an individual, the government doggedly following and tracking a particular individual. -- until asus is his number is what is a database. in the targeting of the seven to order, it is only focus focus on non-us persons believed to be outside the u.s.. described these smith versus maryland case as simply a case involving a permanent device. the case is meant applied to the lower courts more broadly. i think it is more constitutional significant than the general collection of metadata. i want to talk just for a minute about some of the comment that kate and judge robertson made about secrecy and the rise of secret law, and also the role of the court. i think it is important to understand the constitutional ken alluded,s

before 1978, surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes was conducted by the president without court approval, and the courts have consistently said that the president has authority to undertake such surveillance without court approval, where the target is a foreign intelligence threats. , but fisao abuses was created as a compromise between branches to enable that surveillance, but to involve article three courts in the review and approval, and congress, the oversight, creating the intelligence oversight -- >> i am going to have to be very tough. you have covered and a norma's amount. i'm very sure you can pick up any individual questions. thank you thoma. jameel? >> limits start by addressing a degree of frustration by wainsteinthat mr.

said. when we were before the supreme court for clapper last year, the government really did -- repeatedly said that the assertion that the nsa was engaged in large-scale surveillance of americans international to medications under section 702 was speculative and even paranoid. go to the program is undisclosed and everyone can see the nsa is engaged in that. intelligence community's position now is that this was what was contemplated by the statute. everyone knows that this is what the was all about. frustrationertain in the moving target. he would trouble me less if it

weren't a pattern. we have repeatedly misled the public on the surveillance laws. on a related topic, i think it is very important, mr. bradberry points out, that under seven hundred to the government can target only government the unitedutside states. nobody should take that to mean that america's communications are not being collected. in the course of collecting the medications outside the united states the national -- the nsa collects -- that assertion i made was something characterized by the government in amnesty that is speculative and paranoid. the minimize nation procedures that have been disclosed over the last few weeks make clear that is exactly what is taking place.

>> i just want to reiterate that i think he illustrated the importance of the history in looking at these programs. i would disagree with his speech. i think as he mentioned, the important question here is not under what circumstances can the nsa collect and use communications by foreigners overseas? the important question we try to focus on is under what circumstance is the nsa going to secret and use information about americans, usually gathered in the united states, including both the metadata, which is extremely

revealing of the association, and the content of their , especiallyn communication with people located overseas. to repeatedly focus on or to state that the purpose of this surveillance is about foreigners overseas, i think that is confusing about the real issues that face the american people. the other issue that is underlying here is that it is not only a question of collection but how government uses the information. regulations are secret about how the nsa and fbi is allowed to use them, to the extent that there are public regulations that are extremely complex to figure out which set of regulations applies to which legislation.

i do not think they address the problem that the government is in a position to use information about americans against americans. that is the issue that needs to be addressed. two quick points. it is certainly true that a government's request for business records is not a search. need to payll attention to what jamil said about the subject and the jones case. modern technology enables analysis of metadata that was not possible before. it reminds me of something that brennan badly is said to have said about bernstein and woodward.

we gotan's point that exactly what congress asked for, that is true. the brouhaha after the edward establishes that we need to have a more wide open debate about this in our society. thankfully we are beginning to have the debate and this meeting is part of it. -- >> thank you i would like to start off with the suggestion that i misled them in any way about the collection of u.s. medications. i spent 14 months with others on capitol hill, explaining the intricacies of the procedure that ended up eating adopted.

every conceivable question informs privacy groups about the implications of this collection. it was abundantly clear that we said we would be focusing on foreign targets overseas, collecting communications, whether those communications were overseas or also they happen to come in the united states. the concept of incidental collection is what he is getting at. he will get that person if or she is talking to someone in an overseas country. you will also get that communication if they call within the united states. the collection of that u.s. person communication is acceptable. that is what happens with any form of authorized communication. criminal rule that allows criminal wiretaps, the same thing happens area did the court authorizes a wiretap on me, the

government is also going to get communications between me and the pizza delivery man. of any kind ofty surveillance. the second point that i will quickly make, kate talked about the use of this information and was concerned about how this information was used. one thing that was not touched upon sufficiently was the value of oversight. sixnsa describes four or types of oversight. oversight is very important and meaningful in terms of riveting abuses. abuses.eventing >> thank you all. cap that i will now ask questions of the panel. since we have a bit of time we

can be a bit more flexible with the length of your response to these questions. let us try to keep it's not beyond three minutes. my question deals with the relevant standard. of us will throw a question to all of you so you can answer in turn. if you want to pants on a question that is fine. -- pass on a question that is fine. section 215 authorizes an order for things tangible to an ongoing investigation. i have several questions related to that. one is whether relevance can orach to the government whether relevance needs to attach to any particular record --t is collected. whether which one of those things congress understands itself to

be passing in section 215? , how that compares to the way relevance is understood in the criminal context or even the civil litigating context. is this understanding of relevance broader come a should it be broader? -- relevance broader, should it be broader? >> to touch upon my opening remarks, individual members of congress might say that they did not have in mind the specific concept when they voted that saysing "relevant." congress embrace the broader context, in which that word is used frequently and commonly in other situations come in ministration -- other

situations, in administration subpoenas, for example. litigation, a lot of folks involved in civil litigation understand that a party in litigation gets a broad right. for example it could encompass an entire database of information, where particular items in that database may be useful in the litigation and the parties work out an arrangement that maintains that the the pace so they can be searched -- that he to base so they can be searched. grand juries have an extremely broad concept of relevance, when they can go after any materials that are potentially relevant. the boston bombing, there was a concern about follow-up attacks or collaborators. a grand jury could subpoena without court approval all a layer line -- all airline manifests of passengers flying in and out of boston for a particular. of time.

i think the concept of what is relevant to investigation is naturally understood and brought in context. i think it is reasonable that was what was incorporated in the statute. ,> i agree with some of that that relevance is relatively rod standard. there are haystacks and then there are haystacks. if you think about the example that mr. bradberry just bradbury-- that mr. the granded, journey subpoenas a flight manifest, that is not anywhere near the scope of the program we are talking about here. i can say with confidence and i am sure that everyone on this panel will agree with me, there is no subpoena out there or case out there in which any court has approved surveillance

on this scale. this takes us across a new frontier. this is orders of magnitude broader than any surveillance that has ever been approved under a civil or criminal subpoena. >> a quick follow-up. this panel is focused on the alleged legality of the programs. if your argument is not that each individual record collects itself to be relevant, what line drawing exercise would you engage in? >> i do not think it is possible to set out a line with any more clarity than to refer to relevance. the surprising thing is that the court does not surprise -- the surprising thing is not that the court is providing a relevant standard, the surprising thing is it isn't. the court has approved the government to collect

everything. it has allowed the government to collect everything. i think it is fair enough to say that relevance does not require the kind of specificity that probable cause does. everybody agrees that relevance is supposed to be the limit. not doing that work with respect to this kind of order. >> on the question of what did congress and the american people understand with regard to the use of the word relevance, i think it is pretty clear that until this past month the american people had no idea that totion 215 was being used collect all of the made to on americans phone calls. -- the metadata on american's phone calls.

the mere fact that not only did we not know that but our assumption during the debates on the amendment act was that that was not happening. that had been part of president bush's oh graham. it had been revealed and it had been stopped. a further indication of that is that in the bible, which i commend to you on this statute mitten -- statute written by it describes a very limited number of orders. if you were to read that description you would never suspect that the government was using 215 orders to collect millions or billions of records on americans. in response to the question about what should be the

all kinds215 is about of different records. data,ications, that the telephone, and internet are among the most revealing kinds of records covered by 215. is to go backy before 2001 and requires that a showing of the collection of communications metadata is connected to a specific suspect, a specific incident, a specific plan. that requirement was deleted. finally, the analogy to the criminal context he it i strongly object to that analogy. indeed subpoena context there are two key factors that are not

present here. subpoena is served and sometimes during the service of the subpoena, it is public. that leads to all kinds of restraints on its use. thendly there is possibility of true adversarial judgecation in the way robertson talked about a criminal subpoena. it does not exist under section 215 and will not exist even if you allow the recipient of the 215 order to go to the fisa court. it is not a party that has the in the order -- whether theon was

relevant standard was the same. withu have a view on that relevance to 215 and the concept of relevance in the ?riminal context >> i do not know. i think it is a relevant question. relevance the question is a great question. i would love to know whether the fisa court has ever considered a question when the reviewed the program. ifevance is usually raised there is an objection. there is nobody there to object. >> i would like to make two quick points. to add something that steam mentioned -- that steve to say i didn't

215,d, when i voted for that it would apply this way -- just to make it clear, that is not unique to this situation. i have seen it throughout my career with statutes like the racketeering organization act, which was initially passed and men the members thought it was going to be focused primarily on traditional and organized crime. it has now been applied to a much broader swath of criminal activity with many people saying that they did not think that was the way it was going to be applied. this is not an anonymously. -- an anomaly. she arguess point, that the criminal grand jury

subpoena has more comfort in the and their subpoenas participation of relevance in terms of using one. the subpoenas will see the light of day, ultimately. that is true for some cases. those cases where a grand jury subpoena is issued and that process goes into an indictment, which goes to trial, and the evidence is tested in court, there is a good chance the subpoena will be turned over and test the suppression hearing or trial. that sequence of events does not happen. that is not a perfectly distinguishing feature that would break down an analogy between the grand jury subpoena .nd 215, which steve made thanks. >> i would like to delve a little bit into the constitutionality of some of of one or both of our

programs and give you a chance to elaborate on some things you may not have been able to catch up on the earlier segments. andalked about u.s. v jones whether some of the opinions of -- supreme court justices in fact, the majority of opinions at the d c circuit, which subpoenaed -- which was before the supreme court, when you have an extensive it revealse -- enough of a person's personal life so that it may indeed constitute a search requirement in fourth amendment compliance. there are other aspects of constitutionality that have been brought up that we want to touch on. one is -- i think this was

raised by senator feinstein -- and that is whether or not there are less intrusive alternatives, in other words it was brought up specifically in regards to 15. the government has to seize the data or require that the data -- would it be less intrusive if it queried the data, in the hands of the communications providers? the executive order 1233 three, which governs intelligence conduct activity, generally speaks of requiring the least unintrusive collection techniques feasible. whether or not it specifically applies to 215, we can debate that.

the general principle is why isn't it sufficient that a queried the communications and companies that that that commit -- communications companies to have the data. there is the constitutional question. i think kate may have raised it. if the alleged program under ,15 is ok on telephone metadata are there any inherent limits to 215? are there other kinds of ?etadata and records are there inherent limits? left out is the whole fisa court area and what be following up on jim's analysis.

could anything be done? is it better that we do not have the court getting into ?roblematic analysis at all if not, where are our predictions going to be? collects -- >> save that last question for another day? now but insk it that case everybody gets six minutes. [laughter] >> on the jones case i talked about that. on would it be less intrusive if telephone companies just maintain the database and what can we get with business records, i do not think it is a question of a intrusiveness. i think it would be less intrusive. it would be our less sufficient and far less costly and perhaps

less effective. you have to have multiple databases at the different telephone companies. , for business purposes, retain this data for as long as the government needs it. this is just business record dated the meeting for billing purposes. a do not have a separate national security reason for keeping it. the government is going to have to create the database, which, under this alternative, would have a company pay for it. the government would still have to control the query because you are not going to tell the telephone companies which queries you are going to do the database. that is invested to tori -- investigatory information. the government has facilities in place and can segregate them. it can ensure that all of the protections are honored and that the data is not being accessed for other reasons.

it is an efficiency question. >> one slight follow-up question. some of those criteria you talked about, are they more convenience kind of things or are they necessity? when we are talking about constitutional analysis, are they necessary to the feasibility to which the purpose the program is related? cost and that kind of thing sound a lot like -- >> i do think that they are very real requirements. i do not think the constitution that would see a difference between the data being housed with the government or elsewhere. but the government controlling it and controlling access and making sure it is preserved. 215 is focused on business records. you have to be talking about the kind of data or database information that a business is

maintaining for its own business purposes. that may be different with respect to the e-mail that people have alluded to. telephone companies maintain these call detail records and it may be different in other contexts. i do not think you can be say -- these are business records that have to be in the next set a separate business purpose. shall i leave the fisa court question for later? >> let us come back into pfizer. -- come back and do pfizer. -- is part of >> just to point out the , i think the nice restrictive means question is an important question and one that the board should be asking.

it assumes that the government has overriding national security interest in axis to the information. in access to the information. many people have been pressing the intelligence community to cooperate. .- to cooperate nothing has been said to establish that this information is absolutely crucial. the government pointed to the saucy case. case out theree to which this information was crucial, i do not think the government has pointed to it yet. you would assume that the information is crucial and then i think it is crucial to ask the question about the least

restrictive means of getting the information. on that question, i do have a problem with this centralized database, the creation of this centralized database, in the hands of the nsa. here i will take the opportunity to agree with something, which is that authorities are created for one later used fore another purpose in the likely thing it rejig that is -- that is likely to happen with this. even if all of that is true and even if all of that satisfies you about the safeguards you have in place right now, you do not know what the privacy safeguards are going to look like three years from now. if there is another significant terrorist attack you can imagine that members of congress

will, out to change the parameters of the intelligence community. that massive database will be forever available to the intelligence community to access whatever standards prevail at that particular point in time. there are problems that arise from these centralized databases. i think that the truth of the matter is that the supreme court has not answered these questions. if you start from the understanding that for in order -- that in order for the government to seize and obtain information inside the united states, it needs to meet fourth amendment requirements. then you end up in one place.

