the nsa can find lois lerner's e-mails or phone calls. [applause] that is per the awesome. -- pretty awesome. fromtelephone someone yemen, m.r.i. guilty of unknowing association? guilty of unknowing association? are calling and you may just be calling a relative. how do we separate the bad actors from the good actors and not intentionally go after people who, you know, are guilty by association? >> it is a great question and it assumes that you can be targeted as soon as you get a call from overseas. there is no evidence that that is the case. furthermore, we ought to make it not the case. it seems to me that we ought to have protocols for the nsa and

there ought to be a position where you tell people, even confidentially, what you are doing, and make sure there is responsible oversight. i said that congress has been in adequate. yemen and a call from there is no evidence that the person is connected to a conspiracy, why would the nsa look at something like this? if you do and you are in contact with someone, you know, frankly, your next-door neighbor or your girlfriend may be looked at to determine if there is some kind of cell being form that can put people in the united states in danger. inaction, itess has been intentional. no one wanted to dive deep into the agency and it would have made them a lot of enemies.

edward snowden has given an opportunity for congress people to have a political shield and go to oversight without seeing any political retribution. thomas jefferson said that, when the government fears the people, there is liberty. when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. i want to reinforce that. if we fear every phone call from yemen, that is close to tyranny and i did not want to live in that kind of country or society. [applause] >> it is not fair to quote thomas jefferson against a virginian. it is not fair to do that. it is not fair to do that. but, i think that we need to recognize that what edward snowden has done -- this was a low-level guy and we do not know the whole story of edward snowden. hopefully, we will put him on trial and find out more things about edward snowden. is, what he has exposed is the superiority of

our knowledge and the enemy knows that if they are sloppy with cell phones or use cell phones in a particular way, they will be tracked and they will change their conduct. they know that if they do certain things to give e-mail information, they know that they are capable of being tracked. people in other countries know that if they operate in a particular way i gets united states, we will find out and, therefore, the people who are the adversaries to this country, they are changing their conduct right now because of edward snowden. if they could get at the citizens of the united states and make them suspicious of our country and government that we dismantle our advantages, at that point, that is a giant strategic victory for the enemies of this country. i promise you, ladies and gentlemen, if you do not believe me, you will go and see that we

are at war. the worst is coming. we have to be as prepared as we can be. we have to be as active as we can be to protect the people of this country. the challenges, believe me, they are not behind us. >> are you in favor of monitoring all electronic correspondence what would you replace -- correspondence? what would you replace the system with. >> we have to find out what they were doing. itll was the frequency -- if was the frequency of every phone call you make, that is a violation of the fourth amendment. if the police think there is a crime behind the door, they can kick down the door. if there is not reasonable cause, they should not be monitoring everyday citizens. if there has to be reasonable cause and they have to get a

warrant, so be it. the fisa courts have gone unchecked. i would not cease all of this. i'm not saying to abolish the nsa and i have had this discussion with some. they say ima terrorist sympathizer and all of this crazy stuff. we live in a culture and environment that abuses its power every single day and we have to be careful in the way that we approach unchecked federal agencies and bureaucracies. some of the labels me and says that i want to end all cellular data simulation. i say that we have to reform it and oversee it correctly. you are international threats that are present today that were not there 3-4 years ago. there are many reasons for that. if we do not have congressional oversight of the agency, we will continue to see the erosion of civil liberties. >> thank you. [applause]

>> i have another question for you from the audience. these are great questions, by the way. politicians have justified the removal of citizen liberty by using fear tactics. moralu provide a justification for fourth amended violations that does not rely on fear? >> no. i believe in the fourth amendment. i have been a prosecutor. cases and have gotten awards under the fourth amendment and have been restrained by the fourth amendment as a potential prosecutor. i understand that. i do not believe there is any excuse for building up fear in undo thepolitic to bill of rights or civil freedoms. we agree with that. i believe that we do not need to pretend that things are worse than they are. i have seen rand paul say that

