next year? >> that is right. b. release a new outlook for the economy and budget in january of each year. [inaudible] we anticipate an interesting and of the year here. taking all very much for coming. -- thank you all very much for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thursday on washington colonel, miller rick to attend this class is the obama administration's proposal -- nela richardson discusses president obama administration. washington journal, live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

this weekend on book tv, beginning sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern, from his 2010 interview with juan williams, mitt romney from his book. >> they -- free trade, free enterprise, all those words of apology and those statements have and bolten those who find us as a weekend enemy. what later, the real romney, the author explores mitt romney's early years in michigan to the twenties -- 2002 winter olympics and his tenure at bain capital. >> at a campaign stop but that the detroit, vice president joe biden criticized mitt romney for saying president obama as out of touch.

the vice-president touted the recovery of the u.s. auto industry and links mitt romney with the house republican budget plan passed earlier this year he is introduced by an olympic gold -- gold medal bo xer. ♪ ♪

♪ [cheers] [crowd chanting "usa!"] >> thank you. i do not know who you are more excited to see, me or 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. [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. 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] >> hey, folks, hasn'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. [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 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] and i tell you, -- where is john conyers? 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. -- but i like him a lot. and a guy who has -- and someone who has been my friend for a long time sandy conners. for any congressman to come in here to hear the vice presidency, it is like a bus

driver going on a bus driver holiday. 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 they call a ball. and they call it gets a. -- 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 and our republican friends. -- then 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 kid'' 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 governors romney -- governor romney's insistence "led 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, on injured and in need. [applause] -- 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 grade school next year -- 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? -- 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 two hanson and to john and i -- 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-5 if fascinating -- 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 in a class that was devastated. -- and a middle class that was devastated. and now it is amazing. they have discovered the middle class and they care about it. there are running to save the middle class. -- they 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. let's look at what they are 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 ha -- 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 our home getting care -- 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, pay and the government pays the rest. -- 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 is not. -- 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 the median and come -- the 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 200 -- $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 getting ill does not risk of bankruptcy. where no millionaire's parallel or raid that a middle-class where we provide access to college at every qualified kid regardless of what labour but they come from -- neighborhood they come from. [applause] have not only do we bring back the auto industry, but we become the leader hot manufacturing country and the world. where is it written that we cannot do that? in america, where once again, instead of ranking 16, we rank one in the world for the percentage of population that graduates from college. where science is valued, innovation is encouraged. a middle class that get their taxes cut and not raised.

where medicaid is expanded, medicare fulfills its original mission. we see a future where we maintain our obligation to take care of our veterans. the president said, this is a make or break moment for the middle class. it really is. so much is at stake. i haven't even talked about foreign policy i haven't talked about what the supreme court would look like after four years of the romney administration. i believe we are going to win. [applause]

let me tell you why. i believe we are going to win because in the and, throughout our history, every presidential election has come down to one fundamental look as it relates to the candidates. who has the most character, the character of their convictions, and you have the vision -- who has the vision. on that score, i don't even think it is close. it's not close. i am absolutely convinced that the american people are seeing that. they are seeing my guy, our guy. a backbone like a ramrod. he does exactly what he says he is going to do. as the congressional delegation can tell you, i spent four-six hours a day with him every day with the exception of the last five weeks were we were both campaigning.

he's on the road and i am. i have known eight presidents. i have never once, and all the time i have been with this president, including our private meetings, in the difficult decisions he has made heard him ask me or anyone else, what are the politics in this for me? not one single time. [applause] folks. i am absolutely certain we will rebuild this country stronger than it was before. i am absolutely certain that we are going there rebuild the middle class stronger than i was before.

i know as you know that given half a chance, the american people never ever let their country down. not once. and it is never a good bet to bet against america. never ever. let's meet this moment together. with your help, we will win michigan and we will win this country. thank you and god bless you. it may god protect our troops. thank you. this is what it's all about. getting up. god love you. thank you all. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> identified days, coverage of the republican convention of tampa. live on c-span. you have front row seats to the convention. next, and look at the history of the senate filibuster. and the former yore -- u.s. house parliamentarian talks about procedural changes in how congress operates. later, an update on the mars rover curiosity. >> our road to the white house coverage continues tomorrow with mitt romney campaigning in new mexico where he will announce his energy plan. live coverage begins at 12:00 it the 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. also tomorrow night -- begins at 12:55 p.m. eastern on c-span. also tomorrow night, focusing on his approach to government spending at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

>> emmet bondurant argued that the filibuster is unconstitutional. he is suing to have abolished. the american constitution society posted his talk about the history of the senate filibuster. this is an hour and 20 minutes. 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 people, acs 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 honorable clement hainesworth, junior. he currently serves as one of the founding partners of a law firm. his career has consisted of a strong commitment to provide pro bono 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 commercial 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 turn off your cell phones. when you are asking a panelist, let us come to you 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 number of a filibuster is spike in the drop with the 2010 elections and which the republicans had taken control of the house. your bills coming over from the house to the senate. the filibuster is the predominant role of procedure that dominates everything the senate does. therefore it dominates everything congress does. it it paralyzes many of the functions of government. this is a charge of the shares to the number of filibusters'. when i say filibuster it is a misnomer. it is not a rule of debate.

