spoken recently at a conference on what is called with their conferences between the house and the senate. in doing the book, i had to try to familiarize myself with

senate process because it was always 95% of the time and the house wanted to know what the senate might do or might not do. it was impossible to get information because, unlike the house, the senate does not have a rules committee that can give the leadership advanced heads up that something is not to their liking which way -- which they can get a waiver for support. everything in the senate now virtually requires a 3/5 vote on anything. the demise of conference, i cannot blame it on either party. i say blame because i'd feel that, as most of the people in that conference think it should be resurrected, it is regular order in the traditional sense. it brings more clarity. it brings minority involvement, at least potentially to the

issues. it brings a legislative record in the form of a joint statement of managers, all those aspects of conference procedures are gone when a house and senate play pingpong or use the amendment tree to go back and forth. combined with what i think my former colleague alan forman would agree and has said so -- he may have said so at this gathering -- is somewhat of an abuse of the elementary process for the senate majority leader, being entitled to prior recognition, fills the tree with however many amendments or degrees of amendments required in order to shut off all other amendments from any other senator. and then he still needs a culture abouvote. he needs a 3/5 vote. he needs one. he does not need four or more to go to conference as the senate

would if they proceeded to disagree with the house, agreeing to go to conference, naming conferees and then with motions to instruct conferees. those are all potential filibusterable motions. that has been avoided. more often than not, since speaker pelosi and speaker boehner to some extent, the most recent examples where the highway conference which never made it to a conference report, but was turned into as amendments between the houses. that is the reality. the house has gone along with it because the house can avoid minority goshens -- minority motions to recommit. those can be problematic, especially after 20 days after not having agreed. any member of the house can

offer a problematic motion to instruct conferees as long as it is instructed with and the real scope of differences. that was the reason for the house leadership to avoid conference. and also motions to recommit a conference report afterwards. but more important was the ability of the rules committee to come along and say we will not give the minority even a motion to recommit on any of these. we don't have to under the rules of the house. the only guarantee of a motion to recommit for the minority in the house is initial passage. but if it comes to this position of amendments between the houses, there need not be a motion to recommit offered to many minority member. so that is just an example of how minority procedural rights, which are in the standing

rules, have diminished through recent custom and tradition. the term "regular order" is thrown about. what is it these days? no one can say that regular order is what happens today and tomorrow in the house. but it almost equates to gridlock. regular order is gridlock that has been for a least -- at least since the senate has divided minorities and since the senate minority has an inordinate amount of ability to stop procedures. i want to talk about some of the regular orders that we have had. despite thomas jefferson's admonition from 1800, when he wrote, " the jeffersons manuel." the most important thing for the house -- he was writing a

manual as vice president of the senate. but the senate has never adopted jefferson's manual pen he said that it is not so important that -- jefferson's manual. he said that it is not so important what the rule is, but that there be a rule. members come and say why don't you ever hear to what jefferson suggested, namely the standing rules, which guaranteed minority participation on virtually every bill initially in the house through the five-minute rule and company as a whole and a number of other guarantees that are short circuit it, not to speak of waivers were charged -- which are constant through the rules committee. by the way, that is another reason that, at conference, the procedure on commons as has changed because the rules blanketee also gives a privat

waiver. the house rules committee will give the necessary waiver, which can be adopted overnight by a majority vote. that majority vote, emanating from a committee that has a 9-4 ratio, although someone told me the other day that is only 8-4. right now, republicans to democrats. but that two-one ratio or 2-1 + one is a tradition in the house. it is one they have here regardless of the composition of the whole house. but it means that those nine are hand selected by the speaker. the majority conference and caucus rules and do not require those names to be ratified by the conference or caucus. those rules committee members are in the speaker's leadership people, fully expected to do the business of the leadership, to

propose its agenda. it even gets down into the weeds when, a fuel stayed up until 3:00 a.m., david -- if you all stayed up until 3:00 a.m., david dreier made the meetings more regular. but very often, you watch the development process in the rules committee. when i started, every bill had an open rule. and had second-degree amendment, substitutes -- not at all anymore. it is one amendment, only a first degree amendment in a prescribed order as determined by the rules committee, usually on separate party-line vote. and i saw this happen at 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. in the morning on a number of occasions. if, sight unseen, and majority whip -- the myth -- the members are not even there -- got wind of the fact that an amendment was in the works to be offered by a minority member and they

weren't sure what it was, but it would cause problems with members voting records and it would be embarrassing and uncertain, no one knows that it is in order are not, let's just make it an order. when i was there, they deliver it and motivated -- in fact, you could describe it as leadership from the top down. but in those days, it was the whip telling the majority leader's staff, telling the speaker's staff, telling the rules committee that they are concerned that an amendment was expected or not. and that is wrong. it is the win-at-all-costs attitude that drives so much. of course, you can adjust that to the polarization of the whole country. during my first 30 years, there was never a real fear. democrats always had substantial majorities. but the speaker did not fear losing from time to time on the

floor of the house. they figured they could resurrect whatever position they wanted to with the senate or in conference or whatever. but now, losing one vote and both parties in the majority have characterized this -- they do not want anything to happen that would appear not lead to jeopardize final passage, but that will convince their members that they can put together a coalition, a bipartisan coalition that may win. that attitude, i don't think -- and i am speaking from a distance now, although, as don said, miami consultant and i have an office in the can -- and i am a consultant and i have an office in the capital, i get the sense that that is what drives the rules committee, through their nine members. i mentioned in the paragraph that i read, "no constitutional

memory," a greater overturn in the house, the newer members do not understand the traditions that so long ago were the norm and they do not want to hear about them. they campaigned against them in a number of campaigns in 2010. members would say we will not vote for regular order. we will not vote for openness. we will vote for an ideological agenda. and the leadership, both leaderships, have not been particularly willing to allow the new members to be oriented on process in a bipartisan way. our office used to do orientations for the members. now, it sometimes happens, but some leaders especially don't want their members to know what it used to be like. for example, the motion to