the government has no right to know what you are saying on your cell phone. he is right and he is exploiting and building up the suspicion and paranoia for his presidential aspirations. i do not support him and never will. we can do these things in a restrained and reasonable way and we can avoid the false choice. the false choice of saying, if you have a cell phone, you are against the nsa having the capacity to do the things to protect this country. i say, baloney! what is necessary to use the advantages we have built up as a free society to protect a free society. we do have to throw these things away because of unscrupulous politicians, particularly the ones after 9/11. this was a horrible thing. this worries me. i sound a trumpet call. the congress ran like scalded apes. they were scared that they have

been delinquent and negligent. they raced to do things that may have been reckless. i worry. i worry that we have not had a sufficient conversation. this panel at steamboat is a good panel and charlie is a great advocate in this area. we need to have more of a conversation with the american people to prepare them for the challenges of homeland security and for the adversaries that are determined to bring down the station. we ought to be -- this nation. we ought to be. if we don't, the enemy will attack us again. we have to be prepared to be in it for the long haul. the long haul is not just the safety, but the liberty. >> this concerns digital currency and privacy. i see a time where paper currency is gone and 100% of transactions are tracked by the nsa or irs.

looking with future technologies, what parameters to we need to put around security and liberty? >> what a great question. this comes from the rise of bitcoin, which people may or may not be familiar with. i love this question because, in to next two years, we need overhaul the way inter-department collusion happens. more towards at technologically advances side it when it becomes easier and easier for unchecked bureaucracies to do what they do. let's say all of it is online. the irs is dealing with the nsa and we have not made reforms. that is a scary tag team for a federal bureaucracy, if you ask me. this is why the can -- the discussion needs to happen. it needs to happen immediately. the oversight and the american

people have to hold them accountable. especially because we cannot elect bureaucrats. ct bureaucrats. that is why we put people in congress. that is why we hold people in congress accountable to do that. you can vote them in or out. it is important that this is an "top-five" issue. >> i am for cash. i think we need to be thoughtful about the rise of technology. paper mail is disappearing and we have heard about these wonderful letters from the founding fathers. letters are not written much anymore. the world is changing. the technological capacity that we have created through the thernet is changing american society and the world society. it is making things very

different. i think that we have to be very thoughtful about this going forward and make sure that, whatever technological changes that we make, we never lose sight of the touchstone, as lynne cheney was talking about. >> thank you. this question says, if we get suicide bombers, i believe that people will drastically overreact and make this a police state stop how do we prevent that? -- state. how do we prevent that? >> we are seeing that in ferguson. for a local police to have that kind of authoritative force, you can say, hold on a second, that is overwhelming. i agree. as americans, we have a tendency , as the governor said, summing happens and we overreact. we have a financial crisis in 2008 and we spent one training dollars we do not have. it is our tendency as americans in political discourse to do

that. i will say that the greatest asset that we have as americans -- and i will disagree with the governor on this -- is not our intelligence. it is the patriotism and loyalty of the american people. if we lose is because the government creates paranoia and distrust in the american people, that cannot be undone by some sort of super computer. the patriotism that lies in every civil person in this room and every american is our greatest national asset and what we must protect. for a lack of a better term, that is what the constitution was meant to do. prevent the government from coming after us so that we can defend ourselves and thrive. our greatest national assets is not the nsa. it is not a super computer. it lies within ourselves as people. [applause] >> i agree with charlie. that is why america is exceptional and that is one of

our basic principles, going forward. the future of this country and policy issecurity that americans are exceptional. we have touchstones that others do not have. i have lived and traveled to dozens of foreign countries. each of them have their assets. the american experience that charlie refers to is exactly correct. i think that we need to maintain those touchstones. i do want to say, once again, -- i dothat i worry worry about the rise of technology. if we lose this confidence in ourselves and our ability to govern ourselves, there is danger. i think the enemy -- the enemies of this country would like to do that. they would like to drive us to triggeringhere a attack would cause us to overreact and do the wrong thing.