it is a rule of silence. it is a role of censorship. a rule that allows the objection of a single senator to a bill or to an nomination or a hold to force the senate to go through a process that requires a motion to proceed. the senate cannot begin debate with that and think with the unanimous consent. once a center consensus the majority leader decides it is important enough to take it on, he will file a motion to proceed, asking the permission to begin debate on a bill or in nomination. it is a debatable motion. it can be filibustered. not and mr. smith as to

washington since. there must be 60 senator senate and voting to vote to closure on the motion. the objective is with chicken and go away like a thief in the night and never be identified. never speak, never debate. the senate cannot proceed unless you can get 60 votes it. then you begin the vote. you cannot and the debate without another vote foreclosure which can provided a 60 votes and the go through the closure process. ka the senate to place

tiddlywinks, whatever, until the 30 hours expires. this whole process can require 12-14 days of senate floor times. the senate meets about 170 days a year. it is the " fun to trying to run out the clock. it begins with role 22. that was adopted in 1917. not for the purpose of enabling senators to hold the floor and debate as strom foreman did in 1977. to oppose this beau rates spell or mr. jimmy stewart did.

>> the burden lies entirely on the proponent. the opponents do not have to do anything it. absence is the same as saying no vote. the burden falls entirely on the proponents and the opponents to now have to speak, debate, or explain themselves. it gets even more complicated. the senate has a real part of rule 22 that says it takes 60 votes to close debate done everything but one thing to -- a proposal to amend the sacred

secure rules. debt requires 67 votes. it is an impossible and the polarized days of this and that -- it has been impossible since the first filibuster occurred for the senate to record to majority rule and allow the majority to close debate and it would like to hurt. henry clay moved to restore the previous motion as part of the senate rules. his motion was filibustered. his only one of 100 or more of thames mated to reform senate rules, most recently at the beginning of congress of january to the 11. the problem is the result of the

deal made by an eminent negotiated with lyndon johnson in 1959 to overrule an advisory opinion from richard nixon to the affect the senate could amend its rules by a majority vote. the senate rules to us if they continue from one senate or congress to the next. that is a part of compromise in which the reform is lost. they added to the rule the provision that says the senate rules from one congress to the next. that takes you to rule, to this as two-thirds vote. the rule is not a rule of debate. it is a role of deliberation.

the defenders of ross says this protect the rights of the minority to be heard which gives us the opportunity to live -- deliberate and head of hasty action. it develops and one senator deny of the majority to the bait, to deliver rate, to think through and explain their positions. it gives the minority a total power to prevent the majority of the beijing cruise. if he'd do not get 60 votes it does that get to the floor of the senate. it is does not protect the rights of the minority. it gives the right to protect the majority from debate. it is does not foster deliberation.

it is laws that promote a compromise, his approval as gridlock in gives the minority the incentive and the power not to compromise. if you want to make obama a one- term president as the mitch mcconnell has announced, and the beginning of the administration, how do you do that? you filibuster every major administration proposal. then you argue and the president is that a leader. it is but effected. he can i get anything done. it is that promote accountability. it prevents accountability. a secret hold of my nomination. when the unanimous consent is saw to begin debate. all a senator has to do is the object.

he did that to the beta or stated reason. he can go the same and alaska or hunting with the former vice- president. it does promote of sturgeon as we have seen says 2006. since the must have the congress elected in 2006. there were an average of tuberose rosters of the week it gives the minority party the ability to run against the

majority by saying, they can get anything done. why can they not get anything done? because the minority party filibuster the proposal and would not let a kid debate took much less voted on the floor of the senate. it prevents them from filling vacancies. there were 100 vacancies and the federal courts. if they will not be filled this year. vacancies in the executive branch. they have been slow down for months. president obama could i get his commerce secretary confirmed. kenner had no assistance because of his assistants were held up in the senate confirmation process. this is the most serious recent

development in the whole filibuster saw a. and give the minority the power to nullify existing laws. richard corporate to head the consumer credit regulatory bureau. his nomination a filibuster 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 a statute. he took it with the recess up women because there were not the required 60 votes. three nominations have been held up. the national labor relations board ahead. it cannot function without a

quorum. even the you cannot repeal the wagner act, you can get it by cutting the promotion act. he was filibustered because there are those in the senate who want to abolish the federal reserve board. if you do, the federal reserve board differencing confidently, the best way is to prevent the appointment of competent people to the board and try to prevent the board from functioning. will we need is hostage taking. whole bunch of examples. put holds on every pending presidential nomination.

he was trying to blackmail the senate. the fast track into a government contractor in mobile, alabama who was a major political contributor, larry craig the whole of the promotions of the deadly general and the department of defense. because he wanted the air force decision for c-130 is to an airbase in the idle hope. once in a chair route -- uses the rules to stretch to extract something he and i give back vote. i was and to rest -- interviewed by somebody. walt said is a good role because he had held up a defense appropriation bill to get money for energy saving the wind

turbines of the coast. that is that the way democracy is supposed to vote. the problem is what have stated previously. if unanimous is required cement. they provide themselves on being a leading of gentle temper philosophers that operate like an animus consent. rumors may for it until a senate, they do not work in a senate of earned it by warfare principles of partisan politics. if there is an objection to the request from they motion to proceed for unanimous consent,

there has to be a motion pursuing. it can be filibuster. that gives the minority the power to do that which the framers of the constitution did not intend it would be able to do. when the federal s fox and two offices about federal majority voting, we rejected it. why? it would give the minority the power to embarrass the administration and the story the energy of government. his most important objective is for president obama to be a one- term president. 91 vacancies, 32 of which that

can that be filled. 18 district court nominees pending, have been head support. they can nike confirmed. nominees have had it seven times of bill votes as a bush nominees had in eight full years. hundreds of the executive branch nominees have been filibustered. richard quarterly a have mentioned. holding up nominations to try to prevent the implementation of existing legislation or force its repeal.