recommit, this is a bona pick with c-span. the motion to recommit, i feel i can do this. brian lamb is retired, so he will not come after me. [laughter] maybe he will. in a caption, the motion to recommit is pending in the house, there will be a caption saying "procedural vote on the motion recommit." the motion recommit is often anything but procedural. and to describe it as procedural, it does enhance new members' willingness to follow the so-called tradition that party loyalty demands a straight party-line vote on anything procedural. it is no better demonstrated than a motion on a previous question on a rule, for those of you who follow debates on rules will often see the minority go off for half an hour on its own agenda or on fairness on the rules committee. and that is all described as

procedural. i have seen it to three times, in 1985, major crime bill voted on a motion to recommit worthy question germain is had disappeared. it was an omnibus appropriation bill. there was no terminus -- no germainbwaa = = = = -- no germainness. it was so immediate and so much by surprise. that is not what both minority -- majority leadership's want to tolerate any more. i say gridlock is regular order. when you look at some of the recent packaging of measures,

the omnibus appropriation bills are the most consistent recent examples where either or both houses don't finish the regular appropriation bills on time. they are left to use a continuing and perhaps and on a bill, an omnibus appropriations bill consisting of all the bills, maybe with one or two exceptions. it may have passed the house, but have not become law separately. packaged in one bill toward the end of the congress and always near the end of the term of -- beginning of a recess or the end of an adjournment. in the original version of the book, i have what i described as the inverse ratio axiom, which always proves to be true. as it did again this year. although this new so-called agreement on a continuum which will be put in legislative form in september may be a departure from that.

but my theory is, the more complex, the more costly, the more urgent a bill is, and the closer you are coming to an adjournment. to get people's -- an adjournment time to get people to go home to talk about it, though less you understand what is in the bill. i did not hear or say this, but pelosi's comment after -- actually, i think it was during the final debate on the health care bill, you know, we need your vote, we have to have your vote, you can read this tomorrow. then the republicans ostensibly try to recapture some openness on appropriation bills. they had the marathon on an appropriations -- the omnibus appropriations bill in early 2011 with two hundred or 300 amendments, for five days and nights, if only to show members

that openness was unworkable. they had a few others. but then, last year and again this year, the appropriations process had stalled when the more problematic bills would have trouble in the house and my probably would not even get called up in the senate. the senate is totally in viewed with this notion that all we have to do is an omnibus -- is bued with the notion that all we have to do is an omnibus. the worst, other than the appropriations process, is the budget control act. it may come up again. i can i get a clear read on whether the debt limit needs to be extended again in the lame- duck session. part of the agreement in the budget control act was that there will be a couple of

extensions through election day of this year so that the president won't have to abdicate another debt limit increase in return for obviously major cuts in spending. and, as it emerges sequestration, know when the so- called select committee, which was doomed from the outset it seems, did not report that the secret -- that the sequestration was in place. the sequestration takes place next january. but the leveraging of full faith and credit and the impact throughout the world with spending cuts and other savings, however reached, made an impact beyond the threat of the shutdown of the government. i was here when they shut down the government in 95-1996. it was problematic.

but, he eventually, some of -- but, eventually, some of the departments that were affected were reopened. but the impact on full faith and credit, to my way of thinking, should never be the leverage for spending. it got harder and harder over time for congress to pass a separate debt limit extension. it got very hard. this time, it appears, impossible to the leadership and probably was, that there was never a clear vote taken in the house on a debt limit extension that was not linked to spending cuts. so that packaging, whether that is regular order because it happened once in a very dramatic way, whether that will or something in that line or that area will continue again in the lame duck session -- the lame

duck session has a variety of issues, tax cuts, sequestration being the two most prominent and the notion of a lame-duck session and not knowing who the members will be next congress, there have been some lame duck sessions that are relied upon these days, to me, is most unfortunate. let me just mention three other areas of change. ethics, personalization of ethical charges against members has become a real pattern for minority leadership's to take. when newt gingrich ascended to prominence, it was in part because of what he had said am provoked about to jim rice's

relatively insignificant royalty discrepancies. and jim wright resigned before he even got a full report from the ethics committee. but that set the pattern. certainly, in new gingrich's mind and others, the demonization of members was really the way of the future. and that has been proven clearly since then with members who are successful in-messaging in defeating their incumbent opponent and then being seated in the house and having to deal with friends of these former members. it is not an invitation to collegiality, clearly. then when nancy pelosi very strongly lobbied the house, that the republican leadership, after 12 years, had become as corrupt as the republicans said that the democrats had become in 40

years, i will say that is a quote, but that was for a team in 2006 before the election. -- that was her theme in 2006 before the election. and then she wove it and not only is the house being mismanaged, but the leadership is unethical. so she was taking a page out of newt gingrich's book in that respect. so far this year, i don't see that becoming an issue with the democrats. at least i don't think any particular republican's ethics -- i mean several resigned due to leadership before they became campaign issues. pelosi said we will be more open

on the amendment process. we will be much more fair to the minority. and then they ratcheted up the use of the rules committee even further than republicans had to shut off the minority in many amendment situations, which certainly did not endear her to the republican leadership. not balmy did she appear to of made some political headway on it, but she was not particularly being truthful to her earlier campaign pledge of openness. i mentioned in my count the press coverage of congress. there are so many competing networks there are -- there are so many competing networks and cable stations editorializing. members have to immediately respond and they get a hold on their responses. the media is definitely

impacting on the way members deliberate among themselves. may be a watershed moment was back in 1984. eight is one of the most difficult days we had when newt gingrich was starting to emerge as a backbencher and with tip o'neill. the cameras focused on the member. and newt would use rhetorical gestures to defend his iran- contra prohibition. he would say that the gentleman does not want to engage in this debate, clearly. inappropriate. tip was so upset, he ordered the cameras to pan the chamber. then his top assistant, his

friend from massachusetts, not yet chairman of the rules committee, but soon to be, to be in the chair. i remember hearing it. joe, and maybe out of order, but i want you to protect me. he stepped down into the well to give this speech, pointing at and gingrich and sank another reason why i ordered the cameras to pan the chamber is because you have been the lowest thing i have seen in 35 years. the lowest thing. it was a personality against another member. you cannot set a precedent where members can go a choosing -- go accusing each other. plus you can not set a double standard for the speaker. i will not rule that way because it is true. so he wanted to establish truth as a defense against anything said on the floor.