that is why i think another principal we have to have with the principle of homeland security is a conversation with the american people and more of a sense of how they are cut into a challenge that they face. have an understanding with the american people of the challenges that are ahead of us in the long war that we are facing and go back to the touchstones that are referred to make sure that these are found in the american people so that, when the inevitable attack comes, we do not overreact and call on our government to do things that are proper. member those touchstones. >> -- remember those touchstones. >> i was unable to get to the stack. i will give them to the nsa agent to get back with you. i want to give these gentlemen closing remarks and suggest that you talk to them after the panel. visit our website. you will find a wealth of information at both places. since the governor started, i will let charlie do his statement first.

we talked about the war list and unconstitutional behavior. a great solution for this is to e-mail a constitution to each other. they would read it and maybe, finally, understand it. [applause] [laughter] been a great discussion and dialogue and i hope that everyone here was able to learn something and take something away from the panel. i will say that i do not trust the government. i started my opening remarks with a question. do you trust the government? i want everyone to ask themselves that and i can venture a guess. ask yourself if we should have an unchecked federal bureaucracy and what you are going to do to hold congress people accountable? . the constitution was written for a reason and it is a timeless document. theas written to limit

government authority against the people and to allow free people to prosper. the thought process behind the constitution, unlike any other document in human history, unlike the french and german, are the rights that come from god. they are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. live our lives without big brother looking over our shoulder. and the future, we have to understand that if we allow government to go unchecked in the abuse of power, it will continue. no greatest national asset, matter what the issue, is not the nsa or a supercomputer, it is you. only the constitution can allow the american people to be free. thank you. [applause]

>> we need to recognize the challenges ahead and understand that we need to have a policy that means of the 21st century is an american century. we need a president who understands the exceptionalism of this country. who understands the role of the united states in this world and a tumultuous time with rising technology, new opponents, and the opportunities that we have to provide stability in this country. have to have an active form policy. not a reckless one. an active one. we do not need to be lured into conflicts. nor should we be withdrawing and opening up chances that we see for so many dangers to the world and to this country that we can adjust to and, with american leadership, can change.

when a president who understands the nature of american power and freedom. and, the opportunities that we have to do the right thing. in the end, we have to recognize that it is not a matter of whether we trust the government. we can change the government. we can change the government. americans are in the position to do that. at the end a, we have to make sure that this long conflict that we are in now and that we are in ahead, we remain confident in ourselves. >> thank you. [applause] >> put your hands together and give applause to these wonderful the baiters -- debaters. >> thank you. >> well done. >> thank you. [applause]

>> here is a look at the primetime schedule. a discussion on social workers and improving the lives of my doherty and impoverished communities. books on astronauts. on c-span3, american history tv. programs on the cold war. summer, the house budget committee held a hearing program.l, state, an she testified on her experience of climbing out of poverty while on medical this ability. here is a look.

every single day with three children on medical disabilities. sometimes, maybe having to take and under the table job. there is not a lazy bone in my body. there are many people who live in the inner city on drill -- under the poverty level who are not lazy. we want to be part and have full-time jobs. go to college and things like that. i believe that certain people put a stamp of "lazy" on us to put a smoke screen and not see what is going on. they point the finger and look down on us. they try to twist our words. i feel like we are the most

troubled people there are. we cut coupons like everyone else and go to work to strive for the american dream. that is what everybody strives for. the american dream. this is what we need to get back to. you strive hard, work hard, do your diligence and you get ahead, no matter what race, gender, creed, or where you come from. portion of a hearing held earlier this summer by the house budget committee and you can city entire of event tonight at 9:15 on c-span. today, douglas elmendorf held a budget conference. this is 40 minutes. cbo director douglas elmendorf. morning, i'm director of the congressional budget office

and thank you for coming. up cbo has just released and date to our previous budget and economic projections. i will briefly summarize the projections beginning with the budget and turning to the economy than my colleagues and i will be happy to try to answer any questions you have. the federal budget deficit has fallen sharply during the past few years. it's on a path to decline further this year and next. later in the coming decade under current law, the gap between spending and revenues would grow again relative to the size of the economy and federal debt would climb. thee specific, we estimate deficit for this fiscal year will amount to $506 billion. it's about 170 billion dollars lower than the deficit in 2013. at 2.9% of gross to mystic product, -- of gross to mystic object -- roddick, it will be much -- of gdp, it will be much lower. we can see what happens if