there are many situations in which the fourth amendment has been held not to apply to government seizures. i think that the ability for the government to obtain information and create massive databases raises serious constitutional issues not yet addressed by the court. they are not just fourth amendment issues, they are first amendment issues about the impact that has on people's exercise of their first amendment rights. i think the other constitutionally significant fact is that the seizures are being done in secret. who worked on us the 1994 amendment, which allowed secret searches of

america's homes and offices, but in a particular lysed way with a particular rise to warrant, objected to that allowedy because it secret searches of america's homes and offices, which would never be revealed to the people whose homes and offices had been searched. that 1994 amendment was enacted before the supreme court held in criminal context that notice of a search was constitutionally required and not just required as a matter of criminal law. one of the questions is the applicability of that basic understanding to this kind of search and seizure. on the question of less eelrusive alternatives, jamil is correct.

there is no doubt that if the government is able to create as large a database as possible and use as sophisticated analytics as possible that it will be able to generate information that will be useful from time to time in combating terrorism. there is no doubt about that. we have seen that in other countries. i do not think that is the question. i think it is a much more complex question. i think it requires looking at the actual threats that the united states poses, including the scope of those threats, looking at different ways to meet those threats, and looking at the different alternatives that exist other than creating a database that is always available to query. -- >> i do not have a very useful view on the least ontrictive alternatives

permanent databases versus accessing the databases that are in the hands of the vendors. i have to tell you what keeps running through my mind is that this is not only a first amendment problem but nra members, a second amendment problem. it is exactly the argument argument you will get about permanent records of gun ownership. think about that. >> i am not going to bite on a second amendment issue. that is for another panel. agreementto express and we cannot allow too much agreement so i will put a stop to that. you put legislation in place

and it adapts to the situation and adapt to the needs of the time, that is the way legislation is supposed to be opposed and that is why we have courts to make sure that any agitations remain true to the original intent of the legislation. what i find concerning is the notion that if you have an appropriate investigative tool in place you think twice about maintaining it because of some speculative concerned that down the road it can be misused rea. i think it would take that approach we will walk back into another nine/11. that is some of the concern we see of the opinions out there in the real world. what we need to do instead is what i learnt over the last decade, the value of oversight. as a government employee it drove me crazy because i spent

half my life running up to congress, answering questions, talking to fisa court about their concerns and questions. i would prefer to state my opposition to their work. that oversightof and making sure that these things stay true to their legislation and constitution -- but also because it ensures the confidence of the american people. instead of taking the approach of scaling back on the strength of appropriate investigative tools, just make sure you build in the safeguards and oversight that will prevent that kind of misuse. >> i am going to go back to the statute. i apologize if this seems like a quiz. i want to get the benefits of your views. the question is whether section

215 can be interpreted to allow to get ongoing production of not yet created business records. it would require the company to provide on a daily basis records and a future date and the language of section 215 authorizes that production of any tangible thing, etc., even though this does not use the term business records everyone understands this to be a business record provision. -- r in the section i would like your thoughts on that. it is a pen trap provision. based on irrelevant standard.

ongoing are inherently and real-time, unlike the do you thinkrds. that if the leaked order is correct the language of 215 permits that? >> i do not think the statute distinguishes when the tangible item is created. there are a lot of production orders that require ongoing reduction of the love and materials. it can be common in an administrative investigation. the items are cleated in our records by the time they are turned over. the order is focused on a known existing category of records

that are constantly being refreshed. they are tangible, they are in existence, they are business records when they are obtained under the order. i do not think that is a distinction that the statute requires or points to. -- ofms of trip registers, that is a different technology. those pen registers would be somewhere out in the network or on the switches in real time, callingng all of the party number type information when calls are being placed.

can i say one quick thing, jamieel has used the word surveillance. that is a defying term -- a defining term. that includes the content of communications, getting them when they are usually being transferred across a wire. this is not content. this is just metadata. it is not accurate to use the word "surveillance." can decidepeople for themselves whether it is surveillance or not, in the same way they can decide for themselves whether it is portrait or not. i have a different view of how the statute can be read. i do not think it was meant to allow the government to require the production on an ongoing basis.

if you take a grand jury subpoena and compare them, i do not think it is a requirement for them to continue in their ongoing way. there is no hint in the legislative history that anyone could possibility that the statute would be used for the purposes it is now being used for. in fact, there was this testimony that john ashcroft gave to office way back in 2004. he was asked about the outer limits of the 215 authority. at one point he was asked could it be used to require the production of dna. he said he supposes it could. nobody had even asked the question, could be used for ongoing production of any of these things you just said? -- nobody even

copper kidded that possibility -- no one even complemented that possibility. that he it never occurred to him it would be used in this way. little to support the proposition that the statute is not being used for the purposes it was designed for. >> it seems pretty clear that the government views section 215 can get this way. in order to evaluate and respond to that argument i think

it should be disclosed. then we can have a discussion about whether or not that interpretation by the government and the fisa court is a reasonable or correct one, especially given the existence of overlapping authorities under .isa >> i will pass. back to fisa. maybe we will open with jim and everybody will get a chance. my initial question was whether isnot traditional review necessary to the cost to shelti to the program. that is a general overview question. it has one of the ingredients.

jim, you felt that yo the court had no legitimate rule on passing programmatic issues, as opposed to the individual applications. what would you put in their place if you took that particular kind of review away from the fisa court? would you be happy with just congressional oversight and internal government? the third question to all of -- it has been suggested in some of the comments today that maybe you could beef up the fisa court, having some kind of an expert a, somebody

representing the interests of the people involved. how that would work -- on other one would be appeals. technically the only people that are eitheron issa -- on fisa are either the government or the holder of the records. many of them complained that they feel that they are hindered because they do not even have original targeting record so all they get our tasking orders. are do not feel they equipped to do that, even if it wasn't their interest to do it. the question has been raised in congress about whether there is some way that we can find out

what the fisa court does. the majority of its opinions are secret. in the last congressional reauthorization there was a request made and a promise given that the government would see if some form of protective order -- of read active order can given. yet happened. the question is whether there is some ford of -- some form of declassification that can give us the benefit of what the legal analysis is. especially when you are dealing with the program of great magnitude, such as the 215 program. that is a five part question.

let me take the last part of it first. i was stunned the other day when thead the story about common law that is being developed within the pfizer court. had no familiarity with that and everybody needs to understand it was eight years ago that i was on the court my experience there were not any opinions. you approved a warrant application or you did not,. there was one famous opinion that was reviewed and reversed by either the courtroom back in 19 two.

president growing up within mya is not experience. i do not know what the answer to that question is, how we get a hold of it. i am more comfortable dealing with your question about should there be some sort of an institution am accustomed or -- institutional amicus or opponent. my answer is yes but i do not know how it would work for you i was not kidding when i suggested that perhaps some tweaking of the statute, mightshing the pclob make it to that institution. you are not going to ask for that.

i do not know who it would be. there is within the defense department a group of people who are dedicated to the defense of detainees at guantanamo. are defense lawyers, defending detainees that are being prosecuted by the other part of the defense department. there is some precedent for it. whether there would be some institutional office, at first to the office that brings these applications to fisa or not, i do not know. but it is conceivable. on youring to pass question about the big constitutionality. i do not think that the pfizer court itself -- that the pfizer court itself -- the fisa court

itself, that they have the jurisdiction to pass on the constitutionality of the statute they are carrying out. articleo be handled by three courts. i do not know if that answers all of your questions. >> it goes part way, thank you. anybody wants to take a whack at any part of this question? >> sure. in terms of whether judicial reviews are required by the constitution, to the extent the fourth amendment in a particular situation requires a warrant supported by a particularized probable cause, then yes, traditional review is necessary. usually is ex partake.

the government comes in with an .pplication the fisa court now gets to that model. there are a few small number of opinions but as judge robertson suggested most of the time it is an elaborate application. and then it is finally approved by the court treated -- by the court. i do think that the dni said that they are scrambling. i imagine they are to declassify as many applications and prepare white papers and legal analysis with consistency to national security. replacing the court involvement i think we need to understand that constitutional background is that foreign intelligence surveillance until

1978 occurred without court involvement. it was a unilateral exception of the executive ranch. the executive branch. fisa was a big copper mines between -- a big compromise between the branches to involve in approving surveillance that do not require any court approval. congress can be briefed in in secure facilities. it is a very unusual animal and i agree that it raises some significant questions with programmatic examples. 702, the fisa court was overwhelmed with individualized orders focused on foreign targets. the court did not understand why it spent so much time worrying about non-us persons outside of

the united states area the 700 to process made it easier to focus on foreign targets and collect those you -- those communications in and outside the united states. it is workable. it is a great story that congress passed this legislation. and when it did pass and considerate, all members of congress were given the opportunity to be briefed on all classified details of these programs and all members of the intelligence committees were reefed. on participation, i do not know if it is feasible. they would have to know declassify details of the particular surveillance requests. the court is winning all kinds of classified detail information, supporting the reasonable suspicion determination and the context of the surveillance. there is not a feasible way -- >> even with the security

clearance? deeds -- the detainee analogy that somebody race, the government has a defense lawyer, as it were. they do have security clearance that allows them to -- >> that's right. the defense lawyer is only given access to what the relevantt -- what is to the government in that particular prosecution. the court always has the choice not to prosecute if the disclosure of some particular information to the defense counsel is to worry some. in this context we are doing surveillance on the most sensitive threats, based on these most sensitive national security information. the branch is only making it available to the court and to the congressional committees because it is required to by statute. it is so sensitive that it needs

it probably has to be an officer of the government whether of the court or executive branch that would be fully participating in the process. had to inject one other idea into your comments. the federal public defender employs the judiciary to oppose the government and i am wondering if something like that would be feasible. >> how about some other panel members on anything they want? collects -- >> i think an unusual case before the pfizer court, it would be good to have somebody with access to classified information who could play an adversarial role

within the process that already takes place. withnot convinced that -- withcked to broader i amct to broader legal -- not convinced that that kind of question has to be decided behind closed doors. i do not see why the court could not articulate that question publicly, notify the public that it was going to consider the legal implications of a proposal to collect all american metadata. and allow anyone who wanted to to file a brief. i think that mr. bradberry, it is clear that he starts from a different assumption that i do. everything that has been classified is properly classified. my view is that a lot of these programs, some that have been

disclosed over the last few weeks and the last few years, should never have been secrets in the first place. they should have been disclosed to the public, at least the general parameters of the program should have been disclosed to the public, both because it is important that the political leaders who put these programs in place be held accountable, but also so that the judicial process can actually function in a way that it is supposed to in an adversarial fashion. just to expand on something that judge robertson said earlier. if we are asking the question as to whether fisa, whether the oversight of the court -- it is important to keep in mind that there are structural limitations on what the court can do. even apart from these questions appropriate that the chief justice of the supreme court appoints all of the judges, there are's front-row limitations on what the court

can do. some of those have to do with the court's jurisdictions. thecourt does not have jurisdiction to consider first amendment implications of proposed surveillance. it does not have these uris fiction to consider the validity of the statute of the fisa act. -- thevalidity authority to consider the validity of the statute of the fisa act. wasof the arguments we made our constitutional challenge to the fisa act was that the role that it was playing was different from the role that article is permitted to play under the constitution. the were not considering allegations. they were not making determinations of probable cause. the government was not appearing before the court,

identifying proposed surveillance targets or proposed facilities to be targeted. instead the court is making these judgments about the appropriateness of the government's programmatic procedures related to targeting and minimize nation. that is something no article court has done in the past. that is foreign to that argument we made before initially in the southern district of new york, but it wasn't heard because our plaintiffs were found eventually to lack standing. the narrow point i am trying to make is the that is a question that the fisa court does not have the jurisdiction to consider. the fact that other courts isn't considering it it makes it even more problematic. >> i don't know the answer to your question, judge.

to i do think it's important distinguish and probably limit the role of the fisa court. as judget was created robertson said to issue warrants in a way that justices always issued warrants. the fact that it is now creating a body of common law is extraordinary. i'm not sure that is an appropriate function of the court. the fact that that body of common law is being created in secret, of course, compounds the problem created ex partake. -- ex parte. on behalf of the administration, i take that there promised to moreose mauer -- disclose information is sincere. i wish that they would work on that before they described to