if the person sitting in the chair says it was true, the point of order was overruled. that launched gingrich. it really got him started through his group of members who, even though the cameras were panning the chamber, they still use that. obviously, reapportionment plays an important role on how primaries are held, how moderate to do or do not show up -- how moderates do or do not show up. so reapportionment and the polarization of it is clearly part of the polarization in

congress. i will start talking about money for a minute. to me, that is the key. the citizens united case, high fuel, was unfortunate. but what i want and i cannot really predicted get is for people to understand the impact of super pak messaging on congressional races. i have res and talk to some people -- i have read and talk to some people that members call already catering to messaging emerging from super packs in order to enter themselves to that kind of last minute injection of spending and on limited amounts. i am sure someone will trace that sooner or later. that to me -- there's so much money in the system. i thought that after the vermont scandal, there would be some real reform -- i thought that

after the abram loft scandal, there would be some real reform. what has really concerned me over the years is the member-to- member contributions, which don't get as much criticism. you combine those with term limits -- term limits on chairman and then a chairman can start to develop and expertise. this has happened on both sides. in six years, the democrats put in term limits. they are lame ducks and people are buying for those slots. the steering committee will decide that. a major test in a number cases has been who ups the ante on the amount of money from the members backing the leadership pac. that to me is corrupting. it used to be just cash under the table, in the old days, which is obviously prohibited.

but that kind of member-to- member of leadership pac influence on members is distressing. there is kind of an overview. i mentioned that i was doing a consultation. the house presidents, which some of you are aware of, the final volume on the budget process, volume 18 will be out hopefully by the end of this year. it will be long and difficult. at the end of it will be a narrative, a so-called appendix, which i am doing. i have almost finished it. it will basically be a 50-year overview of procedural changes in the house primarily during that time, since the last publication of the-collar--for- brown president. -- deschler-deschler-brown

precedent. it is being reviewed by a number of people. that should be out there at the end of this year. of course, i invite your attention to that. let me just open up to as many questions as to have. >> [inaudible] i think it is called "even worse than it looks." their theme is that the problem solvers are no longer here. the o'neal's and those guys and that is -- they speak broadly -- gingrichak about newt and the jim wright business. >> how can a leader be an

elected leader if he is perceived as being conciliatory? john boehner does that every day. i am not saying he is not. i am sure he tries in a number of respects. he was and is committed to bringing back more openness. but other deals can be done in conference, whether members have the time, the inclination to even talk to each other, maybe at the committee levels. but even the committee where there is an open process, the committees to follow the five- minute rule. they cannot impose a gag order on amendments unless there is a drastic motion for the previous question. i would the police say that it is harder for members to have that stature and get elected. that is not to say that those who were elected cannot do it. they are obviously responsible

to their caucuses. but clearly, the folks have different traditions. boehner does remember when he started that there was still a sense of openness. the modified closed rules did not really begin until the late- 1980's and only selectively. and the republicans certainly perfected the art form. then the democrats did one up on them. they took the majority. it is in leadership issue. that is the key. can a person be elected who has the sense, if not the history? if so, can he exercise it on a regular basis and still be leader? that, to me, from a non-partisan point of view -- >> [inaudible] >> i assume you're talking about the third simpson-bowles

arrangement. >> [inaudible] >> oh, which kind of flowed from the failure of the simpson- bowles procedure. under one to just repeat his punch line at the end, which was devastating and poignant, but he offered the simpson-a bold budget -- the simpson-bowles budget went down in flames. the american people have to be aware -- and i don't know how that happens, but it has to happen over time. yes. >> so what are specific recommendations for procedural form be and are there other

signs that you have seen where they are actually interested in the house side on moving toward that? >> on the house side, it depends on the composition of the next house, i think. again, i am not privy to a lot of day-to-day conversations. i know the chairman dryer has that institutional sense. if he had his druthers, he perhaps would have been able to advocate for more openness. as i said, there has been a return to some openness. but as long as the rules committee can bring, overnight, a rules change that completely changes the standing rules -- except they cannot deny the motion to recommit -- in every respect, the rules committee on a daily basis, parliamentarians

around the world are incredulous when i tell them that. the senate is driven by the filibuster. i am hearing the possibility of restricting the votes on motion to proceed so the majority leader's agenda can at least get started before a filibustering can kick in. i do not know the chances of that. i don't know if it is being negotiated. but the house has a history of superimposing new budget constraints on itself. right, bill? and then, waving them. i will never forget there is the alternative minimum tax few years ago when, for the first time, the pay-for restriction in

the rules, the democrats were in control, that the blue dogs championed. they had an offset on the minimum tax, which would be to tax hedge fund managers on the ordinary rates of income. it made perfect sense. some in the senate, republicans and democrats, struck back and came back to the house on christmas eve. it was an up or down vote because the tax forms had to be finalized on what were the alternative minimum tax would be and the house would capitulate by waving the pay-ago requirement -- pay-go requirement, to offset the cost of the alternative minimum tax. i good friend john tanner, at that time, was heading up the blue dog,) he had given 20 or 30 speeches on that debt deficit.

and he said, for the first time -- the democrats had been true to not waiving the offset requirement, but it had become so difficult to find offsets that would pass both houses because tax increases were off the table as offsets now. so they go into non-and jermaine, told the unrelated areas to find an offset. but here they were waiting for the first time. and tanner went up and it is usual speech. and then he said, "in the name that all that is holy, i insist that the house have the pay-go." this was christmas eve and it did not pass. i do not have any panacea for it. it is a matter of will and how of congress reacts to public

opinion about its performance and whether the public has a sense that there has to be more fairness in congress. >> wooded intel -- to fix the problem, would it in until new rules being passed in congress or what it entailed leadership returning to the overall -- >> boat. tomorrow, the leadership could return -- both. tomorrow, the leadership could return to the rules committee on an ad hoc basis. they could adopt standing rules before the session is over, which seems kind of doubtful. it is technically there for the asking. it is a majority vote situation the house. i remember many frustrations where house leadership could not find out. the last moment with the senate might or might not do on a