current laws remain unchanged. the baseline projections are designed to serve as a benchmark for policymakers to use when considering possible changes to laws. updatedg to our baseline projections, the deficit will remain less than three percent of gdp through 2018 but will grow thereafter reaching nearly four percent from 2022-2024. federal outlays we boasted in the coming decade by four key factors -- the retirement of the baby boom generation, expansion of the federal subsidies for health insurance, rising health care costs per person, and increasing interest rates. given those factors and under current law, spending in three key components of the budget would grow faster the the economy. those components are social major health care programs including medicare, medicaid, and subsidies and net interest payments.

in contrast, spending and three other broad categories which ranked markedly relative to the size of the economy. that includes so-called mandatory spending other than that for social security and health care as well as defense and nondefense discretionary spending. outlays in those three categories taken together would fall to the lowest percentage of gdp since 1940, the earliest year for which comparable data has been reported. of the total projected increase in spending over the next kate, the major health care programs, social security, and net interest account for 85% and all other programs account for just 15%. the total outlays would reach about five to percent of gdp by 2024, a little above their average for the past 40 years. total revenues would also be above their historical average relative to gdp but to a smaller extent. revenues are projected to jump i

about nine percent next year because of those provisions of law that have recently taken effects such as the expiration of certain tax provisions and the ongoing economic expansion. after 2015, we expect revenue would change little relative to gdp under current law because of various offsetting factors. outlaysths for federal and revenues would push federal debt relative to the size of the of economy even higher. we expect federal debt held by the public will reach 74% of gdp at the end of this fiscal year, more than twice what was in 2007 and higher than in any year since 1950. in our baseline projections, that debt reaches 77% of gdp in 2024 and is on an upward trajectory. such large and growing federal debt would have serious negative consequences including increasing federal spending for interest payments, restraining economic growth in the long

term, giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges, and eventually increasing the risk of a fiscal crisis. our budget projections are built on our economic forecast which anticipates the economy will grow slowly this year on balance and that a more moderate pace over the next few years. the gaps between the nation's output and his potential are maximum sustainable output will narrow to its historical average by the end of 2017 we expect largely eliminating the underuse of labor that now exists. real gdp, adjusted for inflation, grew at an annual rate of only one percent during the first half of this calendar year but we expect stronger growth in the. second half we estimate that real gdp will increase by 1.5% from the fourth quarter of 2013 through the fourth quarter of 2015. after this year, we anticipate the real gdp growth will pick up to about 3.5% next year and the

year after. growth will strengthen for a few principal reasons -- first, in response to increased demand for their products, businesses will increase their investments in new structures in the government at a faster pace and will continue to expand their workforces. second, consumer spending will grow more rapidly spurred by recent gains in household wealth and with an improving labor market. third, fewer vacant housing units, more rapid formation of new households and further improvement in mortgage markets will lead to larger increases in home building. the faster growth of output will reduce the amount of underused, productive resources or slack in the economy. we think a significant amount of slack remains in the labor market today despite notable improvements in recent quarters. it will be largely eliminated in the next few years. slack in the labor market consists of a few main elements -- first, the component

rate is elevated. second, the participation rate in the labor force is well below what we estimate would be achieved at the demand -- if the demand for workers with stronger and third, the share of part-time workers who would prefer full-time work is significantly higher than it was before the recession. that slacknt signal remains the labor market is salaries continue to grow slowly. to assess the impact of the weakness in the labor market, suppose in the second quarter of this year that the unemployment rate had returned to its pre-recession level and labor force participation rate was up at the rate we think could be achieved more jobs were available -- then, according to our estimates, about 3.75 million more people were employed them actually were. we emphasize in our report the measuring slack is quite difficult and the current amount of slack could be a good deal larger or smaller than we estimate. by the end of 2017, we expect