let's look at all the instances republican spot the board of the budget rule. britain's blog u.s. help from 9/11 brokers. republicans blocked a bill on student on the rates. none of those bills were deliberately. while the senate deliverers to greet the the basic fairness act had a majority vote. a disclosure act. 59 of votes, 57 votes and 53 votes three different times. it never reach the floor for

debate. the dream act, 55 the votes. public safety employees, 55 of votes. the buffett role, 51 votes. the nomination to the ninth circuit 52 votes. nomination to recently to the 10th circuit who had the support of both republican senators. because of the so-called strom thurmond of robins's after may you do not confirm anybody because the opposite party may win an election, the same people who returned a blues clubs have abstained the film as a no vote on closure. his nomination is never debated. he is never confirmed or reaches the floor.

as i mentioned before changes into a step -- filibuster sentenced to being filibustered. the result is a gridlock. it cannot heal itself even if it were to try. the filibuster rule that is not a filibuster rule at all in terms of speaking, it puts the burden on the majority and allows the obstructionists to avoid accountability. it is a historical accident. there was no right of a eliminate debate in any

parliamentary body the time it was predicted. has been outlawed since 164. they were not allowed under pools of second continental congress because they had a motion for part of the rules and were prohibited by the first row of the senate. there are inconsistent defense of majority rule, the bedrock of the constitution. one of the things that led or the articles of legislation required super majorities in nine of 13 states five states could it do what they call succeed which would be "just do not go." you could not meet or if he met and five states opposed the building of a warship it didn't

happen. the five states opposed the eight tax. beck and i happen. there is wide. the framers of the debate supermajority voting, both for the passage of legislation and they rejected it. the constitution states a quorum is the majority of either house in the senate a quorum as i majority even to the house. if a single senator objects the senate cannot do any business. it cannot debate, vote, it can do nothing. the passage of bills is a by majority vote. why do i say that?

court. was a contract construction. when a bill must first pass the senate, it did close to the senate and moscow to the president. it is a massive majority vote. pass at the time. look further at the practices. a president must pass the house and senate, exactly the same or a two-thirds vote. the second time around it tells you obviously the past means something of of them by a two- thirds vote. what is the historical practice. rule 22 shorts that progress.

a short circuit by allowing a single senator or the absence to allow a huge vincent matter from being surpassed from a voter of passage. we are to be via a majority vote. . of of the provision well at it on a list of think he wants the it excludes the the thing being added we have and and and and and he roberts. roethke, thing the rule in which he said the numerous and of our

madison and helmet and defended the decisions of the framers and the federalist papers. including those who came from george mason who was one of the participants a lever convention while he proposed it as a condition of the indictment of navigation was -- loss. he says supermajority voting or a quorum of legislation of presentation and would give a minority and a seed of the majority's. the later and then that would have been subjected to a lesser manner. its effect was to make it have

been written into a 6, 27, 209 or even today. you think he would be talking about contemporary. he conceded that there would have been advantages over supermajority voting. it would have provided additional protections for the minority. then he said, these considerations are out regis. the fundamental principle of free government that would be reversed. along the with the majority rule. if this is particularly appropriate in light of the hostage taking. they would take advantage of the supermajority requirement, screen themselves from sacrifices or extort indulgences. i do not think they have ever

read the federalist papers. the recall in the health-care debate, there was the cornhuskers compromise to get the 60 of the vote. they exempted nebraska from the taxes that would have to be paid. there was the louisiana purchase and would treat the boat they provided $300 million of extra funds to louisiana. to export and reasonable indulgences or to exempt themselves from sacker path. hamilton returned him ok a gant in the 75th of this and of the federalist papers. all provinces the require more than a majority tends to mend the operations of government and 2 cents a for a minority.

he also warned if two-thirds were required and will practice today majority of an amenity. in which the principle has recoiled, there is a history of impotence, this order, and complexity. would you say to a cozies set at is impotent? would you say it is a body of this order? here is the article on her putting the whole words and nominees. >> it is the great aaron burr

was leaving office as a vice president giving a farewell address to the senate to. he said the, the senate rules have become complex and the need to be shortened it. one of the rules used gentleman may eliminate is the previous question. during my four years as vice president and once. what does that prove? it does not prove the rule was unnecessary? it " during the period he was vice-president centers conducted themselves as well off perth were willing to hear each the bait. they were willing to vote. only on one occasion did the senate feel necessary to invoke the rule to end the debate

before somebody had his say. the first filibuster does not occur until 1821. a tradition of gentleman philosophers want to hear each other out, give it the very air hearing continued for the fourth 80 years of to the constitutional about it. between 1917 there was no role, the filibuster's occurred at a rate of one every three years. in 1917 the senate to add up to what is the predecessor barack quantity. not for the purpose of guaranteeing senators light straw that thurman war huey long did the right to hold before the senate and prevent that said from the great thing. a mechanism 11 existed

previously to allow the senate to end debate and bring matters to a vote. in 1917 and is true today, the united states said cannot act one is a majority is ready. he must save an investor than a little group of men representing no opinion of their own have landed the greek government of the united states hopeless and contemptible. i am given the the history, one per year. the fourth. the current senate rule allows the sun above or. it shifted from to. of a set that precedent voting beening had to be president and vote. if you upset it yourself and there were only 51 senators