matter. and the senate parliamentarians were not freed to give -- were not free to give any information out be. it was very frustrating. think they necessarily has to be away. but how the leadership now says in the next two months here is our emphasis on openness, conciliation -- may be the proof will be in the lame duck session. i do not see it before the lame duck session. >> there is a new rule in this congress barring resolutions. it said it shall be returned to the representative, which means to me that it never happened. to what extent can the congress

bar introduction of a resolution based on the subject matter? >> it can. that rule has been there since 1995. the republicans came in and put it in place every little winning team or town or whatever. the problem with the rule that the road is that there are loopholes in it. number one, you could enter and seeing new commemoratives. you don't get unanimous consent on commemoratives any will -- any more the way you used to. it took a lot of time. but rather than put a specific date, if members required a specific date or time for honoring the occasion or the person, rather than put it in the body of the resolution, they put it in the preamble. so it is just a sense. but then they would say there should be -- that was the way.

as far as return, there are many times when we saw a bill that was clearly a commemorative over the years and we would give it back to the member. and he would have to change it so that the emphasis was put into the preamble or some other way it was done. and the public would know that. unless the member issued a press release. the rules say that shall not introduced in the house shall not accept. -- shall not introduce and the house shall not accept. >> [inaudible] and the parliamentarians will, their relationship of the parliamentarians to the presiding officer or to the leadership. >> a very good question. the answer is no yes. not necessarily in in-way -- not

necessarily in a negative way. the role of the parliamentarian, as i grew through it over many years, was much more spontaneous and unpredictable. many and all germane amendments, second-degree amendment, emotion or whatever could spring up without notice. now rules eliminate all of those uncertainties. so the ability of the parliamentarian, the requirement that the parliamentarian give time is much diminished. the parliamentarians are always advising anyone going to the rules committee on whether their amendments would be germane or subject to a point of order. there is more of that front end loading decision making. but to the electronic ways of communication have changed the

dynamic of relationships between members, staff, and, for example, the parliamentarian's office. i sent over this amendment. is it tremayne? well, i don't think so. here is another person. how does this look? that is probably my biggest challenge. i worked for 30 years in my own time with democratic speakers. when newt gingrich became speaker, there was no question whether he would clean house of everybody. i had just been named three months earlier by speaker foley, in and was defeated. there was some pressure to clear out all of us, which, almost by definition, would have been unfortunate for the house. anyone he would have chosen would have been partisan. in my last day, i will defend and i think both sides now feel that the parliamentarians have

not been partisan. they have not necessarily been given the best advice, but that has resulted in another trend, which is the proliferation -- until this year, the appeals of the ruling to the chair, where members don't always distinguish between rules and rulings. the rules in the rules committee can be very unfair. and someone says that i should have been able to offer this amendment and they were ruled out of order -- this technique would appeal rulings of the chair. then both sides would politicize votes on those appeals as votes on the substance of the issue, of the amendment. within minutes, there are spin operations that would say that this is how members felt about an issue, which was clearly not germane on the substance of the issue, not on the correctness of the chair's ruling.

so that trend was unheard of for the most part when i was there. it is debated again. democrats are not using it as much. but to politicize those boats as votes on the merits and have it immediately message into vulnerable district -- there is a great article about this a few years ago -- i think is wrong. it is another example of how the respect in some minds for a while of the process had been diminished because of frustrations on the part of both minorities not being allowed to do what they would otherwise -- otherwise be allowed to do. then you have the relationships between the speaker and the parliamentarian. they have been good, not perhaps as intimate as when nancy pelosi was speaker. my successor enjoyed a professional relationship with her. and john boehner no outage on wycombe. -- now with john let him.

they see the house. they don't see the dynamism, the spontaneity, the friendships that i saw during my formative years. and perhaps they don't develop the affection for the house. it is much harder to do these days. that sentiment was very sustaining for me over many years. whether it is new folks coming along who can look beyond that and say we are here to do a job for the house of representatives regardless of the politics, that is a real challenge. >> do you think that the tea party willing to use more openness and transparency in the congress? >> that is hard to predict. do they want openness?

or do they just want their agenda? i don't know. if the debt limit issue is any indication, i am not saying that that was driven purely by the tea party, but i don't know the answer to your question. let me just say that that is not a parliamentarian inquiry. [laughter] >> i read many sources that feel that the french ships have broken down in congress because congressman fly-home-on the weekend and there are not these relationships such as reagan had with tip o'neill and people don't stay in town and have dinner parties with one another and cocktail parties that they had previously. >> absolutely.

i injected the demise of second residences as an indication every tuesday and wednesday night. even thursday. that clearly does not encourage members and families to socialize after hours, as it did. there is no argument with your observation. it is very unfortunate. maybe there still are at the committee level, maybe in the gymnasium, bipartisan french ships can be allowed to cultivate. from time to time, when there is a bipartisan bill that passes the house it seems to me that these members go overboard to talk about how does a great bipartisan effort. it might be something on peanuts. [laughter] they are sensitive to it. what they can do about it is

another question. >> how expensive are the differences among the parliamentary systems -- extensive are the differences among parliamentary systems around the world? are they homogeneous, or very? >> ours is rather unique. it is not a parliamentary system, maybe they would say it is headed in that direction, where the government is in the parliament, as is the case in most parliaments in the world, where the executive branch is in the legislative branch. without a separation of powers, house, senate, and a limitation of power, is unique. when visitors come -- there are some systems that follow the u.s. model. when i talk to people, i normally suggest that they not

just do it as a knee-jerk reaction, but i have never done a real survey worldwide on parliamentary systems. if you use the british as the mother of parliaments, which they like to do, and it is amazing how our system deviates from there's, they have a common-law system, many other parliaments throughout the world -- they follow the parliamentary system. in kenya, for example, i went there right before those riots. the main issue there, and you may recall, was the election in 2008. it was disputed. the current president probably lost and there was trouble writing, really horrible. -- tribal rite tinned. it really horrible.