the gap between gdp and potential gdp will have narrowed to this -- to its historical average rates between 2018 and 2024, real gdp should grow by an average of 2.2% per year, rate that is notably less than the average growth of output during the 1980's and 1990's. that is slower projected pace reflect a number of factors including the retirement of members of the beatty -- of the baby boom generation, relatively stable labor force participation rate for working women after decades of strong increases and the effective federal tax and spending policies embodied of the current level. the gradual elimination of slack in the economy will eventually remove the downward pressure on the rate of inflation and interest rates that has existed in the past several years. we anticipate the rate of inflation as measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures will move up during the next several years to achieve the federal reserve all of two percent. we projected the interest rate on three-month treasury bills

will remain near zero until the second half of next year and that will increase substantially reaching 3.5% in 2019 and later years. we project the rate on 10 year treasury notes will continue to increase reaching 4.7% in 2019 and later years. let me conclude by returning to the budget -- last month, cbo extrapolated its previous baseline projections beyond the standard 10 year period showing that under current law, it would be a substantial imbalance in the federal budget over the long term. by 25 years from now, rising budget deficits would push federal debt held by the public to more than 100% of gdp, level seen only once before in our history, at the end of the second world war. federal debt in 2024 under our current is fun is very similar to what we had previously projected for that year. the long-term outlook remains about the same. under current law, debt would be quite high by historical standards and on an upward path

relative to the size of the economy, trend that would impose significant costs and could not be sustained indefinitely. thank you. i will stop there. my colleagues and i are happy to answer your questions. please start by saying who you are and who you work for. yes? >> in terms of your economic forecast and comparing it to back in february, for 10 years, it is a little weaker than it but is that because it is weaker in 2014 and the same for the rest of the decade? >> we have revised down the growth rate per 2014 a bit and as you know. we have not change the growth rate of subsequent years for a much. that way,ut the issue it's house like most of the action is this your but that's not quite right. we also revised down our estimates of the level of potential output, maximum

sustainable output, in the later years of the decade. if we had not revised down that potential output, we would have thought eventually the economy would make up for weaker growth in the first half of this year by stronger growth sometime later. to downward revision potential output later in the decade was not very large, about one percent, and it reflects weaker business investment thus leading to somewhat slower growth of capital services than we previously suspected and a change in the labor market side. those are pretty small differences. to theic reaction unexpected weakness in the first quarter of the year was to see that by the second quarter, growth seemed to be stronger across the board, across the major components of spending and the labor market improvement continued during the first half of the year despite the week gdp growth in the first quarter.

although this was certainly disappointing relative to her take ations, we did not great signal from that for the longer-term prospects of the economy and the changes we did make were small and stem from a collection of factors. yes? >> would you discuss if your gross projections for the coming year are overly optimistic as they have for recent years? what is the impact likely to be on the federal budget and the federal deficit? >between interest rates and revenues -- >> we have expected upward growth to pick up for a number of years now beyond what has happened. that is thent of shadow of the financial crisis, the housing boom and bust, the damage to househol balance

sheets and confidence -- that shadow lasted longer than we thought it would. a verynally, there was sharp reduction in budget deficits over the past several years. there was a reduction in the stimulus fiscal policy provided for the economy. at this point, underlying financial conditions have improved. the fiscal stimulus is no longer being withdrawn so we think there is a stronger case for the pickup in economic growth we have written down. of course, notwithstanding that stronger case, it could -- we could turn out to be wrong for overwriting of reasons. if the economy grows more slowly than we expect, that is probably a negative factor for the economy -- for the budget. it's directly a negative factor in that weaker output growth means weaker income growth and means lower tax receipts and somewhat higher payments for some benefit programs usually. as you noted, if the economy is