present. when you watched it all go away, you had to have a quorum and votes to vote. that is what led to the filibuster. it complex with the they are pass by the house, the senate, they must pass a second time by two there is a 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 court. in combination with a row 5, it

is prevents the senate from preventing it some roles by majority vote. each house can make its own rules. it gives the minority of veto power. it gives the minority a power to the votes cast by members of the south. members of the house abide by the constitution of progress. they bought for the disclose act. it hath 59 coats as evidenced by the votes on closure. it is eyes because it never reaches the floor for debate. i mentioned previously it conflicts with the corm cause. a majority is sufficient to do business. it takes 60 of the one senator

objects. it conflicts with the presumption clause which means you passed legislation by majority vote toward affirmative by the rule and the fed it had been an attempt to at of situations and carve out exceptions required a two-thirds vote. why did some actions cause or be deemed to be to controversy by a majority. it takes away from the vice president, one of his only two powers. of's big boy to vote in case a tie. he gumbo and kiss of the senate. and this rule if you have over 60 votes there may never be a tie vote. the it denies them to confirm nominees and giving advice and consent. it upsets the structure of the

great compromiser. before i get to the structure to take compromise and give examples, two there gotras requires. there are a eradicating a veto of the bill or eradicate in a presidential veto of an order or resolution, ratification of treaties, and amendments to constitutions. let's talk about the great compromise. that was one of the most hotly debated issues of a constitutional convention. a house seats a portion based on population, the senate seats are assigned two pour state. that means wyoming has 77 times the representation of the senate as a said said california.

that is in the constitution. even under the great compromise, a majority of senators elective from a majority of states had the power to pass any bill or confirm any nominee over the objections of the majority of the minority. the 60 vote requirement reverses that. it gives a minority of senators it to may have as little of 11% of the population. the power to veto bills and two nominees, even though they have the support of 59 senators representing 89% of the country. that is not what the framers intended.

the inability he -- to amend the rules violates article one section 5 that is the senate the power to amend rules. that power is by a majority vote as is of the things in the constitution. it violates the rookie of from blackstone which is why, at hands of another. it gives it created the current senate from amending its rules and in respect. it meant that a dark constitutional restraints.

more recently, they are wrecking for unanimous core of the construction given to its rolls by the senate when it affects persons of of them members of the senate's, the question is necessarily a justice of 01. the court said it is long and settled with the rules are traditionally come possible. courts are determined many things that affect the constitution, line item vetoes, the delegation. the executive branch powers from the legislative branch officials. the one house veto and in other cases. people who are challenging our common cause. four members of the house including two of our

representatives. as well as keith ellison. three dream act and beneficiaries. these are students bumped to the united states by their parents from other countries illegally when they were minors. all three have graduated from high school with honors, graduated from college with honors a three have graduated with honors and all are subject to deportation from the united states and have been denied a path to citizenship even though the dramatic have 59 votes and then to the senate and was held up because of the 60 vote rule. we are confident courts can pull the rule unconstitutional.

exactly the result roberts did when he was the affordable hair. usair for the super majority votes for super 22. you would lead the attack. miss the senate where if the senate did not like that role, a desolate the senate could do. it could buy a simple majority vote. amended the rose and come up with a new role of procedure. where has been a stand is the senate cannot heal itself. nobody else had the senate, not a house of representatives whose bills were voted on.

and the presidents of the day onlay agency that can step in as the federal courts. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. we will quickly move into the discussion portion of the program. >> thank you for coming out today. [applause] i just want to make three mets a brief comments. and i will turn it over to you if you have any questions.

i think am at's presentation raises their questions and it is important to keep a separate. is the filibuster a good idea? to me the answer is obviously, it is all a terrible idea. i have yet to meet anybody who defense the filibuster. the senate that changes itself. i think we think it somebody independent, but i think it is clear it is a dumb idea. is it an unconstitutional in the sense as citizens, senators, do we think this procedure violates the constitution? i think the answer to that is yes. there is a third question, and it is the third question. the question raised by the lawsuit. should a federal court be clear

in the sun at's rules unconstitutional? and that is a much more difficult. i want to say yes. in my scala said pat, i am none as short. i will ask him a couple of questions i think he will give from judges. now we will open it up to everybody else. i will leave aside the political spectrum doctrine. i think the hardest question you will get is the following. article one section 5 is the segment to conduct its own internal procedures. it does that tell us when the senate has to vote on a bill.

article 17 section does that say anything about this. the senate to drive business procedures. all the various committee rose we have in the senate. there are probably unconstitutional. the filibuster rule and that may be the most silly and the most anti majority role. certainly the senate is allowed to debate itself. >> the issue has been settled by the supreme court. the supreme court held while each house of the congress has prescribed its own rules. it may not adopt rules that convict with other members of

the constitution that provide constitutional rights. a swift case it confirmed a appointed to the federal power commission. the senate rules provided and reconsider it and three days. confirmation accord before senate recessed. they interpreted it sun rose and said that met 3 legislative days. we do not like him after all. the justice had no doubt being saying, quinlan rules affect person's section of the senate. the question is solely a question of flows region of law is it is held. while we give great deference to the interpretation of the own rule, we're not concluded by and we rejected by and are held

smith could not be rescinded even the senate rules said they could. could the senate adopted a rule that said, during the impeachment of bill clinton it is to prove to get a two-thirds vote to convict. let's require only 60 votes. where did that a constitutional? obviously not to, there are two thirds to get a new book and come from a treaty. let's have 60 votes. there are other examples, take and congressional districts that you know something about litigating. the argument case was that the constitution of affected the