they treated the office of the prime minister in addition to president. his opponent still serves in that capacity. you have opposing parties, one as president, one as prime minister. a number of countries have as to positions, they are normally more influential. they created 80 departments, 40 cabinet officers for each of the two sides. that was there one way of compromising. that was their immediate response. there are basic reforms and how they can be implemented throughout the world -- those are beyond my expertise. it was always fun during my time to meet people who had those questions. i would say, i'll be happy to answer questions, but i want to be able to ask as many as an answer. being able to step back after my retirement and do some

comparison, especially to the british system, it gives me some insight. it is ultimately a political decision in each country. if you really want to see how screwed up the eu is, read the segment in the book. as far as the european parliament is concerned. >> we're on the other side of the capitol, but i would be interested in your thoughts on filibuster reform in the senate. one of your former counterparts is releasing a book this summer called "defending the filibuster." >> i would, i start off talking about the nixon anecdote, to me there is the legitimate constitutional argument that you can do it by majority vote, but to use the nuclear option to accommodate it would not work. both parties now have enough

skeptics in the senate to reject that notion that it would require the chair, an appeal from the ruling of the chair to the fact that a majority vote is not allowable and that a instant majority of the senate's overruling the chair -- the senate, it has a tradition that any ruling of the chair that his appeal and overruled then becomes a firm president until later change. -- precedent until later changed. if, just for starters, with a majority of senators seen them potentially in the minority, would they want to preserve, not knowing who the president will be, that seems like it would be a constant -- robert byrd was a champion of this.

he said senator should have before range of options at every stage. then comes reconciliation, which he helped write, then he had to have second thoughts and put in the byrd rule, which narrows with you can do by majority vote in reconciliation. i would like to see the senate become more majoritarian. if only to force senators and -- it would certainly be more transparent. i think they have reached an accommodation -- first it was the gang of 14. now it is on confirmation that there will be no nuclear option. now that recess appointments are not going to be made, at least in the remainder of this term, as far as, clearly, the impact of the 3/5 requirement is

profound. the senate has taken measures to short circuit that by combining what would otherwise be a serious 3/5 vote -- they will get unanimous consent to make a final vote, which would normally only be -- that takes unanimous consent. they do not have a rules committee that can do that. yes, of all the reforms, that is what they targeted most heavily in their book. i do not dispute that. >> at time is up. thank you. >> thank you all for coming.

[conversation] >> in the countdown to the conventions -- in five days, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the republican camp -- convention from tampa. on c-span 2 night, the congressional budget office releases its economic forecast. vice president joe biden makes a campaign stop in detroit. later, a history of the senate filibuster. >> according to the congressional budget office's latest report, the federal deficit will be over $1 trillion for the fourth straight year. they warn that a recession could have if congress is not reversed several fiscal policies by the

end of the year. it also states that unemployment is expected to rise by 9% in the second half of the year, but with low inflation. we talked about that forecast with the capitol hill reporter who covered the briefing. >> what do we see when we look at the dead at antietam? they responded to this in two ways. one, by depriving the -- describing the body is in great detail. often stopping in the middle and saying, it is too horrible. i cannot actually put this into words. words cannot in -- convey this. >> harvard professor meghan nelson discusses the image -- the impact of the images of dead soldiers on the american public during the civil war. also,. >> america will stand up for the

ideals that we believe in when we are operating at our best. they want to see them return to the path of peace. >> more from our series that looks at key political figures to run for president and lost the changed political history. this week, george mcgovern. this weekend on c-span 3. joined by the reporter who covered the cbo press conference. what is the biggest news to come out of the latest outlook. --? >> >> they have issued with the dire warning on what is called the fiscal cliff. it returns to a automatic series of spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect in january. the cbo has now estimated that

the total cost -- it would cause a significant recession next year. they predict a 0.5% negative growth. that would be a recession by many measures next year. they had warned of negative growth in the first half of next year from the fiscal cliff, but it is much deeper than what they had warned before. we're now looking at nearly 3% contraction of the economy if congress fails to act in the fiscal cliff, which is set to hit. >> what action might lawmakers take to address this when returning in the fall? realistically, what can they get done before the election and in the post-election lame-duck? >> the cbo director said in a press conference a few minutes ago that congress should act in september when it comes back. acting sooner is better than acting later, because already the economy is anticipating the fiscal cliff and growth is stunted. unfortunately, as we saw from the press releases that came out

on both sides of the aisle, democrats and republicans, after this report, there may -- remains a stalemate. the automatic spending cuts set to take place are due to be put in place because the debt super committee last year failed to come up with a bipartisan deal. just last month, senator patty murray warned that perhaps democrats would allow the fiscal cliff to take effect in order to pressure republicans come up with a balanced deal that in -- has tax increases. republicans it refused tax increases and have passed a measure that would avoid the spending cuts of the fiscal cliff only by cutting social programs. >> the cbo director discuss alternatives and areas -- what were they, and how would they effect the economy? >> they do two things. one, they look at what the law says is going to happen. they also look at what congress has typically done in the past.

typically, congress would have extended the bush era tax cuts. they have avoided a severe drop in medicare payments that was scheduled to take effect. they have attached the alternative and minimum tax. these taxes were otherwise supposed to effect wealthy taxpayers. we would seek tepid 1.7% growth according to the cbo if all that happened, but the deficit would continue on an unsustainable path. we would have a $1 trillion deficit next year. this would be the fifth year in a row. over 10 years, it be $10 trillion in deficit compared to the current law taking effect, which is about $3 trillion. >> they used language -- they said it would probably be considered a recession. is that out of the norm for his

press conferences? >> the exact language is that the cbo does not declare recessions. that is an agency executive branch decision. sometimes recessions have to technically the two quarters of consecutive negative growth. perhaps this would take place with just one of very deep quarter. even the probably terminology -- basically, they are saying in the press conference that we would be in a recession. >> his projection on unemployment was not too rosy either. >> that is right. they said that with the fiscal cliff, unemployment would rise from 8.2% now to 9% next year. even without that, he is still looking at 8% unemployment next year. republicans are all over the president today, saying he is to blame for this. republicans are firing -- democrats are firing back, that they did not sign his jobs

package. >> thanks for the update. >> thank you. > i am the director of the congressional budget office. this morning, we released the summer update to the budget and economic outlook. i would like to briefly summarize the report and then my colleagues and i'll be happy to answer your questions. we estimate that the federal budget deficit this year roby $1.10 trillion, which equals