weaker than interest rates may stay low for a longer both because the federal reserve may react by holding rates lower but also because financial market would seat with a weaker economy less demand for laonable funds. for a time. that reduction of interest rates by itself would be good news for the budget because the federal government is a large debtor and makes substantial interest payments. effect of therect weaker economy on tax receipts are likely that way than the effect on lower interest rates but it would depend on just how interest rates responded to other changes in the economy so it's hard to give a clear and specific answer. in our february outlook, we offered rules of thumb for

changes in key economic variables and their effects on the budget. in that report, we looked at the effect of lower growth in different interest rates separately. we did that separately because it is hard to know how much interest rates would go down in response to weak economic news and it would depend crucially on how market participants judged the weakness in the economy and what sort of signal or interpretation would the given to the weakness in what signal they took from that. >> you are predicting lower than expected corporate receipts for this year. can you put a finer point on that? is it because the economy is slowing down or is it because companies are avoiding taxes? >> corporate tax receipts are coming in lower this year than we had expected. a pickup inted

receipts but we are getting one but not as large as anticipated. it's hard to know what to make of that because we don't have detailed data at this point. after a few years, there will be detailed data available about corporate tax returns that our analysts can look at to understand better what is going on and we don't have it at this point. we have the overall receipts. the interpretation we have put on this unexpected weakness is mostly that companies have put up paying some of the taxes that they owe in legal ways. with the expiration of various tax provisions at the end of last year, corporate tax burdens would be higher this year but companies don't have to pay those bills right now. i can pay some of them next year and there are complicated rules that i cannot summarize for you. we think what is happening as

there has been more deferral of the tax payments to last your than we anticipated. more broadly, our projection of corporate tax receipts over the coming decade incorporates erosion of the corporate tax base through a variety of tax reduction strategies. one factor there would be corporate in versions but another factor is the shift over time of business income from c corporations that are taxed nder the carpet tax codes tos corporations. it has been going on for some time but it's quite consequential. there are a range of other tax avoidance strategies. we think there has been and will continue to be some erosion of the corporate tax base. to think that effect is not as significant and our projection of corporate tax receipts as the factors we talk about in the report and we note there is some

increasing corporate tax receipts next year but then a decline relative to gdp later in the coming decade. we think that decline is driven by some of the macro economic factors. we think there will be faster growth of labor income and wages and salaries. that will weigh on corporate profits. there'll be increased interest rates we expect and that will way on corporate profits and some changes and appreciation allowances will further reduce taxable profits. we wrote about those factors and we think the most important ones and we think there is some ongoing erosion of the corporate tax base. the 26 billion dollar decrease from your april taxes,ion on corporate i'm trying to understand how significant that is or not.

you ifely, i want to ask there is any sense of the budget cuts to discretionary spending and if that is having an impact on demand overall? >> the surprising corporate tax but not was notable particularly large. relative tax receipts to domestic economic profits -- some have talked about an effective corporate tax rate -- has very tremendously, over time, is a volatile series and has been volatile over the past few years. this is a category of tax receipts that is quite difficult for us and others to forecast. i think the revision we have made and the projections today

are not particularly unusual given the volatility of that category. think second question, we the reduction in budget deficits over the past few years from increases in taxes and restraint in spending has been a drag on economic growth over that time. constraint principal on economic activity has been no weakness and the demand for goods and services and increases in taxes or reductions in federal spending 10 to reduce the demand for goods and services. we think the tightening of fiscal policy has been a substantial headwind and economic growth through last year but we think that affect has mostly dissipated so we don't see much effect of changes and fiscal policy under current law of the changes in fiscal policy that are unfolding on demand for goods and services over the next few years. the run-up in debt through the large budget deficits, although

have provided some stimulus to the economy in the short term, if that debt is left outstanding and as the economy recovers and expands in the future, that imposes ongoing costs. it crowds out right investments and reduces output and income -- and the cost and mentioned. >> can you talk about the growth rates of the medicare and medicaid and why they are different than what that means in terms of dollars for the deficit? >> medicare spending this year we think will of will be about two percent above last year which is slower growth in the growth in the number of medicare beneficiaries. average cost per beneficiary is actually falling. that is a striking phenomenon. we wrote at length about that in the long-term budget outlook in