where to draw congressional dictums. t make opera as regulations. that was argued by the defendants who had a cultural the equipment exclusive to the political not to the supreme court rejected the argument. accept when you give the power to each half to make rules, it to make some sacrosanct appeared as them under judicial review the have the you believe a role adopted by one house probably -- certainly has a greater immunity from judicial review than a bel that has been passed by both elected houses by congress and signed. if a conference with the

constitution, what did it tell you the result is? it is a judicial question for the law and did the courts. if bills and statutes adopted by elected officials and is signed by a president can be despite an constitution but the courts, a rule adopted by only one house without the consent of the other can be so held. >> been i think you might get the following response. i will can see this moment is just kissable. a role that violated another part of the constitution that was passed under article one section 5 is clearly one that we can say is unconstitutional. and egos that affect african- americans must dick teed up their vote, that will be added that an aggression clots. even if that was done under article one section 5, let's

write that down. the question is the senate has adopted a lot of roles% to article 1 section 5. i would have an adverse diction to sit these are five new of constitutional or not. because a lot of what the senate as an filibuster rule. one example i must be pointing out today. he powers given his security -- >> i think the simple answer that is, it also has rules of that type. house rules can be amended or suspended at any time by a simple majority vote of the house. there is no comparable ability in this and that.

if the senate had the ability to say they are in the way, the majority wants to change, they could change it. rural five and a lover 70 to deprive the ability of that ability. in thely doesn't exist senate. is fatally wounded by a decision to follow the device. it was not enough he shot alexander hamilton and it was i enough to try to examine them into a independent jurisdiction and avoid a conviction by john marshall and the trial of aaron burr. his most lasting and come to be shrill ability was the advice he

gave to drop the previous question motion from his roles. >> >> it is seems a little bit difficult to argue that the majority rule as the bedrock constitutional principle in the country with the following and speeded fax. the words not appeal and then to the constitution. the senate majority senate of bombing in the world. how they too will have the same and plus, we do not know. we had a single electoral college. before, there is no mechanism the owl and by the united states of if the vote and get to data and do something rigid terms of

the version of history presented -- to the extent we care, they were very, very much and majority rule. it did not put in any referendum procedure. they were very concerned about a government being able to act effectively and quickly. i do not know it james madison were here today. his response might be "i am glad the senate cannot do anything. the only time they should act is unanimous absence to war issue. the on the condition that is when it is approval the federal government should do something. that is why we give them the senate 5 chip give them their own internal rules. how important it was that a

majority carried the day. >> let me say the devil is well represented. the answer to all the historical examples, just like requirements and the prosecution and three other amendments. they are exceptions to majority rule. the carrot to quantum eyes you eat it took it or left it. without it there may have never been a united states of america. the college is the illegitimate steps child of the view. the president has decided based on said at and voted on investor rights. the distortion is and the distortion and in of the college. does or exceptions. there were grudgingly made it, and they were a section in the

constitution and which we have to live. there are no comparable exceptions to article 1 section 7 which had a passing legislation down majority votes. every federal judges must be concerned by 60 votes. there are no conceptions there may be none which the federal reserve board can be vetoed by one senator from louisiana who is allied the louisiana and serve. that is it not the way the system is supposed to vote. i want to see money for wind turbines of the zero, coast. i will pay until the senate to give some black male. >> that is that the way democracy as not to require a

supermajority for legislation. their reasons in which they stated in the 1787 and 8 as true today as they were event. >> two quick response is and will take questions. it is possible what they thought was, there are some things so important that would require two-thirds vote, it does that sauced things that might require two-thirds vote or more than a majority vote to from time to time. i think you made a better historical argument. >> the answer that question. that was a debate when the house of representatives refused to say adam clayton for things not stated in the qualifications costs for running in the house. and that was in fact debated at

the constitution. when he stated the qualification, that would be too limited. james dickerson from pennsylvania who was a better lawyer than many recited blackstone, roles, if you put an exclusive list -- if you put a list of qualifications and the constitution, you are typing the house and senate and excluding other qualifications. as with the supreme court held. it is based on that principle. >> i would caution when you argue this in court, his opponent may suggest history is not often the method of constitutional interpretation. i am sure you did not argue history in many cases you 1.

i think federal judges and rightly so will be a little concerned about entering a matter of the merits. if you start second-guessing procedural rules to have to have a stopping point. i think the filibuster is unconstitutional. let's assume there is a rule that says a senate share is now have to be out of committee for any reason. the share of the committee can go by himself. that is very anti majority rule. i think there are distinctions by judges will be set about getting into that. >> can you explain it during the last the administration, the republicans talk about the

constitutional option to change the filibuster rule. can you explain that to us. why is it that the current senate cannot utilize the procedure to change the rules. >> do you mean the nuclear option? >> that is a theory without a foundation. let me tell you why. the theory was that the senator was not a continuing body. therefore the rules adopted in a prior congress did not carry over. that is the role of the house. richard nixon issued an advisory opinion in 1957. when the the senate to roles did not declare in itself served a declaration that we are a continuing a body and our rules continue from one senate to the

next. that was the affect of the 1959 amendment that could end rule 5 a. rules continue from one senate to the next. can the senate to amend its rules while and that role is in effect? the answer is under control in supreme court cases including the united states against smith and another group of cases is that no house of congress and no committee of congress can violate its own rules. and there you are. as long as rule 5 or rule 22 says you cannot amended by two votes stays in effect, they cannot amended the rule. it is based on the theory that somebody will ask for a ruling

of the chair, which is how nixon's opinion came about it. the presiding of the senate was say they can that -- that rule is unconstitutional. that can be appealed to the floor of the senate and a point of order and decided by majority vote. what does marbury versus madison tell you if nothing else? you do not decide federal constitution questions by a show of hands within the elected branches of government. that is a legal question for the court. i believe the senate rule is unconstitutional. the senate cannot declare its own role unconstitutional. it is not capable of doing it. the whole option -- it was tried in january 2011, tom harkin,

jeff from berkeley all proposed amendments to the senate filibuster rule on the first day of congress. on the theory congress could do it.