7.3% of the gdp. that is down from 10% in 2009. this is the fourth year in a row in which the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. federal debt held by the public will reach 73% of gdp by the end of this fiscal year. that is the highest level since 1950, and twice the share that it was measured at the end of 2007, before the financial crisis and recession. as always, we have prepared based on projections to reflect the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged. the projections are designed to serve as a benchmark for lawmakers to use in considering changes in laws. however, substantial changes to tax and spending policies are scheduled to take effective the end of this year under current law. whether they allow this to unfold or alter them would play

a crucial role in determining the path of the federal budget and the economy therefore, we have prepare projections under an alternative scenario that embodies the assumption that many policies recently in the fact will be continued. i will talk about the baseline first and then turn to alternative scenarios. among policy change is due to occur under current law, the ones with the largest impact on the budget are first the reductions in tax rates and other forms of tax relief, originally since 2001, are set to expire. provisions that already expired at the end of next year -- the second, sharp reductions in the payment plan are scheduled to take effect. third, automatic enforcement procedures specified by the budget control act to restrain

spending and set to go into effect four, extensions of emergency unemployment benefits and the reduction in the spirit -- carol tax are set to expire. if allowed to occur, those sharp reductions in taxes and federal spending -- an increase in taxes, it will lead to a dramatic reduction in the federal deficit, trimming debt by almost $500 billion next year. that be a significant tightening of fiscal policy that would probably lead to a recession early next year. specifically, are based on forecast shows continued and modest growth in the economy during the rest of 2012, but a drop in output during the first half of next year at an annual rate of nearly 3%. following that drop, we anticipate that output will expand again in the second half of next year and beyond. however, the unemployed -- the unemployment rate will rise to

9% in the second half of next year and remain above 8% through 2014. that is the forecast and the current law. those tax increases and spending reductions will also lead to small deficits to the coming decade and a declining path of debt relative to gdp. our baseline budget protection, which assumes the current law regarding taxes and spending remain unchanged, show a deficit close to 1% of gdp in 2015 and later. the small deficits and a growing economy, debt held by the public false and 73% of gdp in 2012 to 50% of gdp in 2022. that is what we think will happen under the baseline. to illustrate the consequences of possible changes to current law, cbo has also produced projections under an alternative fiscal scenario that incorporates the following assumptions. first, all expiring tax

provisions except the current carol tax reduction are extended indefinitely. second, the index for inflation -- is indexed for inflation after 2011. third, medicare is held at the current level. fourth, the automatic spending reductions required by the budget control act set to take effect in january to not occur. assumed to remain in place. the alternative policies would lead to budgetary and economic outcomes that would differ in the near-term and in later years from those in our baseline. the deficit would exceed $1 trillion for 2013. deficits would remain at large the route the coming decade. revenues would be about 18% of gdp. federal spending would be much

higher, about 23% of gdp. the increase in outlays compares to a historical experience relative to gdp for social security and the major health care programs. it is partly offset for all other federal benefits and services taken together. with such large deficits, debt would climb to 90% of gdp, higher than any time that shortly after world war ii. the economy would be stronger in 2013 and 2014. economic growth would be modest and we would not anticipate a recession.

the unemployment rate would move slowly down rather than up. escalating federal debt would increase the chance for a crisis. the government will lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. rising debt would hinder savings, reducing income relative to what would occur with smaller deficits. the policies assumed a path of federal debt that would be unsustainable. therefore, the key issue facing policy makers is not whether to reduce budget deficits relative to those that would occur under current policies but when and how. if lawmakers do not reduce the deficit, they will need to

reduce that later. at some point we will need to adopt policies that require people to pay more in taxes, except less in government benefits and services or both. in closing, i want to acknowledge the more than 120 people at cbo involved in the production of this report. the staff of the joint committee on taxation provided the able assistance. i appreciate to those people for their talents and dedication. thank you. we're happy to answer your questions. >> if the fiscal cliff is avoided, the 1.7% growth is weak. why is that?

>> the evidence suggests that the following financial crises, economies tend to have more severe slumps and more gradual recovery. then is the case following recessions do not follow financial crises. in the united states today, think demands for goods and services is being held back by a number of factors. the building of our housing stock leading to the financial crisis. there are a large number of unoccupied houses today, quite a bit fewer than a few years ago because it housing construction has been so weak. assault with good credit have been able to borrow for mortgages and a good rates.

there is weaker demand for housing construction then normally coming out of recessions in the united states. another factor holding down economic growth has been restraint in spending in hiring by state and local governments. normally hiring is a factor boosting the economy and has not been the case this time. there has been a tremendous loss of household wealth in the stock market and the value of homes that people own. despite these factors, we and others have not been able to predict the nature of this recovery. there have been a number of developments that i think outside this country that have mattered as well. the situation in europe is of

great deal of concern. that is a risk that would highlight and their problems have been a drag on this economy and have the potential to be a larger dragon. -- drag. we do not entirely understand what is going on in the economy. we're in the process of producing a report on the slow recovery, work that has come out of dark forecasting worked that we are trying to explain to people what we do see going on and we hope to have that report out shortly. >> projections of going over the fiscal cliff seemed the worst than they were. why is that? >> relative to the report that we released in may, we have lowered our projection of

economic growth for next year. that is primarily due to a reassessment of the underlying strength of the economy. the economy has been growing at a modest pace for the past few years. we have pushed down a little bit in how strong we think growth would be in the absence of fiscal tightening. fairly small shops can matter and large shocks can matter a large amount. -- fairly small shocks can matter. a large amount of fiscal tightening. that is a large shock, negative shock pushed the economy into a significant recession. yes.