"the new york times" and "the wall street journal" legal opinions that are still classified. we could use the legal opinions and selves. fundamentally, i think we need some kind of system where a traditional court, not a fisa court, is looking at these questions that have to do with what the law allows and what is constitutional. in that connection come i want to push back on the notion that somehow this might be legal even without court involvement because it was on that way before 1978 and i disagree with that. i think more importantly is that we mustn't forget that, during the bush administration, when the fisa statute was exclusive am a it explicitly said you may not conduct this kind of surveillance, except

pursuant to a fisa court order. and if you do so, it is a crime. the bush administration, in secret, violated those provisions and made up a series of flimsy legal arguments for doing so. but most of all, forgot to tell the american people that it was taking the new view that it was no longer bound by fisa. and we only found that out as a result of leaks to the press, which is not the way the system should work. similarly, because mr. wayne keeps talking about the efficacy of oversight here, we have a situation during this administration where two members of the oversight committee have

repeatedly raised questions about what was happening. they have been repeatedly blocked from bringing those questions to the public. and now here we are come as a result of an unauthorized leak. the last word, right of reply. >> thank you. theuld like to address idea that there should possibly be some other party that would take the side of the person who is to be surveilled in a particular fisa application. a couple points to keep in mind -- one come as steve mentioned a few moments ago, keep in mind that the notion of a judge receiving and assessing an is nottion for a search new. as steve said, this is exactly what we do in the criminal side good when i go to judges, like i as aith judge robertson

prosecutor or to get a title iii , thatp against somebody was done ex parte. it was executed by the agent and nobody representing the person whose house is to be searched or both phone calls are to be listened into. that is a paradigm. it is important to keep that in mind and you may be able to sense a theme of mine, which is that this construct on the national security side for these investigative activities all are drawn from parallels and origins on the criminal side. eo this idea ex partak consideration of warrants is the norm. we trust judges to look and arutinize and coming case of warned, that there is probable cause to issue that warned. threeb -- the article

judges in the fisa court are not at all the in the government's pocket. they are independent. give them have to measure up to the standards of the law. keeping those two points in mind, the idea that some sort of counter party is an intriguing one. i think steve is right that there are a lot of practical issues with that in terms of sensitivity of information that defies a court judges see it -- that the fisa court judges see. to the extent that that would help establish greater public confidence in the process is something that the board and others should look at. , gave mentioned the concern about transparency. the same point there. to the extent that the government can be more transparent with its legal if the fisa court

can disclose some sanitized version of these opinions, it is good for public education. it is good because these programs only work so long as we have the confidence of the american public that they are -- they are being conducted honestly and with reason of the statute. >> thank you. 11:17.k here says we are scheduled to 11:30. members of the panel have questions. >> i have a question of the 702 program. target ision, the non-u.s. persons outside of the united states. inevitably, those conversations are with u.s. persons within the united states. i question is whether that raises a fourth amendment issue, by collecting and using that information about u.s. persons.

if so, are the minimization procedures in place sufficient to meet fourth amendment concerns? welcome i think i will go back and limited history again. there has been some discussion. ken mentioned changing technology. prior to 1978 and when fisa is first enacted, all most all international communications in and out of the united states were carried by satellite. not even covered by fisa. tor time, that migrated fiber-optic cables in and out of the u.s.. suddenly, if you're conducting that surveillance on a wire in the u.s. come even though it is international community -- i can --ication, it is suddenly international communication, it is suddenly covered by fisa. then 9/11 hit. huge problem. he suddenly needed to know about all suspicious

communications from of potential terrorists outside of the united states, when they are communicating in and out of the u.s. to the president special authority to conduct that surveillance. very controversial, the disclosures, the debates and congress grappled with it. they all ultimately resolved on a statutory solution, 702, targeted on non-us her sins reasonably thought to be outside of the u.s. but it is specifically focused on communications in and out of the united states. just as it was after 9/11 when the president gave that authorization, those are the most important communications you want to know about if you're talking about a foreign terrorist suspect communicating with somebody you don't know inside the united states, a otential planning, etc. 702 enables court review, prove all of to make sure that targeting is focused outside the united states. but i don't think the fourth amendment and the particular

eyes wide to requirements of the fourth amendment would apply to those communications if you are targeting a nine-u.s. persons reasonably believed be outside of the united states just because some of the communications happen to come in and out of the u.s. join if you're not focused on a u.s. person practicing here, you are intending to invade and -- you are attempting to invade. fisa requires individualized surveillance orders that are very much like warrants, supported by probable cause. although i would not say that they are warrants because it is not hummable cause believed that a crime is committed or is going to be committed or use of a facility. it is important to remember that 702 is not limited to terrorism and counterterrorism. what commerce authorized was any foreign intelligence gathered -- any foreign intelligence gathering. it is much broader than the president's special

authorization in that regard. >> the government conceded that the surveillance that takes place under 702 implicates the fourth amendment and requires the government to establish reasonableness. in fact, they filed a summary judgment brief in the court explaining their view that the statute was reasonable in part because of the minimization procedures that you just referenced. at the time, we didn't have the minimization procedures so it was difficult for us to answer that argument. now we do have the minimization procedures and one thing that is clear from them is that the use incidental" and "inadvertent" are highly misleading. the collection of written communication is not incidental or inadvertent as mr. bradbury just said. those are the communications that the government was most interested in. the minimization procedures

allowed the government to retain all of that information, that if it is foreign intelligence, it can go on for my -- forever, even if it's not intelligence information from the five years, the procedure allows the government to disseminate attorney-client to medications. but that is a very narrow attorney-client communications. but that is a very narrow category. and theute was designed government has conceded that the fourth amendment is not irrelevant over whether the statute is lawful or not. i think you are asking the right question. my view is that the answer is that the minimization procedures are insufficient to protect americans privacy. >> do you want to rebuttal? , i misspoke.this

i did not mean to say that the fourth amendment is not irrelevant in those not apply. i think i meant to say that the want requirement does not apply, but still needs to be reasonable under the fourth amendment and that is a special analysis in the foreign intelligence context. would agree that the fourth amendment applies and i think there is a serious question about the applicability of the warrant requirement. when the seizure is taking place in units aides, the seizure is deliberately intended to obtain the communications content of americans located in the united states. and the argument that was made during consideration of 702 is that the reason why you didn't and a warrant was that american talking in the united states to somebody else doesn't

know whether or not their conversation is being ease dropped on because another person could be the subject of a warrant and be wiretapped. they what you do know and what i think you have the right to know is that, if you are communicating inside the united states with someone, the government is not collecting the contents unless it has a warrant on you or a warrant on the person you're talking to. that is not the case under 702. then the question becomes, well, what about the practicalities? how do we do this? i would urge the board to look at proposals that have been and assay ofby x fish -- by ex nsa officials, which would set up a system whereby the information might be acquired by a computer, but before the government could

access the communications of americans it would have to go back to the fisa court and make a probable cause showing and get a fisa warrant. >> that indeed is one of the recommendations of the constitution project report that i mentioned when i made my opening remarks. this concept of minimization -- minimization is one of the great classic euphemisms of our time. no bloody really knows what he knows exactly what it means and i think the board could profitably study that subject in great detail and for weeks. >> i would just like to clarify one point during i may have the phrasing a little bit wrong, but some of these surveillances under 702 could be intended to

collect medications of persons in the u.s.. there is a specific provision in 702 that says you cannot do reverse targeting. someonecannot target who is overseas for the purpose of collecting to medication within the united states. is you canes permit target somebody who is overseas and collectives or her to medications with people overseas, but also with people in the united states promotes is often the mess via boeing concerning communications they might indicate the existence of a plot. most concerning communications because they might indicate the existence of a plot. the same notion would apply to presumably our 12 triple three collection around the world

where we -- and fisa was drafted specifically to work around that collection, to not the entered by the fisa order requirement and it applies to title iii. so it would be a major paradigm shift in our data collection. >> quick response, kate. >> i think ken and i would agree that the reverse targeting prohibition in 702 prevents the government from using 702 surveillance in order to obtain the communication of a specific known american. but if the intent of the government is to target someone overseas in order to find out and obtain the communications of people they don't know in the united states who are talking to somebody overseas, that is the purpose of 702. we are almost out of time. i know that has one question.

i don't know if jim has a question. ok, go ahead. >> quick responses. >> at the risk of assigning homework, i would ask that you all consider my question and come if you're so moved, provide information afterwards to keep us on track. this is following on some of what we have been talking about baby came came close to what i was thinking about. looking at what happened in 2006 with multiple point or roving surveillance, when there was some uncertainty as to how an authorization was granted by the court would be implemented in a given case and overturn requirement was imposed. mike question is, whether or not you are dealing with these -- my question is, whether or not you are dealing with these more harbor manic or -- these more problematic or statutory provisions, whether it is 702 or whether it be for this

programmatic collection, i would appreciate your thoughts on that. i will also pose a two panel three. so you should come back for panel three and offer some opinions on that. provides for directives, can the judges actually reviewed specific targeting requests are only just a broad program? and if not, should they be able to understand 02? 02?under 7 >> i have an observation and some homework as well. my observation is come up until the very end, we really only heard one concrete recommendation for what might be changed, which was judge roberts suggestion, about creating an alias for some of

the activities of the fisa ness tosome adversarial mes the process. i think it is incumbent upon the civil liberties community, which i consider myself a part, i guess, but incumbent upon the civil liberties community to develop some concrete recommendations for moving forward here. it might be that your bottom line is the 215 program and it is inappropriate and should be upended completely. but i think, whether it is 702 or 215, you really have to get more granular and more specific in terms of some concrete suggestions to at the tail end, we started to get to another one, this idea that is reflected in the constitution project report about acquisition versus , aecond search

particularized search. .hat is another concrete change i will say one thing to steve van toucan. .- steve and to ken i think it is important to engage in that process as well. can certain to at the end come in terms of engaging the idea of kenadversarial process -- started to at the end, in terms of engaging the idea the adversarial process. i really think that there is a role for former government officials to play. it can't be that everything is perfect. it can't be that no changes can be made, that no additional improvements or checks and balances or controls, etc., can be made t. you're put in this position

that summary says it's terrible and you have to say it's great. i think that that the civil liberties community has to be more specific in its criticisms and its forward-looking formerions and i think government officials, including those who helped design these ingrams, have a role to play offering concrete suggestions for how to improve them. and then my homework assignment, i guess, to take deaths term, i would like to see more specific engagement on the question of minimization. judge robertson is 100% correct in terms of the misunderstanding, at least, or the use of that term in a way that becomes a mantra and no one has really dug in on that. ,here is a document online whether it is valid or not,

whether it is still right or not to i think there is a document online that, assuming that minimization procedures look like what is in that document, what is the reaction to that? is a good or bad or indifferent? everybody talks about relevance. relevance didn't come into the in 2001, the 2005. statute said that documents are sought for and authorized investigation. relevance came in 2005. and i think it's worth digging possiblet was the intent of congress in shifting from "sought for" an specific and to articulable facts given that they are "relevant to" an investigation. did that have any impact?

should it be viewed as having any impact?\ , i then on these ozzie kay's would like to see whatever there is on the public record in zazi case,d in the i would like to see whatever there is on the public record. ,> we are out of time unfortunately. thank you to all the panelists for being here. as i mentioned before, anyone on the panel or in the audiences welcome to submit written questions. >> we will take an hour break for lunch and we will reserve at 11:30. president obama released a statement today on the verdict on the trial against jurors a was announced i don't to -- announced not guilty last night.

>> i wanted a representative look at american life i needed politics, business, entertainment, food, finance, art. i was also interested in this recurring pattern, which you see with gingrich, with opera promote jay-z, with sam walton good people who really begin -- sam walton. people who really begin in humble places and are not like the main characters, dean, tammy, but who reinvent themselves as something new and

find a new language and a new idea that is riveting to americans. and through that, they build an empire. and they can't stop the ling it. it is almost like an imperative -- can't stop building it. it's almost like imperative. eventually, a sort of decadence sets in where the language becomes a kind of parody of itself and they no longer seem to be producing something good. they just continue to produce. gingrich just keeps writing book after book. opera is on the cover of every issue of her magazine. so they become the celebrities that we are now familiar with who are just dominating our imaginations in a way that have come to replace the institutions that have faltered in this time. >> george packer intertwines the struggles of three americans whose american way of life has failed them sunday at 8:00 on c-span's "q and a &a."man -- "q

ben bernanke second term is set to expire january 1, 2014. this is just over one hour. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you, jim, particularly that part of bibliography. iam working on it during would like to thank the national bureau of economic research for organizing this conference in recognition of the federal reserve's centennial, which we don't know whether it is 1913, 1914, but we know it is happening around cap -- around

now. in keeping with the spirit of the conference, my remarks today will be primarily historical in nature. that i will lead discussion of current policy to today's question-and-answer. and -- question-and-answer segment and i have the pleasure next month of going before congress. [laughter] and that will be another opportunity to discuss these matters. [laughter] today, in my remarks, would like to discuss the evolution of the past 300 years of three key aspects of federal reserve policymaking. the goals of policy, policy framework, and accountability and communication. the changes over time in these three areas provide a useful perspective, i believe, in the way the role and functioning of the federal reserve has changed since its founding in 1913 as well as some lessons for the present and for the future. attention particular

in key episodes in the fed's history come all of which has been referred to in context with a modifier, "great tuchman the great-- "great." depression, the great moderation, the great recession. .nd the great experiment t the federal reserve was established to "provide a means to stop enormous injury tuchman the original goal of the -- entry." the result goal was the stability. there were triggers in business and agriculture for funds to outstrip the available supply. panics were further exacerbated

by banks and private individuals whose -- who poured liquidity during those times. as has been discussed any times today already, the new institution was intended to relieve such strange by providing liquidity as needed for individual member banks to the discount window and the commercial banks, in turn, would be able to accommodate their customers. interestingly, although congressional advocates hope that the creation of the fed would help prevent future panics, they did not fully embraced the idea that the fed should help and -- should help in ongoing panics are serving as lender of last resort as recommended by walter badgett. by denying nonmember banks access to the discount window and by restricting the types of collateral that the dead could set. fed could set.i

it reflected a large member -- -- e as well as the fact that the united states was on the gold standard. reserve sauce option as providing liquidity for business needs as well as providing an elastic frenzy with the ultimate goal of supporting economic and financial stability. when business activity was increasing, the federal reserve helped accommodate the need for credit. and when it was contracting, the fed reduced the amount of liquidity in the system. as i mentioned, the federal reserve pursued this policy approach in the policy of the the fed wasd in required to maintain a gold reserve equal to 40% of its outstanding notes. however, the federal reserve

often took actions to prevent inflows and outflows of gold from being fully translated in changes in the domestic money supply. this practice, together with the size of the u.s. economy, gave the federal reserve considerable autonomy in monetary policy and in particular allowed the fed to conduct policy without much interest. the policy framework in the early years has been much criticized on retrospect. although the gold standard not appear to greatly constrain u.s. monetary policy in the years after the dead's founding, -- ther the fed's founding, gold standard served to destabilize the global economy in the late 1920s in the early 1930s. the fed increased the money supply precisely at those times at which business activity and upward pressures on prices were the strongest.