the colleges where students are attending disproportionately and need our attention. adult education is important as well. we look for reauthorization of the act so that they may help people learn the skills. also learn adult based 6 in the modern economy. is our tremendous topics that include latinas. the priorities in which to expect in the years to come.

i have also been asked to cover immigration. amiga for the top lines of the immigration recommendations we're making clear me go through the immigration recommendations. we must maintain an -- a path for removal. this program unveiled andros -- unveiled will go through two years. it is up to the next white house to continue this and a path to -- in a path. temper solutions are not enough. we must enact the dream act to give students a path to legalization and eventually citizenship. it does not just affect and people and youth. we must enact comprehensive immigration reform for legalization and citizenship and

that allows workers to enter or threats and protections that some of cards the entire work force. that is absolute and cannot be deviated from regardless of the politics was the in the coming campaign. the next right house and congress must roll up its sleeves and get this done. the supreme court has spoken with clarity. the supreme court to of held apprehension over state of krajina immigration laws and struck down most of their lot. we must curtail -- must find new ways to curtail enforcement of state immigration laws or a local immigration laws. they lead to racial profiling and unnecessarily strain relations between police and local communities.

any of those proposals are nonstarters. with that to will hold all to the standards to come. -- we will hold all to the standards to come. >> i am it will talk about civil rights and government accountability this morning. we believe this portion of the agenda is critical to ensuring the rest of the recommendations of the agenda are available to the community. without aggressive enforcement, we do not have a level playing field of the cannot take advantage of the education and the economy and health care and many business opportunities any -- the playing field is not there right now. there is too much discrimination. a lot of it is intentional.

the federal government is the primary recourse for fairness. with an assessment enforcement of civil rights laws where discrimination against the country and often even at the national level. we have to do something to ensure our community does have a fairness and as with the primary plant is about starting with voter requirements and other projects -- we have seen an incredible effort by states in the election cycle to try to suppress the latino vote. probably the worst rehearsing and a long time. it is disheartening to see minister is trying to reenact many lost to do the same thing -- efforts to get a third party groups like -- to keep them from in the engagement process.

it is possible they might not be voters that our citizens. they use the data bases that are so outdated that they are an accurate. we need to make sure a quarter suppression is stopped. we need to support legislation to rein in corporate money to -- the more corporate money influences the elections, the less people have a right in saying who gets elected. we have think it is is important to change citizens united to make sure the real power lies with the people who vote. we know if we do not have the data we're out of sight, out of mind and we cannot prove discrimination is taking place.

for another is an effort to some of them. we are opposed to that the we hope to defeat it. we want to encourage an anger to the extent of hate speech media appeared we support the fcc policies to expand media and diversity. this is one of the sitter was people are using -- hate speech on radio. are revving up mothers and preventing opportunities. we are continually dismayed at how badly these laws against media hate speech enforced. it is almost only the extreme cases that get the police. most of the other folks get away with that. thanks to the efforts from many of the national hispanic leadership organization are we able to get some of them off. i think we need to do a better

job of enforcing that. we have gone backwards in this area. we needed to change it considering this country's sent to be a majority population. we also need to pursue civil rights, workplace safety and employment laws. if they do not do their job, unfortunately -- unfortunately, discrimination will be run rampant throughout the united states. it is is turning more and aggressive rigid aggressive enforcement purity that to this -- decrease. this is something we are concerned about, especially with the efforts by states to police and migration was even their it

is and other authorities. that becomes an excuse to target people of color, so we have to prevent profiling. it provides sufficient funding for the justice act. maintain enhanced of violence against women act. there is no reason not to extend it, especially protections against immigrants and. to increase efforts to ensure language accessibility standards are conducted in all activities including past performers including the department of, and security. we need to make sure the government is a sensible to communities. we are disheartened by the english only legislation trying to close the door of opportunity to the community. finally, we need to nominate

from judges demonstrating civil rights, legal protections. this is critical to have judiciary's, the court of last resort for our community to sustain our rights. for many examples we have to go to the court to keep rights and place. the only way we can do that is to have judges appreciate the role in this regard and sustain it. i will talk a little bit now about government accountability as well. one thing that is important about accountability, not only employment opportunities for the community, but we have to make sure we realize the government can only serve the communities if it reflects the diversity of the communities. only 8% of the government is latino. that 50% is the highest gap of any community in the country.

this is something we have to change. what we have seen as some of the agency's -- the department of education under 4%, these agencies are so vital to the organization and communities and yet they didn't have representation to be able to effectively serve the communities. some of the recommendations we have including increasing the number of hispanics in the workforce including senior expansions, staff development, a pipeline of candidates for all levels of employment. this is where all levels will help out. we can be that on a trip to the community. this is something we cannot help out. this is up to the federal government to hold their own managers accountable. we need to enforce their own goals.