>> you mentioned the threat that we would lose our ability to borrow cheaply. when is the magic tipping point coming or the bond rates are going to spike up? bond rates continue to fall. >> interest rates depend on a number of factors. one is the amount of treasury debt. other factors are important, as well. rates are low right now despite the level of debt for a few reasons. the weakest of the u.s. economy. the preference by many investors to hold -- the rates are low because they reviewed as

safer than many of the alternatives in the u.s. financial system. a second factor is the views of investors of our assets relative to assets in other countries. serious banking and fiscal problems in europe. people are moving out of european markets and into ours. so, between the situation in the u.s. economy and the situation in foreign economies, it is not too surprising that rates are low. in our projection, rates

increased gradually. they do not rise very much because we have a recession in response to fiscal tightening. we think the federal reserve would undergo further action to stimulate the economy and that would hold down short-term rates and longer term rates. by the end of the decade, the rate in our production is back up to 5%, which is closer to a more typical level. it is possible for rates on our debt to spike upwards at some point. when investors have lost confidence in the government's ability, they can start selling the securities rapidly and push up rates very fast.

that is a risk for us and we talked about. it is difficult to know whether there is a particular tipping point or what it might be. it depends on the amount of debt and also on conditions in the international financial system. and also on investors' expectations for policy-making. i think countries with high levels of debt have much less risk of fiscal crisis than countries with may be somewhat lower levels of debt or people believe it is rising. expectation about policy and confidence in the ability of a government to manage policy are important and that is a hard thing to quantify in some way.

>> congress is coming back in september. what should congress do? >> we do not make recommendations. our responsibility to the congress is to offer them our best assessment on what will happen under current law and what might happen under alternative policies that congress is considering. they need to make the decisions themselves. we talk about different choices that the congress has. it will look in this report at current law base line and the alternative scenarios. that is not an either-or choice for congress. people who have worried about the short-term economic

consequences of this sharp fiscal tightening have proposed extending some of the expiring policies and letting certain policies expire as written into current law. and then more hiring by businesses. we did in long report last fall laying out a collection of fiscal policy options, doing our best to assess the bang for the buck, how strong the economy would be for every dollar and every criteria can matter in the resources as well. we have offered to the congress i hope a clear sense of the

different possibilities, but the choice will have to be up to them. we think that economic growth right now is being held back by the anticipation of this fiscal tightening. both in terms of the possibility of a sharp downturn but also uncertainty about what will happen. it is the expectation of a weak economy and the uncertainty of what might turn up. the sooner that is resolved, then the stronger we think the, it would be in the second half of this year and next year. we said it was being held down by about half a percentage point from the expectation of fiscal tightening.

that remains our view and is consistent with views of forecasters. hard to know for sure because lots of factors effect the economy. >> your revenue estimate for 2012 is $133 billion less than the government collected. can you relate that to this chart that you have. these extraordinary numbers where you have historically high levels of people being unemployed for 27 weeks or more. this is the new normal with these high levels of long-term unemployment?

>> we show a picture on page 31 of the report of long-term unemployment which is on extraordinarily high in this country. we do not expect long-term unemployment to remain at that level indefinitely. we do think that unemployment will remain higher than it would have been because of the lingering effects of the recession and recovery. people who lose jobs sometimes find jobs fairly quickly but sometimes not. when they do not, it has longer-term consequences for their jobs and for their employability. people lose skills or don't keep up with processes and sometimes employers might not be as good and that could be an employer's decision about hiring them. we expect the employment rate to

be a little higher than it would have been in the absence of this recession and slow recovery. that does hold down output and incomes and tax revenue. in addition to the loss of labor input in the economy, there will be less physical capital because investments have been low in the recession and recovery. it is rising rapidly by it is that low level. we think that productivity will be a little lower than it would have been. there is a box in chapter two that talks about the lasting a fax of the recent recession and the ensuing economic weakness. we think the level of output at

the end of the decade will be about 1.5% lower than it would have been. that corresponds to a reduction in revenue of about 1.5%. other things affect the forecast. the recession and the slow recovery matter for our future economic capacity. but that's not the principal factor leading to wide deficit under current policies. if we had economic growth that was a lot stronger, we would still end up with large deficits by the end of the decade under current policies. >> i wanted to clarify the magnitude of the fiscal tightening. would it be -- the largest reduction in spending or --

>> the largest reduction as a share of gdp in any single year since 1969. >> 9 to 69 would of been the vietnam drawdown -- 1969 would have been the vietnam drawdown? >> i do not know. the deficit will fall by 3.3% of gdp. the reduction in 1969 was slightly larger than that. >> so it would be bigger than any intentional round of deficits since we started to reduce the deficit 30 years ago. >> i'm not sure what is intentional. the biggest one-year reduction as a share of gdp.

>> in the alternative, can you give any indication of which ones have degraded or have the least impact of economic growth? >> we have not tried to break down the pieces of fiscal tightening. most of the narrowing of the deficit comes from increases in tax revenues. the much smaller share comes from reductions in spending. just by the amount of dollars being moved, the increases in taxes probably have a larger economic effect than the reductions in spending. the effects depend on the

policies. we do these analyses, we have different things for different policies. i do not know dollar for dollar. the alternative fiscal scenario has deficits that are much larger. changes in tax policy and changes on the spending side. >> getting back to the take away for congress. would you say this raises the stakes for them to act? >> i think the stakes of fiscal policy are high right now. i didn't know anybody who disagrees.

we have very serious budget challenges and serious economic challenges in this country. on the decision that congress makes about policy, that can have profound affect on the budget and the near term and longer term economic output. i think the stakes are high in the fiscal policy decisions that will have to make shortly. >> can you talk about a change in the entitlement programs and costs for revenue? >> we have in this production our forecast for medicare spending. medicare spending has, and lowered the we expected this year. that has been true for several

years running. over the past three years, we have marked down our projection in medicare spending for 2019 by about $100 billion for tactical reasons -- for technical reasons. for the program specific factors come we marked down medicare. the slower growth in medicare spending is consistent with slower growth of health-care cost more generally in the economy. in our projections for from march for the cost of the coverage provisions of the affordable care act, private premiums have been growing more slowly than they had been before. that was one factor that causes

us to mark down our projections. we had seemed slower growth in medicaid as well. what is going on in federal health programs is not entirely clear. presumably the weak state of the economy is a factor. given the magnitude of the slowdown in national health spending and the timing of the slowdown, which seems to have started before the recession, we think there are structural factors at work as well. the structural factors that are probably happening include slower growth of spending on prescription drugs. there are some patent expirations and fewer new blockbuster drugs. restructuring the way health care is delivered.