that is monetary policy was pro- super bowl and -- was was prociprical. addition tomportant policy tools. the fed's main cools what is -- was its quality lending through the window and the discount rate. earnings to generate to finance these operations, the federal reserve began purchasing securities in the open market which came to be known as open market operations. in the early 1920s, officials discovered that these operations affected the supply and cost of bank users and consequently the terms under which the banks extended credit to their customers. , open market operations became a principal market tool that allow the fed to interact with the broader financial markets and not only with banks.

i have discussed the original mandate and the policy framework of the early days of the fed. as this audience knows, when -- federal reserve was the compromise solution created a hybrid and the system was headed by a governmentally appointed ward which initially included -- appointed board which initially included a secretary of the currency. reserve bankslly were put under oversight, including board members drawn from the private sector and given considerable scope to make policy decisions that applied to their own districts. banks were, deserve permitted to set their own discount rate subject to a minimum set i the board. founders of the federal reserve hope this new interest tuition would provide new financial and economic

stability, the policy framework and the institutional structure would prove inadequate to the challenges that the fed would soon face. thegreat depression was federal reserve's most difficult test. tragically, the fed failed to meet its mandate to maintain financial stability. , although they provided substantial liquidity to the financial system, its response to the subsequent substantivecs was at best. economists have identified a number of ends is is from the late 1920s to the early 1930s when federal reserve officials come in the face of a sharp economic economic -- sharp economic attraction -- sharp

become contraction contraction in upheaval, some the stories -- some early historians track us back to the governor of new york which left a decentralized system without an effective leader. whether valid or not, this hypothesis raises the interesting question of what intellectual framework an effective leader would have used up a time to develop and justify a more activist monetary policy. the degree to which the gold standard actually constrain u.s. monetary policy during the early 1930s is debated. but the gold standard philosophy clearly did not encourage this highly expansionary policy that was needed. the same can be said for the thateal bills doctrine allowed policymakers to conclude on the basis of low nominal interest rates and low borrowing from the fed, that monetary policy was supported and further actions would be fruitless. historians have noted the prevalence at the time of yet

another counterproductive doctrine, the so-called liquidation is to view, ist view.on it lacked leadership in the 1930s and lack of intellectual framework to understand what was happening and what needed to be done. the fed's inadequate policy framework ultimately collapsed under the weight of economic failures come in your ideas and political development. the international gold standard was abandoned during the 1930s. the banking act of 1935 instructed the federal reserve to use open market operations with consideration of "the general credit situation of the country and not just to focus narrowly on short-term liquidity needs. the congress also expanded the fed's ability to provide credit through the discount window,

allowing loans for a broader array of counterparties cured i a broader variety of collateral. the experience of the great depression had major ramifications for all three aspects of the federal reserve i am discussing here. its goals come as policy framework, and discount ability to the public. with respect to goals, the high implement of the depression and the fear that high unemployment would return after world war ii elevated the maintenance of full employment as a goal of economic policy. implement act of 1946 made the promotion of employment a general objective of the federal government. although the fed did not have a formal employment goal until of the federal reserve reform at the 1977, codify maximum implement along with stable prices along the fed's dual mandate, it was noticed in that direction. legislators described the act

of 19 35 as follows. "to increase the ability of the banking system to promote stability of employment and business insofar as this is possible within the scope of monetary action and credit administration. the policy framework to support this new approach reflected the development of macroeconomic theories, including irving fisher, rob paltry, dennis robertson, and john maynard keynes who laid the foundations for an standing how monetary policy could affect you like to be and employment and help reduce cyclical fluctuations. federalame time, the reserve became less focused on its original mandate in preserving financial stability, perhaps in part because it felt creationeded by the the 1930s of the fdic and the securities and exchange commission along with other reforms intended to make the financial system more stable. governance and

accountability to the public, policymakers also recognized the need to reform destiny for forms. 1935anking act of simultaneously bolster the legal independence of the federal reserve and provided for stronger central console -- central control by the federal reserve lord. in particular -- federal reserve board. ofing the board majority the boards on the fdic and moving the secretary of treasury and the comptroller of the currency from both award. -- from the board. one economic historian described the fed as in the it was not until the

9 50 accord -- once the federal reserve regained its policy independence, the goal centered on price stability and implement object does laid out in the employment act of 1946. in the early postwar decade, the fed use open market operations and the discount rate to influence short term market interest rates and the federal funds rate rental emerged as a preferred operating target. beginning in the mid-1960s, inflation began a long climb upwards, partly because policymakers proved to be too optimistic about the economy's ability to sustain rapid growth without inflation. might havesms mitigated the damage from that mistaken optimism. first, a stronger policy response to inflation, more like

that observed in the 1950s, would have helped. second, fed policymakers could adopting a more realistic assessment of the country's economic potential. instead, policymakers chose to emphasize so-called cost wish and structural factors as sources for inflation ansar wage .nd price -- inflation, . a further obstacle was the view among many economists that the inflation did not justify the costs of achieving it. the consequences of the monetary framework of the 1970s, as you know, were two bouts of double- digit inflation. moreover, by the end of the

decade, lack of commitment to controlling inflation had clearly resulted in inflation expectations becoming unanchored with high estimates of trend inflation invented -- inflation embedded in long-term interest rates. the leadership of chairman paul volcker, 1979, it finally changed his approach to ensure price stability. this change involved a rethinking of policy by policymakers. federal reserve officials recently accepted the view that inflation was a monetary phenomenon at least in the medium and longer term. it became more alert and the rest of optimism come about the company -- about the country's potential output and renewed emphasis on the station between real, inflation-adjusted, and nominal interest rates. put greater focus on

banks, but the critical change was the willingness to respond more vigorously to inflation and endured even after the assembly the use of the federal funds rate as a policy instrument. regime also reflected an improved understanding of the importance of providing a firm anchor secured by the bankersity for the expectations. achievingrs regarded price stability is helping to provide conditions necessary for sustained maximum [indiscernible] volcker successful battle against inflation set the stage for the great moderation from 1984 to 2007, during which the fed enjoyed incredible success in achieving oath objectives of the dual mandate. financial stability remained the goal, of course.

more routinely, it shares supervisory duties with other banking agents. part,heless, for the most financial stability did not figure prominently in monetary policy discussions during these years. in retrospect, it is clear that accor economists, both inside and outside of banks, rely too heavily on the variance of [indiscernible] an up location of which the details of the financial system could be ignored when analyzing the proper behavior of the economy. an important development of the great moderation is the increasing emphasis of central banks around the world on communication and transparency as economists and policymakers reached consensus on the value to medication and obtaining monetary policy objectives.

federal reserve officials, like those at other central banks, had traditionally been highly guarded in their public announcements. a believed come a for example, that he ability to take the market by surprise was important for influencing financial conditions. thus these fellas -- the policymakers of the late 1980s and early 1990s have an morgues about market strategy and the same degree of transparency was not forthcoming on monetary operations. over time, the statement was expanded to include more detailed information about the reason for policy decisions and an indication of the balance of risk. in addition to improving the effectiveness of monetary policy, these developments incantation also enhance the public accountability of the federal reserve. ,ccountability is, of course

essential for policy independence in a democracy. this time from economists found considerable evidence that central banks that are full of policy independence in pursuit of their mandated object deliver better economic outcomes. one cannot look back today at the great moderation without asking with same economic stability of that time also somehow promoted the risk-taking that followed. the idea that this long time of calm gold investors, financial firms, and financial regulators into paying insufficient attention to building risk and must have some truth to it. i don't think we should conclude that we should therefore not strive to achieve economic stability. [laughter] rather, the right conclusion is that, even in our perhaps especially in stable and prosperous times, monetary policymakers and financial regulators should regard safeguarding financial stability to be of equal importance and a necessary or

prerequisite for maintaining macro economic stability. macroeconomists and historians will continue to debate the sources of the remarkable economic performance during the great moderation. my own view is that the improvements in monetary policy and can vacation coming including the better management of inflation and the anchoring of expectations, they were important reasons for the strong performance. that we have learned in recent years that while well-managed monetary policy may be necessary, it is not sufficient. it has been now six years or so since the first signs of the financial crisis appeared in the united states and we are still working to achieve a full recovery from those effects. what lessons should we take to the future in this experience, particularly in the context of a century of federal reserve history. the financial crisis and the ensuing great recession reminded

us of a lesson that we learn both in the 19th century and during the depression, but had forgotten to some extent, which is that severe financial a stability can do great damage to the broader economy. the application is that a central bank must take into account risk -- hot -- risk-to- financial stability if it is to achieve economic performance. today, the federal reserve sees we have made substantial institutional changes in recognition of these goals. in essence, we have come first's -- come full circle. how should a central bank enhance financial stability?

the central bank uses its powers to provide liquidity to ease market conditions during times of panic or incipient panic. the fed's many liquidity programs played a central role in 2008-2009. however, put out the fire is not enough. it is also important to foster a financial system that is sufficiently resilient to withstand arch financial shocks. , the federalend reserve, together with other regulatory agencies and the financial stability of her site council have actively engaged in working to strengthen the financial institutions and markets. the reliance on stronger regulation is itself informed by the success of the regulatory reforms, but current reform efforts to weaken further by working to identify and defuse risks, not only to individual firms, but to the financial system as a whole, an approach known as macro prudential regulation. is alsol stability

like monetary policy although these links are not yet fully understood during here, the feds evolving strategy is to to make regulation the first line of defense against systemic risk to the extent that risks remain, the fomc [indiscernible] what about the monetary policy framework? in general, it inherits many of the elements but in place during the great moderation. these features include the emphasis on preserving the and fishing credibility, which is critical for anchoring inflation expect haitians, and a balanced approach of pursuing both parts of the dual mandate in the medium-term. also continue to increase the transparency of monetary policy. for example, the committees to medications framework now includes a statement of its long-run goals and monetary policy strategy.

in that statement, the committee indicated that inflation at the rate of 2% as measured by the annual change in the price index and is most consistent over the longer run with the fomc's dual mandate. participants also provide estimates. they have a central tendency of 5.2% to 6.0% during by helping -- 6.0%. this transparency helps with the federal reserve greater for stability tears on two short run developments. this framework, which combines flex ability with the discipline provided by the announced targets has been described as constrained repression. innovations include early publications of the fomc meetings and quarterly post meeting conferences by the chairman. the framework for implementing

monetary policy has evolved further in recent years, deflecting both advances of economic thinking and change -- and changing monetary policy. , the fomcthe ideas has moved to framework that sets policy settings were directly to the policy outlook, the forecast approach. the fomc has more detailed statements following these meetings that have related the outlook for policy to prospective economic of elements and has introduced rigorous summaries of the individual economic projections of fomc participants, including for the target idle funds rate. the provision of additional information about policy plans has helped policymakers deal with the constraint imposed by the effective lower bound on interest rates, by offering guidance on how policy will respond to economic developers. the committee has been able to increase policy accommodations come even when the interest rate

is near zero percent. the committee has also sought to influence interest rates further out on the yield curve, notably through its securities are just as good other central banks and advanced economies also confronted with the effective lower bound and short of interest rates have taken similar measures. in short, the recent prices have underscored the need, both to strengthen our monetary policy and the financial stability framework sent to better integrate the two. we have made progress on both counts, but more needs to be done. in particular, the [indiscernible] and supervisory policies, including macro prudential policy, the lender of last resort all see and standard monetary policy are all increasingly evident durin. both research and experience are needed to help with copperheads of frameworks to include all of these elements. the broader conclusion is what my he described as the

overriding lesson of the federal reserve's history. the doctrine impact -- the doctrine and practice are never static. we will have to continue to work hard to adapt to events, new ideas, and to changes in economic and financial environment. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. let me remind the there are index cards available during we have already collected some from people if we have people walking through the aisles. if you want to submit a question, write the question and we will try to bring some of those up to ask what we can. chairman, you indicated your willingness to talk about current situation, as well as the 100-year history. i would like to start by asking you a little bit of the last ticks weeks.