hiring managers cannot continue to get along and go a long and continued the same old thing without facing repercussions. we need to support critical issues like increasing federal goes for small businesses, grass along federal agencies. areas we can try to improve accountability. without further ado lemme introduced the national council. -- let me introduce the national council. >> i am here to talk to you about health, which is a critical element across our society. it is an area that affects each and every one of us every day. the bottom line is if we are unhealthy, we are unproductive. it affects important aspects of our lives. whether we are the patient with

a chronic disease or a family member or caregiver who takes care of the six loved one we must work to drive down health care costs and our nation. we need a reverse disparity, especially among latinos. we see the issues of health at the heart and root of everything we do. a chronic diseases do not occur overnight. several stages take place before a person's health goes down a place of no return carry creating access to be offended if care is key to promoting equity. a health-care system with healthy people is not one with individuals with chronic diseases. at the core of any recommendation -- access to particular care. that is why we believe a first

step is ensuring a prompt full implementation of the affordable care act. it is not a silver bullet, it is moving us a in the right direction. it is leading us in the direction among those who need health care the most. the affordable care act does a wonderful job of offering affordable care to these groups, all other adults by eliminating pre a dip -- existing conditions and protecting them from company abuses. we applaud the affordable care at for strengthening medicare by eliminating waste and fraud and abuse and pat in the system. it is also an important to in this matter and providing benefits such as free screenings and animal check ups.

there are other parts of the lot we would like to see strengthened it. finding a way to implementing the class act to provide patience with affordable and accessible long-term health care insurance plans. while there is a long ways to go, the affordable care act has proven our country could not delay any longer on improving the quality of healthcare access for all americans. another aspect of the health policy we have included is the need for more culturally and -- competency in the health-care system. we know there is much more at risk than being lost in translation. when it comes to interaction between a patient and a provider, we know too well the cultural and competency this is

simply about the language. it is about acquiring knowledge and understanding about the communities we serve. creating a bond establishing a relationship in at securing a bubble of trust with the patience research. this way patience have the tools and information they need to make informed decisions. closely tied to this is the diversification with the work force creating opportunities for young hispanic professionals to serve their communities is not only rectifying but another important factor and addressing health and equities in our society. the bottom line is as a matter of public health, we must take action to ensure the community has the tools and resources it needs to be healthier. healthier communities can focus on other issues to make the country stronger. it is with that community would

have set forth these recommendations. we believe this will help move the needle significantly of a implemented. we urge policy makers to consider them and work with us to make this a reality. our next speaker will give us closing remarks. >> >> thank you. it is an honor to be here with you. i want to thank you for taking time from the schedules to be with us to present this and credible agenda that is representative of an incredible effort by the latino organizations across the nation that have come together to make sure the community has a single voice. policy makers across this nation are listening to what the agenda is and what it is.

at the end of the day, what we want is policy makers and public officials adopt this agenda and understand there is no america without latinos. there is no success without latina success. we know from the work we do day in and day up across towns that our success is intertwined with the fate of the latino community. when we have a thriving america, we must have a covering latino community. we have some very good news to share with the. we have the fastest growing number of small business owners across the nation. they are thriving and working very hard to revive the communities, cities, towns. at the same time our labor force is very strong. is helping to expand and rebuild cities. we also have an increasing number of latinos going to

colleges and universities and graduating with scott -- equality degrees. if we have to build on those successes and get the country back on the road to recovery, we must invest and latino communities. that is support is outlined in this agenda. this campaign to ensure this is implemented and carried out by policy makers of both parties and chores to -- begins today. we will not ease until we have commitments from both republican and democratic leaders and ultimately see these policies enacted. i am here to share with you that we will be at the rnc and dnc, too.

we will be in tampa, florida to present this agenda to republican leaders to will be convening their for their convention. we look forward to the conversation. similarly, we will be of the democratic convention on tuesday, from 10:30 to 11:30. this information will be of on the web said that we will put up charlie. i interest as of the to join us and make sure we speak with one voice as one community and make sure these leaders here as loud and clear. the campaign begins today. thank you for being here for the loss of the campaign. we look forward to your questions and answers. >> i would like to thank all the and -- leaders to stand up a different to help us with some of the questions.

we want to have everybody here. as i mentioned it, we have 30 national organizations and expertise and in number of fields. we come together to spread its says an and the national policy agenda. we will open it up for questions. in english and spanish. >> mr. a their support for immigration laws like the one in arizona, is there a middle ground with the republicans?

is there any middle ground with them if we have this kind of -- with the spanish --[speaking spanish] >> the republican party is reaching and a number of issues particularly an immigration we are fair to say, enough. and open dialogue to see how we can within nation forward. as the also said, we are here as an aggressive coalition. we will move forward to make sure we have a better nation.