what is causing that is not completely clear. that could be due to providers concern about payment rates or changes in the way providers are getting paid in medicare and by private insurers, more household pay more out of their own pockets in deductibles or cost sharing 1 they are getting health services. there are a lot of possibilities. people in the health-care system understand the imperative to find ways to work more efficiently. how to connect up that set of activities is very hard and we do not know to what extent the slowdown we have seen in the federal health programs will

persist or not. >> so you're revenue in fiscal year in 2007 was greater than the fiscal year 2012. has a been a period where revenues have not been recovering to where they have been and is a cause you to change the way you look at forecasts for the next 10 years? >> revenues have been a smaller share of gdp for the past 10 years than in many decades. much of that reduction in revenues relative to gdp is a natural -- of the weakness of the economy.

we have a progressive tax code and people that slipped out to lower tax codes pay lower fraction. another big piece of what has happened in revenue is the policies that have been enacted. the 2% reduction in the payroll tax rates under social security has cost the government money. part of what is going on has been a great weakness of corporate profits, especially in the financial sector. we are a little surprised by how weak tax revenues are and we do not know what is going on there. the detailed tax return data used to parse out data comes out with some lag.

we can seize the total amount of revenue being collected. one factor in the projection is expectation buyouts on the low part of tax receipts fades over time. he tax receipts come back up conditioned on the tax policies that will be in effect. if we are wrong about that, there is some permanent shift and tax revenue could be lower than we think. the labor share of national income and there is a picture on page 43 that shows labor income as a share of gross domestic income. you can see there is a gradual downward trend in labor and come as a share of gross

domestic income. it has been quite sharp and this downturn. we anticipate that labor income will come back a little bit as a share of total income. a large number of people out of work. it is not too surprising that wage growth has been restrained. it is lower than we would have expected. we anticipate it will rebound to stop the closing to the average of the past few decades. that might turn out to be incorrect. we try hard to have our projections be in the middle of the range of possible incomes. we think there are significant risks of the actual budget or economy performing worse or better than we have written

down. >> recent reviews show the potential for more rapid recovery possibly due to the low level of -- you're talking about the box on the left and they seem to disagree with that. >> i have not read what they have written. we talk about risks to our economic forecast being stronger housing investments that we have written down. a large number of vacant homes. we have had ill level of construction for the past several years. -- we have had a low level of construction. housing -- building could come back more strongly that we think.

we mentioned other upside risks. stronger business -- strong rebound in business investment and hiring. businesses are sitting on a lot of liquid assets. if they felt more optimistic about the future economic path and chose to do more investment and hiring, that could also jump-start a favorable feedback loop in which hired would lead to more hiring and more spending by households and further investment in business hiring. that is related to the comet that is underperforming. i do not know beyond that what they have said. >> i want to get back to the difference between your outlook

for next year and why it has done worse. how much of it is due to the fiscal cliff being steeper than you thought at how much is the general worsening of the extoled economy? >> relative to our production in january, the fiscal cliff is now steeper because congress enacted an extension of the payroll tax reduction to the end of 2012 and an extension to the end of calendar year 2012. that kept the deficit larger in 2012 and it keeps the economy stronger. by boosting the economy in 2012 without boosting the economy in 2013, it has led to a larger fall off.

an important reason why we're looking for a more negative of fact, more negative outcome of the economy than we expected in january. since the january forecast, we have lowered our expectation -- our assessment of the underlying growth of the economy. i have not tried to pars that out -- i have not tried to parse that out. the magnitude of the slowdown in economic activity is significant. with this sharp tightening of fiscal policy, we are looking to start at a reduction in its gdp at an annual rate of about 3% which would represent a significant recession.

we are looking under those conditions, the unemployment rate to rise just over 9% by the end of next year. the contrast is quite stark. we don't have that kind of recession in the alternative. the unemployment rate is about a% next year -- the unemployment rate is about 8% next year. >> you were saying -- >> under the alternative fiscal scenario, 2 million more jobs under current law, according to our forecast. the difference in outcome for next year is very stark. the difference in budget outcomes at the same time is

stark as well. the alternative scenario runs up debt about $1 trillion. the next few years and later in the decade, the current law baseline and the alternative fiscal scenario policies have different effects on the budget and the economy. >> how do you get to the unemployment rate under the alternative around 8% -- how do you get to two million jobs. >> the labor force is about 155 million people. one plump% -- 1.1% is not quite two million.

when the economy is weaker, more people stay out of the labor force. the stronger economy draws more people into the labor force and that would be true under our current baseline projections. those extra people are employed and that factor tends to hold up their right a little higher. those pieces together and up to two million. >> you are talking about how and when we deal with the deficit. when will this become a problem, a bigger problem with the economy and financial markets? how long can we put this off? >> well, we do not know how long this can go on for.

the large deficits have a number of negative consequences for the economy. they tend to reduce saving and investment. they lead to larger interest payments. that makes it harder to achieve certain budget outcomes. a third consequence is larger deficits reduce the room to maneuver on the part of the government. people talk about fiscal capacity. that is what i said when i started. 35% of gdp before this recession. it now represents twice as large a share. if the debt stays or rises further, our country were to

encounter some further need due to domestic problems or international problems to spend more and borrow more, we would have less capacity to do that. a larger debt it means a larger risk of a fiscal crisis. when any of those factors will and that binding is someone that forces' actions is not clear. what is clear is that waiting to make decisions until action is forced turns out badly. it having to address a large imbalance between spending and taxes and a point when a country cannot borrow any more ends up acquiring drastic changes that people don't have time to plan for or just to.

earlier policy action is better than later policy action. how quickly one and commence a set of policies is more complicated. the last time people have to plan, the greater risk of knocking a slowly-growing economy off-track. there is a difficult tradeoff is how quickly one element policies to reduce deficits. agreeing on what the policy changes will be is better to happen sooner. any other questions? >> this is your last one of these until