[laughter] last month, you laid out a contingent plan for reducing the pace of asset purchases. a number of pundits have criticized the step, saying it was premature for you to discuss future contingencies at this point. with the benefit of hindsight at this point, would you do anything differently in that regard if you had that said to take again? >> think you for that question. [laughter] -- thank you for that question. [laughter] >> i think transparency in central banking is like truth telling in real life. you have to be consistent about it. we can't be opportunistic about it. recent developments in information we provided to the public about our thinking, i would ask you to consider the

counterfactual if we hadn't said anything. if we had said nothing and time had passed and the market perceptions had drifted away from our own thinking and our own expectations and policies. ,n addition, during that time again, in the counterfactual, were we do not provide any information, it is very likely that more highly livered risk- taking positions might build up reflecting against some assetation of an infinite purchase program. so i guess i would suggest that, not withstanding some volatility that we have seen in the last six weeks, that,

speaking now and explain what we are doing may have avoided a much more difficult situation at a later time. the financial markets reacted sharply to some domination to your remarks and the release of the minutes last month. the market seems to have interpreted the combination of those two pieces of information as hawkish news. would that be the right interpretation to put on those releases? [laughter] >> let me start with basics here. [laughter] the federal reserve, notwithstanding that not everybody likes it, i think is good and has a dual mandate. the dual mandate is to pursue maximum experiment -- maximum employment and financial stability. .6%,ve a implement of some whichever states the health of our labor markets given the the participation

rates and long-term unemployment. so we are not there, obviously. not the maximum employment part of the maiman -- of the mandate. both sides of- our mandate, both the employment side and the in flames -- and the inflation said say that we have to be more accommodative. cbo estimates the current federal fiscal policy is in theting 1.5% growth economy this year. you put that together and you can only conclude that highly accommodative monetary policy for the foreseeable future is what is needed in the u.s. economy. how does that relate to recent communications i think the issue has to do with not so much the overall

accommodation, but rather with a mix of instruments being used to provide that accommodation. the fed has two instruments that we have been using in the context of interest rates close to the [indiscernible] the first asset purchases we have thought about -- and i frequently described as -- in other words, we have said that we are trying to achieve a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market in the context of price stability. that, but we have further to go. again, that is the objective on the asset purchase, to provide momentum to get the economy moving forward more quickly. the second tool that we have is our short-term interest rate policy and, associated with that, the former guidance provided to the public about our expectations for when those rates might change.

in particular we said we would not raise the interest rates until at least unemployment hit 6.5% as long as inflation was well behaved. again, as i have said before, that 6.5% is a threshold, not a trigger. it will not be an automatic increase. it will be a time to think about the hit -- the history. understating the weakness of the i would suspect that it would be some time before we have rates reach a significant level. is overall message accommodation. there is some gradual perspective that is possible in the mix of instruments, but that should not be confused with the

overall thrust, highly accommodative. thean you comment a bit on fed outlook of the economy? >> i think we're somewhat optimistic some of the material is more optimistic than the private sector forecasters. i think a fair viewing of the economy would suggest that there are some positive features out there. positive elements. but there are also significant risks that we have to continue to pay attention to. only inositive side, the last year or so has it begun to turn around and show some strength, which has implications for construction and related industries.

automobiles are also strong, i take that as evidence that monetary policy is working as those are two of the main channels through which monetary policy affects the economy. a second positive factor is the state of the american household. debt and interest burdens are down, wealth is up with equity prices have increased, employment gains mean more and come with sentiment accordingly much higher. a think we have a somewhat stronger household sector going forward. onould just know, finally continuing to grow with jobs in the face of very strong fiscal

headwinds being somewhat encouraging. there were other factors as well including destruction at the state and local level. strong banking system providing more credit. things to make the outlook for positive. there are also some risks that are important for us as policy makers to look at. it is early to say used fiscalave restraint. so, we will continue to watch and see whether growth is brazilian going forward for the rest of the year. projections are that there will be a pick-up in growth and that depends on overcoming the remainder of the fiscal

headwinds. we are all very much committed to defending our inflation target from below and above. i note has been hard to explain to your uncle, i know. it increases the risks of which can cause the economy to stagnate. the evidence is that it can be bad for an economy. keep it close to 2%, we think that there are transitory platforms at work. fundamentally the case in some senses, but if it is not the

thati think we have to say that would be a good reason to remain accommodative and tried to achieve that objective. in terms of risks we have seen tightening of financial if, as i have said in my press conference and other places, financial conditions were too tight to the extent -- tightened to the extent that it jeopardized objectives, we would have to push back. there are some risks we have to pay attention to, but it is also a case that there are some positive factors that with some luck will generate half continued improvement in labor market conditions. >> a question the comes back to the shore around communication

and messaging. the number of new communication tools, are they permanent or is there an element of these strategies that are extraordinary policy that reflects the extraordinary times we are in? >> most of the things we have done will likely be permanent. these things could certainly happen. think that the definition of price stability and policy strategy, i am hopeful that that will be a long lasting innovation. the communications specifically related are

we have tried to help the markets and the public understand when we expect policy to begin to change. as was the case prior to the crisis, the markets can look at the behavior and essentially extrapolate that behavior to understand what the fed is likely to do as the economy evolves. that being said, there may be circumstances where this kind of guidance is helpful and i just note that we're seeing -- the federal reserve, by the way, was first to experiment with

these types as well. i suspect we will see its use in some context. i do not think it is necessarily some part of the federal reserve policy, precisely because we will be moving away from it. it will be a more normal monetary environment. >> you talk about lender of last resort monetary policy and if you look around the globe, regulatory policies are in some that done by organizations are not the central bank. can you see instances where it helps to have the macro part in

the organization? lessfferent countries have -- different kinds of financial structures in many ways. as you look around the world, the trend is for financial and regulatory activity with toancial oversight activity move back to central banks. happening in the mad states. reason is that central banks tend to have the kinds of expertise in the financial markets and give them a comparative advantage in addressing these issues. fact that the central bank is the lender of last resort. and then there is supervision

within the firm's. generally there is the macro prevention innovation with much more attention being paid to the broader system as opposed to the stability of individual institutions alone to do both. of course we pay attention to individual institutions but we also tried to think of the stability of the financial system as a whole. i think the central bank is uniquely equipped to have that howon and to think about that stability relates to its other functions as mentioned in lender of last resort monetary policy. these can be worked out in the united states. we have good insight into the

largest common most systemic firms. we should -- we share supervisory authority with other agencies and we work collaborative be with them in comparative advantages against other parts of the system assigned. years ago youf referred to a savings glut. today many people think there are a shortage of state assets and the economy. is that something the fed should or can do anything about? thatwould like to mention there were a number of speakers today to talk about going back to reinhardt and its role in precipitated a crisis. this is one of my teams before the crisis, that we were seeing

related to our trade deficit and the international demand for dollar reserves, in fact it is stabilizing factor and in any case making financial decisions would than they otherwise have been. more recently co-oping the federal reserve looking at the u.s. relationship, even though there was a much more balanced trade. again, it was a demand for state assets, if you will. anch at the time was seen as insufficiency of state assets on wall street, trying to construct state assets through securitization. we know that did no work out so well.

are somehat there issues with a assets. besides collateral we have potentially increase liquidity requirements and margin with supply of safe assets in other parts of the world. something we have discussed of the federal reserve. i would say, however, that i do not think that our asset purchase programs are having a significant effect. , whenason is very simple we buy assets -- ours is a pretty small share of the vocal amount, when we buy those assets we pay for them with bank reserves, another said asset

seeking more liquid. areou not think there significant -- significantly affecting them, but when we look at margins and liquidity policy. >> let me ask about the design of great of policies over the last few years. the fed has navigated a minefield of the edge of traditional fed policy, sometimes generating questions about fed independence. it is a topic that many of the audience members study and work on. where do things the greatest threat to central bank independence comes from? members are working on. where do you think the greatest threat to central bank independence comes from? is it from the innovative policies on the macro prudential side and the dealing of

financial institutions or aggregate financial sector or innovative policies on what i call the monetary policy side dealing with the stimulus-type role. >> that is a political question and i'm not sure i can do it justice. let me just say a preliminary thing, i don't think the central bank should be equally independent in all of its functions. there are good reasons to have independence in monetary policy making subject to a mandate or subject to objectives set by the democratic parliament or legislature and we understand those reasons having to do with avoiding short-run political intervention in monetary policy

and the like. but in many of its other activities, for example, as a bank regulator, while we believe bank regulators should be independent to make their own judgments about the quality of banks, i don't think it can be independent than the o.c.c. it's another aspect of our activities. in our provision of payment services, there probably is no real case for independence and entirely appropriate for the congress to ask questions about what we are charging for those services and how we are providing for them and so on. it depends very much on the aspect of particular activity that the central bank is involved in. so independence is a subtle concept. what it means various -- varies according to the particular function. again, if we are worried about independence, the place where all central banks were independent is mostly on the

monetary policy side and there the best we can do is to do our very best to meet the mandate that congress has given us. if we don't meet that mandate, then they would have -- or if we don't meet and can't show why we didn't meet it, they would have a reasonable basis to ask why. so i think in the long run, the best thing we can do to maintain monetary policy independence is to show we will take all reasonable measures to meet the objectives that the congress has set for us and of course that's what we intend to do. >> shifting from the domestic pressures to the international pressures, some have argued that in the last few years, the policies of the fed and those of the european central bank have risked a currency war of sorts. do you view that as an inspropet argument that is simply wrong or some validity to the worry but simply was a cost

that had to be borne as a cost of other objectives that the fed trying to achieve. >> i gave some remarks on this at a london event for mere vin king's retirement and appropriate for today's discussion, i used a historical example. i made the distinction, during the 1930's, during the great depression, as countries left the gold standard, their currencies temporarily depreciated relative to other countries and they had a temporary trade advantage because of that. but over time as all the countries left the gold standard, exchange rates normalized and went back to where they started from, but the whole world wasn't left much better off because there was a monetary expansion that was desperately needed at that time in the 1930's. that was a positive sum game. it was a situation in which

everybody gains, because the benefits in that particular context, the benefits of growth enhancing domestic policies spills over into other economies. i contrasted that with the smooth-ha wmp ley tariff because what was going on there each country was trying to divert trade in its own favor at the expense of its trading partners and as that activity continued and reprisals and payback continued, actually it destroyed the global trade pattern and was very costly to everybody. what has this got to do with your question, i'm sure you're wondering -- \[laughter] >> it's one thing to use trade or other kivendse of interventions to -- kinds of interventions to divert your

currency or otherwise divert exports to your own producers at the expense of other countries. froms a different thing the situation where countries are using monetary policy appropriately to achieve domestic growth, domestic inflation and growth spills over and helps the economies of other countries as well. i think that's very much the difference, that the exchange rate effects and the currency effects are secondary. what is important is that each country provide the necessary monetary accommodation or fiscal accommodation to achieve its potential output.

and this, i should say this view is not just my own, but a view that has been adopted by the g-7 and g-20 as a reasonable way of thinking about policy in different countries. so in doing monetary policy in the united states, again, we very much consistent with that g-20 perspective and i would close this answer saying, if you look at the dollar, it's not exactly falling recently. it seems to be doing ok. i don't think we are trying to divert exports away from anybody else. what we are trying to do is achieve domestic growth using the tools that we have. >> the next question is going to take you back to the historical perspective of your

talk. it has two components to it. the first is over the first 100 years of the federal reserve, do you believe the fed has given too little weight to regulation and financial stability relative to other objectives and in looking at the lessons over this period, are there -- there tends to be a focus on issues associated with the great depression in looking at the early years of the fed. other think there are important years of the fed that can convey important lessons about thinking of current policy? >> on the financial stability, the fed was founded as i mentioned and fed was founded for the purpose of preserving financial stability.

it had some success early on. and then, of course, the great depression came and for various reasons, stigma was mentioned earlier, but i think there were other reasons as well, lacking aggressive financial policy on the part of the federal reserve, the feth didn't meet its mandate during the 1930's. now a less attention to financial stability during the period from 1934 until 1980 or so would be understandable because -- because of structural commanges and regulatory changes. that was a calm period in u.s. financial markets, and as a result, the attention to financial stability became less over time. as chairman volcker reminded us earlier, it's not just recently that we have seen financial stability issues, the mexican debt crisis, latin american debt crisis, the crises of the 1990's, the wall street market

crash and other events should have reminded us and did remind us that financial instability remains a concern, remains a problem, what we lack or didn't happen, fortunately, of course, between 1934 and 2007, there was no financial collapse of a a magnitude that had serious negative implications for the u.s. economy. now that we have seen that and as i mentioned in my remarks that i think is a very important lesson and the federal reserve and other central banks have accordingly elevated financial stability and increased the resources we put into helping preserve financial stability and greatly increased the emphasis we put on that particular objective. so i think there was a long period where the fed didn't pay much attention to it but it was an accident related to the fact that we had a calm, global

financial environment for a time. we now know that financial stability is important even in advanced industrial countries like the united states and i expect we won't forget that lesson. >> this is another question, the passage of the federal reserve act in 1912 was a substantial political achievement. given the political tone in washington, if the federal reserve act had to be enacted, how do you think it would differ from the existing legislation, and could it be passed? >> there would be more than one federal reserve bank in the western united states. that's my answer. \[laughter] >> on that note, my last question is a legacy question. at some point and i'm not going to ask you when you think this might be, your time as chair of the federal reserve will conclude. i happen to know and some people already know that you have a legacy that i believe no other federal reserve chairman has, which is there is an interchange on i-95 in dillon,

south carolina that is named bernanke interchange. but all seriously, as you think the legacy that you will have as a chairman of the fed, what would you hope the high points of that would be and where would you like people focusing on the contributions? >> that's going to be for others to determine. i guess what i would hope to be able to say is several things. first, i came into the federal reserve as a governor. 11 years ago. quite a long time. with a lot of interest in communication and transparency. and i think in the last 11 or eight years, however

you want to count, the federal reserve has made significant strides in that area, including, for example, as i mentioned, the press conference to stating of a numerical objective for term communication and other innovations as well and that has changesed over the last decade. for better or worse, i was at the fed during the crisis and the aftermath. we have the future again will judge the response to that, but what is certainly true is the federal reserve as an institution has changes changed in terms of the structure and financial stability questions. and i would say that this relates both to the actions we took at the height of the crisis, which i viewed as bringing wisdom back into the modern context, but also the work we're doing now to try to reduce the risk that another financial crisis will hit some

day. that includes our monitoring, our oversight of important firms, our stress tests, which i think is an important development in financial regulation and more generally our macro prudential approach to financial stability which means we not only look to individual firms, but we try to identify risks and vulnerabilities to the financial system more broadly. in monetary policy, we confronted the zero lower bound and people will have to judge whether we confronted it successfully and we have, in fact, changed to some extent our approach to one that is more tied to the forecast and tries to lay out in more detail how monetary policy will react over time to changing economic conditions. there are some changes in monetary policy. but finally, i think federal

reserve is a remarkable institution. it has a great staff >> we are going to leave this now since the house is coming back in.