[spekaing spanish] >> i think the platform that you mentioned is the tip of the iceberg. there are extremists and all parties across the political spectrum that does not necessarily foreclose the conversation. not every party is filled with

extremists. there are people willing to have a reasonable dialogue. this debate cannot be had based on what is politically expedient but what is handed down. any platforms must be reviewed and matched against what the supreme court has ruled. where the federal government has significant power over states -- their future cases to be had. feature nuances to be had. just because somebody has an extremist platform, that does not -- each party is willing to be reasonable and have a common- sense solution. >> i am it will be going to both conventions, so i will be

interested in your approach with different parties. are you going to emphasize different things? your presentation and what kind of a commitment are you looking for? you have to watch the spend on the supreme court stuff. there were 14 points and 2010. a supreme court denied it three of them. i think you have to be careful not to spend and so you are vulnerable to people. >> it is important to connect the latino vote and a statement. it is worth 17% of the populace of renown. we will be third -- 30% of the vote by 2015. 30 latinos the scene in the national hispanic leadership agenda are connected to were communities.

we have members, chapters, consuls, community-based organizations. we are a vibrant community where we are in touch with every single in the nation with communication and with our community to inform and what is happening at enter the nation and the communities. much as seven about the location. >> what kind of a commitment [unintelligible] >> i think to reemphasize what hector was saying regarding the of voting power of the hispanic community, we want to be bringing this agenda to policy makers. we also want to bring it to the community. obviously it come from the community because we represent the grass roots and so many levels. it is an important we have been

engaged voting community. there and formed from the issues and are voting as a result of the issues and they are voting for the best interest of themselves and their communities. in terms of commitment, we expect both parties to follow suit and follow through on this agenda. we will present the full plate of what this agenda is to both the republican convention and also to the democratic convention. both have a stake in the well- being of the community and both have to respond to the community. it is an important we do not hide anything the from one group and the other. both parties are accountable to the community. that is the answer to your question. it is an important we have that message at all times. >> i guess i am trying to get a sense of, if you do that yet the commitments -- if you do not get

the commitments are bucking for, what is the next step then? an active campaign against certain candidates? >> this is our consensus based positions and there will be occasions to where both parties do not rest to the occasion. a platform that disagrees with one of the core principles. what we will do as this becomes the metric and spine of four will do for scorecards of years to come. the next crop of people like it sent to congress, we will look to them not based on what the platform was in 2012 but we will look to the votes they record on the floor of the house and senate. what they do with the regulatory power and we will see what they do with the power of the had been granted by the electorate. this is what drives and what we've looked to toward the

future. this puts them on notice. is -- there are multiple ways this can come up. if the dream act does not get enacted here there are lesser included forms we will look for and be mindful of. this is to put off future effective officials on notice to what is important to us. >> i would like to respond to that as well. i think we will continue to work with both parties. we work significantly on the dream act with senator durban and senator rubio this last time around. he was trying to bring forward some sort of drama act. to emphasize the bipartisanship, who ever is willing to help us with this platform that is what we would do. [speaking spanish]

>> we must keep everybody accountable. we will be very aggressive to make sure we have an answer from the romney campaign. there have been 10 different interviews in which we cannot it an answer to a simple question and pour into a community. we will be very strong core operating with the media to make sure the message is clear. >> you say to that this is basically to put people on the notice about what is important to the hispanic community and the groups. what should we take from the fact there is the obsession of abortion from this agenda and what will you tell the r.j. them above the issues of rape and?

>> -- rape and? >> i think honestly this agenda is a consensus agenda. the where we go about developing this, there has to be an agreement by all organizations to every position and here. some of the organizations we have ranged from progressive to conservative. what you see in the document is amazing. all of these positions, if he sees something missing perhaps there is not -- this does not mean every organization is not working on these issues. and our organization is focused on making sure there is opportunity for women to do your medical positions. we can and oregon positions separately.

i think it is important this is not just for the policy makers. it is for the community as well. we wanted them to be armed with information they need when they talk to representatives and they ask for positions on issues. they have a great talking. but to talk with an understanding with the key issues are. to get a better sense of how that member will respond to their interest. that is why it is not just something we will be distributing -- we are giving it out to our organizations. we will make sure communities are informed about the issue as well. >> have you requested or have you been granted an interview in which tended romney or the vp chosen for your agenda?

hookahs your partner at the republican party? who will be when the present the agenda afterwards? >> they are very busy with the republican agenda and the convention. starts on monday. this is part of our strategy. we will bob on the request a meeting with gov. romney, we will request a meeting with the president. a meeting with the leadership of both parties to make sure we engage in these debates. it will be part of the process. it is very important, the roles of the media plays in this conversation to make sure -- where do we stand on the central position for the communities. >> [unintelligible]

>> we are talking to a variety of people. i prefer to not to be a specific number. up to 15 different people within the party to make sure we had these conversations appeared to try to be open about the dialogue. we have been very aggressive. when we -- there are a number of officials we need to discuss. we need to talk about the issues and having this conversation. >> no meeting is set up yet. >> my question is without specific benchmarks, how will you hold people accountable? as an example, i was part of immense and in the 1970's? or got access to the transition

team personnel files? we had a lot of people and found the hispanic and black crows amazed and and the do not consider file. -- hispanic and black resumes in the do not consider file. where will the pressure come? order the benchmarks were used the word to -- you conceded in know what you did? >> if you want to join us. >> let me give you one specific example when it comes to hispanics identify federal government. we released a report to cut shows that and the last year the increase of hispanics and then to the federal government has on the account of 4.1%. it is not a number to be proud

of. if you are trying to increase and really make the federal government according to what president obama said to represent what america's all about. we are going to use them. we are going to be thinking about reissuing the report that week issued in 2006. at that point into rigid president bush was the administration had gained a 2% increase in hispanic inclusion in the federal government. we -- there is data out there that we will be utilizing. because we are in a non-partisan organization, we will be looking at this from the point of view of what is important to the community. one thing important like every community in america is job.

>> [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish]

>> and add a question. -- 8 another question. [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish] he is ag