>> the federal reserve is a central institution in the united states and has an important role in the economy and in the lives of ordinary americans and it is critical that it be a strong, well- managed, well-staffed institution. these internal management issues that i think are fairly invisible to outsiders are important, there are the factors that determine how strong a physician will be over the next 100 years. >> thank you for joining us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> tomorrow over on c-span 2 we will bring you live destruction -- live discussions of the dodd frank law. they talk about implementing the law signed by president obama three years ago, live with 8:30 p.m. eastern. jeffrey feldman, head of the diplomatic arm, speaks of the brookings institution about the syrian civil war and other international conflicts. >> on monday the senate will meet behind closed doors to discuss possible changes to filibuster rules.

said the republicans are using the filibuster to block many of the president's nominees. both of them appeared on "meet the press" to talk about the issue. what we're doing is minimal, we are saying look, should president obama have someone working for him? pending, they have been waiting an average of nine months. we are one to make a simple change and say it in the future, like it -- constitutionality. look atant to nomination, it is a simple majority.

has had 5040ent nominations confirmed and only four defeated. he has not lost a some critics and a member of the cabinet. faster than president bush. most of these aren't to be confirmed. there are three components that the federal court taught us. we are one to talk about it at a joint session of senators and we need to start talking to each other instead of at each other. senators berkeley and sessions spoke about the proposed changes to the filibuster on the senate floor. this is about 40 minutes.

the second phrase was repeatedly to say to the majority leader that you have broken your word. those are very powerful words. powerful words. my mother always told me that when they say things like babbitt it is because they're at a loss for a real argument. these raises disturbing because they are also at odds

with what this conversation is really about. we are here in the midst of a constitutional crisis. was set up with a balance of powers between three co-equal branches. never in their wildest dreams did the crafters of our constitution and vision that a -- a minority of the senate would undermine the functioning of the other two branches. iny were very deliver it their determination that they're not be such a possibility, laying out the clarity. when clay -- when it came to the other branches having defacto simple majority standards in the constitution, they were in exactly the same place.

you can compare them, one to the other. talked about this with the continental congress. supermajority cause all sorts of difficulties. i thought i would remind us a little bit about the framework they laid out in the constitution. alexander hamilton said it would lead to tedious to lays, continuous negotiations, and contemptible compromises of the good. why alexander hamilton felt so strongly that should be a simple majority standard, he was not a loan. -- alone. he had madison, who wrote the

principle of free government would be reversed if a supermajority is a functioning system. we have simple majority votes and checks against ill advised nominations by the executive branch. that has been the tradition throughout our nation's history. simple majority votes interspersed by very occasional blockades put up by exercising the will to filibuster. very rare use of that, until the last few years. indeed, a few years ago, our republican colleagues were in charge. they were upset by a small number of filibusters by the democrats. they came to this floor and said that is not acceptable and

thisreminded us of constitutional framework and they asked for a deal. the deal they asked for was, they would not change the rules and democrats would not filibuster the nominations. and yet, we do not see -- the deal was struck. but now, the tide has turned. the parties are reversed and suttee -- suddenly the deal is not holding because we see filibuster after filibuster after filibuster obstruction the ability to enable this -- the executive branch with the president reelected by the citizens of the united states, and vacancies in the judicial branch with judicial emergencies. the largest number of executive branch employments piled up, and yet, my colleagues on the other

side here are saying, the senate is functioning just fine. about 80% of the american people think the senate is functioning fine. you have to recognize, they are just not paying attention. this is not the senate i knew as a young man coming here as an intern sitting up at the staff gallery, coming down to brief him on the amendments debate before each vote. at that time, we had simple up and down votes, with the rare exception. if we turn the clock back to lyndon b. johnson, as majority leader, on this floor right here, only once in six years did he need to file a petition in order to close debate. that was not just on executive nomination. judicial nominations, and legislation. once in six years.

senator reed, as majority leader, in his first six years, had filed 391 petitions. this petition process is it -- is designed to take a long time, because it was envisioned it would be used so rarely. here we are with a minority of the senate doing deep damage to the executive branch and deep damage to the judiciary by the abuse of the filibuster, creating an imbalance or creating on equal branches of government completely out of sync with the constitutional vision. are we, as members of this body who have a responsibility, have taken a pledge, going to allow for this deep abuse of the constitutional vision of equal branches? i do not think anyone who takes their pledge can come to this floor and argue that a small group of the senate should be able to do

deep damage to the other branches. the republican leader noted, he said, the strategy here is to break the rules in order to change the rules. i thought it would just remind him that i believe he came here in 1985, that in that time. , many times, the senate has changed the rules, using a simple majority to change the application of the rule. we did it in september -- december 11, 1985. 1986, twice in 1987. once in 95. twice in 1996. in 1999, in the year 2000, in the year 2000 and 11, that is 10 times in the time the republican leader has been a member of the senate. he described this as a nuclear option. under his reasoning, there have been 10 nuclear option bombs

exploding in the chamber, in the time he served here. and yet, i did not hear that in the presentation he put forward. now, it might interest the republican leaders to recall that, where under the standard of the simple majority, the purpose -- the application of a rule had changed, occurred in the time he had served seven republican leadership. it occurred three times under democratic leadership. seven times under republican leadership, the action we are discussing here of reorienting the application of the rule in order to make the senate work better, three times under democratic leadership.

all of these during the time served in the chamber. i come to the floor and talk about breaking the rules in order to change the rules, the republican leader would have to go back and talk about those 10 times and explain how somehow, it does not qualify to the same standard. i think it is important to get away from the over inflation of the rhetoric put forward here. a second piece that bothered me in this debate was to say the majority leader broke his word. i think everyone understands there are two parties to a deal and they need to uphold their half. so, i would remind folks here about what republican leaders have the deal was. i put it as a january pledge. this is the pledge made by the republican leader on the floor of this chamber. he said senate republicans will continue to work with the majority to process nominations consistent with the norms and traditions of the senate.

what are those norms and traditions? those are the nominations are able to be voted on in a modest amount of time with up-and-down votes. doubtshould have any about what the republican leader meant, we can go to a republican policy document from 2005. here, we have the last major debate over the abuse of the filibuster. republican what the policy argument said. normsreakdown in senate is profound. senates now a risk the is creating a new 60 vote confirmation standard. the constitution plainly requires no more than a majority vote to confirm any executive nomination, but some

senators have shown they are determined to override this constitutional standard. so, i will stop quoting for a minute and note, a very cleared the litany asian of a constitutional standard during the time the republican leader was here in this chamber, 2005, not so many years ago. the document goes on to say, if the senate does not act to restore the constitution's simple majority standard, it could be plausibly argued a precedent has been set in a 50 vote threshold for nominations. the document goes on to talk about the role in the constitution of consent. one way the senators can restore the traditional understanding of that is to employ the constitutional option

and exercise the senate power of constitution to define the senate practices and procedures. exercising the constitutional option in response to judicial filibusters would restore the senate to its long-standing norms and practices. if we want to know what norms and traditions meant on this pledge in january, it is all laid out there in extensive detail in the republican policy document and in the history of united states. a modest amount of time to have a vote after a nomination comes out of committee with a simple up or down vote with rare exception. that is not what we have had. i would ask the republican leader to have a discussion about our constitutional role, much like the debate the republicans led in 2005. otherwise, we are just passing aspersions.

wonder,zens looking in what happened to the great deliberative institution, the senate. this standard of processing a nominations according to the norms and traditions of the senate did not materialize after january. within days, there was the first ever in the u.s. history filibuster of a nominee for defense secretary. ironically that nominee was a former republican senator, chuck hagel. within a short time after that, we had a letter from 44 senators saying they would not allow a vote on any nominee for the consumer financial protection bureau. any nominee? that is the advice and consent role that calls for a simple up-and-down? they will use a filibuster to oppose any nominee regardless? that is using the filibuster in a whole new way, to basically say, we

do not have the votes to undo the financial protection bureau, which, by the way, is charged with stopping predatory practices that undermine the success of families, but, indeed, instead of trying to get rid of this institution that protects families, and i am not sure where family values fit in there, we are instead going to prevent anyone from exercising leadership and being in the directors chair. i will conclude with this. my colleague is waiting to speak. let's recognize the deal laid out in january did not work. it did not work. it does not make sense to keep saying, who did not make it work echo certainly, from my perspective, on this side of aisle, this issue of continuing to work, to processing nominations, did not work.

my republican colleagues have a different concept of how it did not work. at the heart, as they a knowledge in 2005, there is a constitutional vision for the use of advice and consent and that constitutional vision is in deep trouble. it is not permission for one coequal branch to undermine the other two branches. that is why members of this body need to have a debate. it is why we need to wrestle with restoring the role of this senate, the proper role in the nomination process. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor to my colleague. >> senator from alabama?

thee are at a time in senate and i hate to see it happen. this is a robust body. we defend on the interest of our constituents and try to advocate for the values we share. it is a contentious place. we usually work our way through this. i would just say, there is no reason we should be at this point today. i do believe the majority leader has been abusing the powers of his office. i remain dreadfully concerned and firmly believe this consistent practice of using the tactic of filling the tree to keep members of the senate from having a vote is an abuse, maybe even large in the issue we dealing with today.

it is larger. we have been debating the question of student loans, interest rates going up, and how to fix them. they are two different bills. two different ideas. one the majority leader's supports. he brought it up and he wants to vote on it. and he does not want to vote on anything else. what a number of senators on this side, with democratic senators who agreed, in a bipartisan way, have come up with a better bill, i think it is better and we want to vote on it. he has filled a tree, and in

the united states senate, on an important issue, and on an extremely well thought out all alternative plan that could make the loan issues be fixed, the majority leader says, you do not get a vote. this is a change in the history of the senate and it goes on every day. and senators have to plead with the majority leader to get a vote on an amendment. this is not the way the senate should be and that is a really big deal. it goes on every day. it is time to stop it. now, we have this idea that nominations have to be moved through at the pace a majority leader would like them to be. many of these are very controversial, for very significant reasons. in my opinion, the president's nominations in his second term have been less capable than his first, they are not -- many of them have serious weaknesses that need to be examined. many of them should never be

approved. i am just talking about one now about to come to the floor. we ought to debate that. the constitution provides if the senate should advise and consent. that is the question we are dealing with in many ways here. but, look, we fight over that. and we come down to the big issue. this is the issue. in essence, to change the rules of the senate, it takes a two thirds, 67 votes of the senate to change the rules of the senate. ist the majority leader proposing to do, that because of a fight over maybe three nominations that were illegally appointed as determined by the court of appeals by the district of columbia, they were

illegally appointed. the president wants to continue to have them served. senator mcconnell opposes it, and many others on this side opposed it and do not think they should be confirmed. what the majority leader is proposing to do is to say, in essence, you cannot block a vote on those nominations and require 60 votes, and it only has to be 51. he will propose that. in essence. what will happen, the parliamentarian of the united states senate will rue that senator mcconnell is correct the nomination is not prepared to be voted on, because 60 votes were not obtained. the majority leader loses. then what does he intend to do? he intends to look to the chair

and say, i appealed the ruling of the chair and expect all of his members to line up behind him, presumably, and vote to overrule the rules of the senate. overrule the end of parliamentarian of the united states senate. that is what he is talking about doing. when senator mcconnell says he wants to break the rules, to change the rules, that is exactly what he means. that is exactly what we are talking about. >> question. >> let me just finish my thought. that, colleagues, is the dangerous thing. stability in the senate requires us not to willy-nilly every time we have a tempest in a teapot, as these three

nominations are, every time we have that kind of thing, that we up and change the rules. there will be times, no doubt, when things will get so intense, over big, big issues, that actions get taken. whetherwould record they are wise or not wise, but, colleagues, we do not need to be changing the rules of the senate every time it becomes inconvenient for the majority leader. he has already done this once. he changed the rules of the senate when the senator was making a motion to get a vote when he was denied the right to have a vote, majority leader still the tree, would not allow a vote. he used a technique to forward a vote element to that issue,

and the majority leader got tired of it and he appealed it. he asked his colleagues to join him and -- in overruling the chair, changing the rules of the senate. they backed him on that and that was done. they backed him on that. that was done. this gets to be a habit around here. our site is not happy with the power from the top, from the majority leader, and how it is impacting everyday life in the senate. we are not going to go quietly on this one. it is a big deal. i am pleased that at least we will have some conference monday in which "the issue, openly amongst ourselves, and see if we can't avoid what could be a serious constitutional crisis. i believe we need to cool our heads down a bit, and

understanding nature of the senate is the majority does not get everything it wants. i was here, i member how the judges situation develop. this is what happened. judges have not been filibustered. there have been a few attempts or efforts added to delay votes in that kind of thing. people were held up. notematic filibusters were at all part of the tradition of the senate. after president bush was elected in 2000, the democrats went to conference in a retreat somewhere. and there, three liberal lawyers and professors came out of the retreat and announce we are changing the ground rules of confirmation. out of the first nominees

president bush nominated, they filibustered. highly qualified nominees prayed nominees. no basis to oppose them on merit. it went on for two yearsor more. others were being blocked. as result, leader frist threatened this kind of event. at the end, cooler heads prevailed. a compromise was reached prayed what happened was we said the agreement was we would not filibuster federal judges unless extraordinary circumstances existed. normally, we would give an up or down vote to federal judges. that was the way that was settled. with regard to the nominations

we are looking at now, these three uniquely appointed nominees were extraordinary circumstances. we sit in -- we should not sit here and go quietly when the president of the united states without any legal basis makes a recess appointment to avoid the confirmation process and outlines when we object to the poll being confirmed after the court was being held the legal. after they were rolled they were illegally appointed, they continue to sit and continue to vote. they should not have done that. they should've follow the court's order, even if they previously thought they were legally appointed. which they weren't, clearly from the beginning. it was never close to being a legitimate recess appointment. i mourn about this. hopefully, cooler heads will

come together and work this out. with regard to the traditional norms of the senate, since i've been in the senate, you do not move a nomination until you get questions answered relative and to their plummet. there are a lot of bases for that. what was the breaking word question was, this was raised the beginning of the year. this was discussed. an agreement was reached. as part of the agreement, senator reid said he would muse and nuclear option if the republicans agreed to certain things. an agreement was agreed. others ran on the agreement. senator merkley openly said the

agreement didn't work. there's an agreement out there. it was agreed to. senator reid is now changing that agreement, changing the commitment he made in exchange for getting concessions from the side. this is not the breaking of a word. this was negotiating agreement of great intensity. several senators were involved. the essence of it was concessions were made by the republican side and the democratic leader except those concessions and said he would not use the nuclear option. now he is threatening to use the nuclear option. look at this nomination. both could happen before today. they determined to move it

through. this is a highly important agency. mr. jones, he as the united states attorney. i was a notices attorney for 12 years. your closest agency you deal with is the fbi. you have to deal with them on a regular basis. they know how well you do your job rating know whether or not you are functioning well. there is a good relationship normally. you try not to be critical of one another. this is what mr. oswald, a former special agent in charge of the fbi wrote about mr. jones. as retired fbi senior executive, i'm one of the few voices able to publicly express our complete discontent with mr. jones.

mr. jones is ineffective, and his poor service or vita to federal law enforcement communities without their of retaliation a rich accretion from them. he is no longer in office. he does not have any fear. he was on to say -- he goes onto to say he felt morally compelled to make the committee, the judiciary committee, aware of his atrocious professional reputation within the federal law enforcement community in minnesota's twin cities area this the guy they want to promote to head the alcohol tobacco and firearms. his lack of concern about matters and issues brought to his attention by each of us,

each of us means the other federal agencies, like the drug enforcement administration, the secret service, or the irs. our common dissatisfaction with mr. jones is poor leadership, and insufficient prosecution support. it was the theme of many discussions during my tenure. he is consistently reacted defensively and often spoke to us to strip back fully and occasionally with disdain. then he won on to note that after he became united states attorney in minnesota, they prosecuted significantly less cases of every type, 40% fewer defendants were charged in 2012. he was a prosecuting the cases. the federal agencies were up in arms about it.

this retired as ac tells the truth. i think you should be listened to. president obama is determined to make him the head of the atf, involving leadership of weapons charges all over america. we are the have had the fast and furious candle. shouldn't the senate as questions about this? they are rushing it through committee. they're trying to do it right now. move him on. get him confirmed. if anybody stands in the way, tough luck. majority leader is quick to drive it through. he gets to decide who gets confirmed around here. he gets to decide the rules of the senate. in the last part of president bush's term, when they blocked john bolton to be ambassador to

the united nations. he was absolutely blocked by full filibuster. by the democratic senate. i just, the rules were not change then. the rules are not going to be changed now. we have a conference coming up. let's see if we can't work through it. let's see if we can't work in a way that restores the senate. the senate is that thing that is supposed to provide a cooling opportunity to slow down rush to judgment. she would be compelled to confirm three members to lower official appointments in the federal government who are illegally appointed and continue to serve in the offices after they were so found? i do not think so. i do not think that dispute is such that would lead the

majority leader to break the rules of the senate, to override the plane rules of the senate through a procedure not proper and dangerous. there are other things that could go wrong at this goes forward. it is my impression from talking to my colleagues that there are deep feelings about it. people have had enough is -- another of this. there have been abuses here about how we conduct our business. we are not going to keep accepting that. when you accept that, the loyal opposition is eroding over a period of time to exercise the little powers it has. the senate is we can. the senate's role as the body

that slows down problems, the stanza to atf nominations, that stands up to illegally appointed judges. we do not need to does that. another is a lot of feeling here. i see my colleagues have been through these for a long time. they been seeing these disputes. i've seen a few myself in my 16 years. what i would just say is, this situation does not justify the nuclear option. it does not. it is a dangerous thing. it can be addictive to the majority leader. that is what the issue is about. i asked my democratic colleagues

to slow down. ybthis conference monday will help us reach an accord and avoid very dangerous events for the history of united states senate. >> with my colleague yield to a question? >> i would yield 20 question. >> thank you. i have in front of me the list of the number of times that the application of a rule was changed from the precedent. it was done each time under a sippel majority structure. it was done 10 times since 1985. i point out earlier that seven of these times this was done under republican leadership.

seven times republicans came to the floor and said we are going to change the application of a rule under redirection of the precedent. i just wanted to ask if you're familiar with that. the way you were speaking, it sounded as if this conversation is about something that had never been done. >> first, i would say it is a dangerous trend. it can be addictive, and it can undermine the nature of the united states senate. i didn't say it had never happened. to my knowledge, i would like for the senator to list for me the number of times since 1985 the majority leader has gone before the parliamentarian and

the presiding officer and actually altered the rules by vote of the senate overruling the chair. >> i'm having to do that. i had a list of front of me. in 1985, december 11, the conference on everything that is relevant. the ruling of the chair was reversed. >> what is the vote on that? the one i recall is the one over the federal judges. at the end, cooler heads prevailed, and a compromise was reached. some of these could be technical rulings of the chair that are not that significant.

i meant to seeing what others you might mention. >> certainly. i'm interested in if there is an actual vote in the body of the senate. >> i can assure my colleagues that each and every one of these involved in actual vote. each and every one of these locations did reverse the previous precedent. it happens in two fashions. >> would you offer that for the record? >> absolutely. >> i would like to look at it and see where we are. >> i will get you a personal copy. >> i appreciate the senators sharing that. we will study those. it is absolutely a practice that can occur, but it is a dangerous

the sin is a place of a certain amount of collegiality. a certain amount of good judgment in understanding and respect for the body. sometimes, you can carry out a procedure that may be dubious or in the round of accessible procedures. symptoms you can feel and understand that that is a dangerous alteration on the precedent of the senate. that is what i'm afraid of. >> after debating on the senate floor, they spoke to reporters about rules regarding the filibuster. this is about 20 minutes. >> ok.

we had a good caucus. a couple of people do not like changing the rules. we have the votes to move forward on this. our position is very clear. we want to break gridlock and make washington work for merrick, especially the middle class. we want to get things done and respond to the challenges faced by america, and the middle class. the first step is to stop blocking the president's nominees. all you had to do was be on the floor today and see the case for us. those nominees took months, and months through tactics before we had a vote on somebody they

agreed with. three of the people that are my favorites on cloture on this, they do not like that law. they are not going to let him have his job. they say they will work out a compromise. what we will do is rely just lay that issue. but we will do is set up so we can be a funding agency. these people are tainted. there is not a single word in any record of any place that opposes any of the three nominees. not a single word. my friend senator mcconnell says this is all big labor?

six percent of the private sector is represented by organized labor. you think that organized labor should care a little bit about having a secretary of labor, having someone who works at the casa politan -- causal politan hotel in las vegas, you think those janitors should have someone to represent them when they fire them, or there is a labor dispute? we are not interested in cutting a deal. the president deserves to have his team in place. there are no more objections to any of these nominees.

all we need is six in the vote cloture. let them vote against these people. why should they hold them up procedurally? this is about having a presence. having a team in place. in 3.5 years, it may be president clinton, president biden, resident bush. should they be will to have the team they want? that is all this is about. this is about making washington work even without the -- you can search, but walked on that tall. mitch mcconnell think the status quo is terrific. it concentrates and in this chamber has gone on long enough. the question has been asked,

let's get together for a joint caucus. fine. i have no problem with that. we tried that. i'm happy to do that. we are having a joint caucus with senator mccain talked about his experiences in vietnam. i am happy to do the joint caucus. the republicans in the senate have refused to acknowledge the obvious. twice, the american people have elected barack obama president. it is been their decision to let him lead america. he has asked for the team to lead this country breather and denial of his victory and his mandate. time and again, they tell him on the most critically important agencies they point to stop him

from leading this nation by stopping him from having the people he needs on his team in place. richard cordray has been waiting for two years. for public us to get them this opportunity. while the not do it? is there an allegation of incompetence, or corruption? not at all. they do not like the agency. the consumer financial reduction agency. they refused to give them a chance to serve. that is their policy. they would rather see it disappear. the president was forced to reassess an appointment. have a race and the questions about competency or corruption within? not a wine. there are no questions about her competency. they are trying to stop the president from leading the nation.

the gridlock asked to to an end. -- the gridlock has to come to an end. the norm says filibusters, 30 votes on the floor, people looking very closely at their television screens on c-span to see if there's any evidence of life life on the floor the united states senate. that is the norm in this institution. it is unacceptable. the american people expect us to step up and solve problems. they expect us to do without gridlock. this is the only we can move this forward. the numbers speak for themselves. since 1949-2008, there were 20 filibusters of executive appointments. 59 years, 20 filibusters.

under president obama, in the last five years, there've been 16. it has become the norm. filibustering. as senator reed has said, the end of the day, they end up giving them overwhelming votes. delay it, wait, stop. the american people do not want to stall. he won us to act. one is to solve the problems of the country on a bipartisan basis. we have got to break this jam. >> i want to thank my colleagues. the majority leader has just announced he's moving forward with a group of nominees to give the president bikini deserves to five for the middle class. just about everyone in america believe that once you elect a president, he deserves his choices to run the executive branch.

a new tactic has been introduced to try to paralyze the executive branch with a paralyzed the legislative branches is pretty denial of the government to function. they have chosen to agencies they particularly dislike. those are the the nub of the problem. the nominees are more than qualified. actually, there was bipartisan agreement on that point. you would have to be hard- pressed to find a republican to call these nominees unqualified. why not let them through? they are blocking these nominees because our colleagues want to

paralyze these agencies. they just do not want them to function no matter who runs them. they hate these agencies more than they hate others. they do not like the agencies. they do not like with the agencies do. they block the nominees who will lead them. they say these people were illegally appointed reply to the president have to do recess appointments? if they went out loud a vote, we would not have recess appointment. as soon as the president submitted nominees in 2011, republicans responded they block every single nominee to that board no matter who it was. the board didn't have a quorum. he could not function. it is sort of like, alice in wonderland. they say they're going to block the nominees. and they say they were illegally appointed. we cannot let these nominees go

for. the president was forced to reset the points of sharon block because they so strongly object to the republicans existence. we know the story on the cftb. they refer to it, they wouldn't have the agency at all. they have refused to allow a vote on richard cordray, and let us know that they would not have allowed a vote on elizabeth lauren -- warren. because they want the consumer financial protection board to disappear. they're willing to allow a vote now only after they've taken all the teeth out of his agency.

that is like saying to a baseball player we will let you step up to the plate, but you cannot have a bat. don't hit the ball. republicans do not have a single ax to grind with these nominees. it is similar with the atf agencies. their tactic is simply to not allow the agency to have a leader. a because they do not like the leader. because they do not want the agency to exist. it exists in law, and this is the tactic they have used. they do not have a single ax to grind with our nominees. they will not let them through

because they object to the existence of the agencies and the board they lead, even though they have been created by law. when it comes to criticizing the personal traits and qualifications of individuals the president has put forward, all you hear is crickets. it is galling. these positions are going unfilled because simply they do not like the agency, and do not want it function. that is not right. that is not fair. we have obligation to stop it or it will only get worse. >> i think it is amazing that republicans who love to go on and on about streamlining government and about red tape are behind this unprecedented failure in making congress were for the people that elect them. it is a complete failure. just listen to the numbers that senator durbin just talked about. with a nominees waiting on average for over two years -- 250 days. we have hundred 84 nominees that are pending have questionnaires. talk about government inefficiency.

absolutely no business would tolerate this. republicans ought to know that. neither should we. the president deserves to have a qualified team. he needs his whole team, not half of it. that is not how this works. elections have consequences. presidents, republican or democrat, deserve to put in place a full team to work for the american people. we need to in this gridlock and become more responsive to the major problems that we face. at the end of the day, this isn't about and inside baseball argument that only affects the people in this town. this is about serving the american people. we are not doing that when we allow the republicans free range to block people whose job it is to protect our shrinking middle class and hazardous workplace

conditions or unfair wages, or disappearing benefits, or his job it is to protect americans that are struggling financially from falling victim to unfair mortgage schemes, or deceptive lending practices, or to ask the person who is charged with protecting our air and our water and our environment to sit on the sidelines even the she has the qualifications and experience to begin serving today. this is out of hand. our patience has run thin. we're going to fight to ensure the american people have a government. >> what would happen if republicans agreed to approve these nominees? >> hallelujah. >> what is the next up? wax i'm going to go to the floor and tuesday and do what i need to do so this is not happen

anymore. [inaudible] the issue is this. if you go back and look at the statements made by my republican colleagues, he was in favor. we were able to get over that. we worked our way through that. there were people who are reasonable who for. we do not have that same reasonable ideology among republicans. you would think they could come up with people to invoke cloture on this. they do not exist anymore. this is -- as we have learned, the republican leader was hosting out there about getting

things done that we used to automatically. for two successive congresses, i have told that to my caucus. the vast majority of my democratic caucus wanted to move forward and change the rules. he said it would call it the norms of the senate. the places that weren't. when it is too bad, and the american people know this dysfunction we have here, all we are asking is to what the president have his team prepare not talking about changing the filibuster rules that relates to nominees. we are saying we shouldn't be held up. we have 15 nominees who've been held up for an average of nine months.

as is placed it be changed? yes. [inaudible] >> you mentioned judges. why won't we be back in just a couple of weeks? >> this is focused concisely. judges will do our best to get those done. we need the d c circuit very much. this is not about judges. it is about presidential executive nominations. >> [inaudible] they have artie told us they're going to block the next three

judges on the circuit. >> [inaudible] >> no, i do not think it would be appropriate. we have the past 36 years, we have changed the rules 18 times. >> you are invoking the nuclear option? >> no. we have to see what the weekend brings. the reality is that they are not willing to be reasonable. thank you everybody. >> center republicans also spoke

to reporters. they responded to majority leader's harry reid's proposed changes. this is also about 20 minutes. >> as you can see, this is a real mess. it is not a good mess. the back of the matter is, the senate has been the most deliberative body in the world because we protect the rights of the minority. it was just a few years ago the majority leader was argued for those rights himself, saying the senate would be destroyed if we went to a nuclear option, which nobody did. it has never been done before.

it has never been done before. frankly, it should be done now. the fact the matter is, they are playing parliamentary tricks with regard to this. they are doing to the detriment of the united states senate, to the detriment of the minority. i have been in the majority and the minority and number of times. i have to tell you, i will fight for the rights of the minority. that is one way that united states senate is the most important legislative body in the world. right now, if we go the route that the majority leader and the democrats are going, it is going to be a very destructive thing. they will say they are eliminating -- once used on -- want to start on that road, it is a pandora's box buried there is no end to what one side or the other can do. the have to be very careful because a lot of the things they hold dear could go by the

wayside if the majority was to change. the protection of the rights of the minority, that is one of the ways that has the senate has become the greatest ~ body in the world. the big of a bill and file cloture immediately, even though they know that nobody is filibustering. they accuse is a filibustering breed all of them go through it without any filibuster or real problems. in the process, they count what are filibuster's filibusters. they only count if you fail to vote for cloture. effect of the matter is, this is a very perilous time for the united states senate and for our country. the make the senate like the house representatives, when any majority can just do whatever they want to, with a double

aeration -- without the double aeration -- without the deliberation, all can say is it will be to the determination to this country. not just republicans, democrats. this is driven by the trade unions in this country who want to be will to get whatever they want whenever they wanted. i do not know about you, but many of the things of a wanted over the years have not been right. it would've destroyed the country. some things they have wanted, they have gotten because they have been right. many of the things they want are not right, and frankly, i do not know what is the matter with my colleagues on the other side.

they seem to be in the pockets of the unions on these matters. they want to get to people on the labor board will been improperly appointed. who should be on that board. i was suggest that all they have to do is appoint to others who have the same loss of the, and they would get to the senate. because the rules were broken, the procedure rules were broken, rubble and seven a choice but to stand up and say that is not right. there are ways you can do this. if you look at the record, over the last number of years of this administration, he is been treated much better than his predecessors. they're backed up on judges because they knew the judges have been treated fairly. so have most of the others. we have yet ever to filibuster and stop an executive nominee.

we didn't have any until the democrats filibustered 45 judicial nominees. this is a serious issue. i hope my colleagues wake up on the other side. this is not going to be fun for them in the future. deal?we've improved 199 judges >> in regard to the filibuster, what is the big deal? we've improved 199 judges in just a few -- we have approved 199 judges and disapproved to. what is the big deal on a filibuster? we have 82 vacancies in the course. 53 nominees are not up here from the white house. the big deal is obviously something wrong with the white house.

i may quote your that have heard so many times. it is very good. the nuclear option was the most important issue i had ever worked on in my entire career because that if it had gone forward, it would've destroyed the senate as we know it. majority leader reid, march 2009. that is a pretty big deal. it involves the checks and balances of government. basically, what you are doing is just trying the constitution if we go ahead with this. >> like to say two things about what is really at stake here.

this isn't about a change of rules. it is not changing the senate. changing its character. most of the founders of our country did not want a king. they created a congress to check in imperial presidency. the best-known power of the united states senate is probably the power of advice and consent in article two. it means that the president, who is not a king, has to be checked. it means ask a lot of questions. democrats have so many questions when president reagan nominated. they asked questions of me when i was nominated for department of education. that was the right of the

senate. what is at stake here is not just a change in the rules. it is the way the rule is change. what it means is that with 51 votes, any majority can do anything it wants on any day in the united states senate. it can change abortion rights. it can change civil rights. in change environmental laws. it can change labor laws. today, the house can do that. when it comes to the senate, we stop and think and consider it. after this, whoever has the majority can do whatever he wants on any day. that is a dangerous trend. it is a washington and jefferson and adams feared. it is one of the two greatest dangerous to our democracy, the tyranny of the majority predicted in the character of the senate is encouraging the tyranny of the majority. if anyone has a deep understanding of history.

this claim that somehow that republicans are delaying -- the number of cabinet positions that have been filibustered is zero. the number of subcabinet members is zero. the number of judges is 2. as far as delay the washington post, president bush's nominees are being considered -- i mean president obama's are being considered more rapidly than president bush's of president clinton's. this is the executive calendar. there are 24 names on them. they all, democratic committees. that is the only way they can get here. he can bring them all and tomorrow. the one that has been on there the longest came in 2013. is four months ago.

i challenge the news media to look into these questions about delays. if there are zero seats lost by filibusters, if the president's nominees are moving through fast, what is behind the attempt to change the character of the senate? >> the facts put out there made it clear this is nothing more than a power grab. nothing more, nothing less. that is precisely what it is. the democrats here want to run over the mine or did. we have seen that the president doesn't like you with a minority in washington. whether it is the irs, the epa, or the cfp be -- he has a lot of agencies that are trying to usurp the powers.

trying to legislate by executive order. we have seen it over and over again. but the majority of democrats are talking about doing here is essentially running over the rights of the minority. if you look at the -- there is no foundation in which to change the rules. when you look at the executive branch nominees, and he said there have not been any denied confirmation in the second term, the votes of been big. the department of energy was 97- 0. the low one, jack lew only got 71 votes. they are getting overwhelming votes in the senate. as has been stated, there have been 199 lower court confirmations.

two were defeated. if you look at this year, the number that have been confirmed as 28 judges. at the same time, in president bush's second, the number was 10. in processing time, it has been a lot faster. they are getting 100 days faster in terms of the rate of which judges are getting to the process here. there is no foundation, no bases upon which the democrats should do what they are talking about doing. as somebody who came here back in 2005, and came into office on this argument, because the democrats were holding up president bush's judicial nominees, and there was a debate about whether or not to exercise a nuclear option, many of us refresh rate is with the pace of the senate. we were some pathetic to that argument. fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. there were lots of things he wanted to do legislatively.

we would love to have gotten malpractice reform passed read or expiration on the north coast of alaska for energy. big majorities. sure the necessary super majority that it takes to get things done in the senate. that is the beauty of the united states senate. it allows representation for minority rights. what they're talking about is undermining and wrecking that. senator reid said it would destroy the senate. make no mistake about it, their document executive nominations today. if you do this, it blows the door wide open. they will establish a precedent and it will not -- it will only be a matter of time before it is used for legislation as well. there is going to, time where there are no longer any majority. it is going to be difficult to turn back the hands of time if him -- if they move forward with

a are talking about doing. i hope cooler heads will prevail. >> you mentioned the panel nominees are being contested. the issue of her republicans say is they are unconstitutional. if you confirm them now, they would be constitutional. they did understand the argument there. when addressed your concerns? >> they disobey the rules and went around the rules. it seems to meet up with the people that have gone around the rules into powerful positions. there are are people who will not abide by the rules. like i suggested, if they want to pick to others the same philosophy philosophy, they would probably get through.

we do not count that kind of thinking. i do not know anybody who would. >> if i could, that is an excellent question. here is what happened. the president sent these two names to the senate in mid- december of 2011 in the regular order prayed before their names got to the appropriate committee, he used his recess appointment power to appoint them at a time when the senate was in session. the court said that is unconstitutional. that is a gross affront to the checks and balances that are in the constitution to restrain the president greatly up to date about what we appropriately do about it. it he can do is to appeal the court, and the court agreed with

us. the second thing we can do is to say that those individuals who continue to make decisions after the court said they were unconstitutionally there, that we are not going to confirm them. they should've stepped down, which is will be called on them to do. they participated in deciding decisions which are subject to be vacated. this is our appropriate response within a long, within the rules, and the precedents of the senate. to an unconstitutional act by the president of the united states appointed two people to the united -- national labor's board. >> recording senator reid from 2009 saying that it would ruin the senate. he and his colleagues were saying that the senate is already ruined because there is all getting done.

does he the point of that? to the again that cooler heads prevail, could that happen again? could you show him the goodwill? >> the main reason is and is not doing as well as it should is because of the way the majority is running it, which is an argument we will take across the country. we know how to make it work. i think it is dysfunctional leadership of the senate grade not a dysfunctional senate. the second thing is, we could be working on student loans this weekend. that is what i have been working on. before that was a water resources bill. we are getting done when the majority leader will be the senate in a way that lets us do it. this place could function very well and very easily and has been accomplishing something's. their mission is they have

failed. they cannot run the senate. we need any majority. as we is what we are going to be arguing for. >> that is an example of things that are being done here. if you look at the farm bill, the internet fairness act, there's a whole bunch of legislation that has moved. they are working on an agreement on the student loan bill right now. that will ultimately get moved with bipartisan support. i do not know how you, here with a straight face make an argument that things are not working on executive nominations. there's not been a single cabinet level nominee in the second term that hasn't been confirmed. as i pointed out, confirm by overwhelming majorities. the same thing is true for judicial nominees. you can have an argument and opinions about whether or not they like the rules of the

senate, whether or not the rule should be changed, but you cannot argue the facts. the facts are indisputable. they are all right here. the same thing is true with regards to legislative activity in this session of congress. there have been things that have been done with bipartisan support. whether cooler heads can prevail, i hope they do. we are not the ones who were rushing to the floor to try and change the rules. we are trying to say to put the brakes on here. if there are things that we can do together on with regard to these nominees, republican's are willing to do that. at this point, clearly the democrats are moving in a direction that is detrimental to the country and jeopardizes the institution of the senate. >> immigrants say it is improper

to hold of a nominee. >> he has two problems. he was appointed in a recess appointment by the president and the senate was not a recess. he has that problem. just like the labor relations board. think about this. senator reid himself invented something called the pro-farm three-day session. he did that. president george w. bush time. president bush and like it at all. he respected the separation of power. president obama made recess appointments when the president when the senate was not in research -- when the senate was not in. as the unconstitutional imperial action of the president that demands a response from the senate if checks and balances mean anything.

>> what are the immediate consequences? we support him legislation altogether? >> if he changes the character of the senate, then the senate ceases to function. it will take our case to the people. we will argue for any new majority. republicans will be in the position to do whatever republicans with 51 votes want. we can take a medical malpractice, we can take up obamacare. the more attractive it becomes. that is what we will happen. instead of a on student loans and immigration, all the things mentioned, it will turn this into a national debate about who controls the new majority

institution in our country. voters want to do whatever we can think of. >> a joint meeting will be held the senate returns on monday. last week, the majority leader motioned the -- to end the debate. follow the senate live. the house returns live on tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern for a debate. later, the chamber considers a bill that will delay the healthcare law. watch the house live on c-span.

>> before the senate returns for business on monday, harry reid will talk about proposed changes to your filibuster rules at the center for american progress. watch live coverage at 10:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> earlier, someone touched upon the idea that women could not really predict their role in entering into the white house. i did find one political maryver who commented that started with mr. lincoln when he was a poor young man and with more -- no more idea of being called to the presidency than of being a cannibal. [laughter] however, i try to lie out a guess that she would not have human sacrifice between her and her goal because she was a determined woman. lincoln'slk about mr.

role of entering the white house. she was someone who was a true political partner. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, we will hear from historians and authors about the role of the first lady and how it has changed. >> president obama released a statement today on the verdict against the trial of george zimmerman. at the president said, the death of trayvon martin was a tragedy. and not the just for his family or for any one america. has elicitedase strong passions. and in the wake of the verdict, i know those passions may be running even higher. but we are a nation of laws and a jury has spoken. i now ask every american to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. >> next on c-span, immigration

legislation in the house and then a discussion on u.s. filibuster rules and the so- called nuclear option. senators are scheduled to meet monday to discuss the changes to the senate rules. >> joining us from capitol hill is the chair of the house judiciary committee republican of virginia. thanks for being with us. >> glad to be with you. here is alan gomez of "u.s.a. today" the immigration beat and steve covers capitol hill for the washington times. we begin with immigration and ask you in your caucus is there significant republican support to deal with both border security and issue of illegals in this country right now? >> there are they major areas needed for immigration reform. one is dealing with border security enforcement and enforcement in the interior of the country. a second is reforming our legal