the middle of last month. there are a number of factors holding down the interest spending and we think it will be held down over the next decade. is a broad slowdown in health care costs per person that we have seen in the economy as a whole and in medicare over the last few years. part of the slow growth in the next decade in medicare is slow growth and the payment rates to providers under current law. aret from the way doctors page which is a separate complicated issue, payments to other will grow very slowly in the future and that some other source of restraint. it's also true that as new people come in to medicare in great numbers and the beneficiaries will rise by 1/3 over the next decade because of the aging of the population, and those people come in, they come in as fairly young older people. they're less expensive than the

average current beneficiary for that reason. a number of factors are holding medicare spending down this year and will hold it down we think over the coming years. is growingending much more rapidly this year, about 15%. that is driven importantly by the expansion of medicaid coverage under the affordable care act. we expect that expansion will continue to produce rapid growth in medicaid spending for the next few years. our view is that under current law, more states will adopt the medicaid expansion under the affordable care act and more people will take up medicaid and the states that have already expanded availability under the affordable care act. we think another few years of rapid growth in medicaid spending because of that expansion will happen. there is also the question of underlying growth for beneficiaries medicaid.

that depends importantly on the actions of the states as well as the actions of the federal government. states have a lot of latitude setting coverage on who is covered and latitude in setting what particular services are covered and they have a lot of say in how providers are paid. we do project there will be continued growth in medicaid spending -- in federal medicaid spending per beneficiary for the underlying reasons but not at the rate we see this year because we think once the expansion has phased in, medicaid spending growth will revert to more traditional rates. when you say that cost control, are there other laws that attribute? >> the way i would put it is the

payment rates and mechanisms for providers of medicare based on the accumulation to date including what happened under the affordable care act. the affordable care act is lowered those rates relative to the law in early 2010. there are a whole collection of rules that have been put in place by the congress over time that affect the spending rates and we don't have a decomposition at this point of what is attributable in medicare to the aca and what is not attributable. you guys have talked about the sluggishness of growth since february and the 2018-2024 period and it seems to be attributable largely to the slow growth in the labor force.

how much of that -- is 2018 seen as an inflection of current trends or is that more for those you guysle of years have presented where these trends are? is it an inflection point or more of a projection? >> let me go back to the picture of potential gdp. this is the maximum sustainable output. but is not have a very strong inflection point. the growth of potential output varies a little over the 10 years in our projections. rates mainly because the of business estimates changes and thus the increments of capital services changes and there are other factors. there's -- there are some changes over potential growth but that is not the biggest factor of what is going on. oftly it's that by the end 2017, we think the gap between actual and potential output will have closed so that gdp will

have finished catching up to potential gdp. be on that point, it will grow with the growth of potential gdp. think why -- after we output is largely caught up to potential output, we don't try to predict beyond that on the ups and downs of the economy. we think there will be but we cannot project them so we focus on the factors that influence this. years,last couple of it's less of this factor the serving more general ideas of what the individual -- forecast upke your through 2017 is more about the individual ups and downs -- >> we are trying to predict the next few years what is the demand for goods and services in these individual sectors and how that will interact with the labor market.

beyond that point, beyond the point of return, we are just looking at that underlying factors. the slowdown in the growth of labor force for demographic reasons started a decade or so ago. this is not something which is happening in 2018. it is not starting today. the participation rate has been falling through 2007 before the financial crisis and the severe recession. it fell more sharply but had been falling already because of these underlying reasons. is, i don'thing want to make it sound like once we predict potential out but, it's easy to predict what will happen. analysis still for uswith challenges

and other analysts in trying to get the forecast right. example, we have a view that there are a lot of people out of labor force now that will come back in as employment prospects improve. underestimated how people will come back, we will have underestimated potential output. wewe over estimate, equally, will overestimate potential output. we think the productivity growth which has been week will pick up a little bit but still to a lower pace than it had on average earlier but will pick up a little bit from where it's been the last few years. that,have overestimated we will have overestimated potential output or underestimated it. it is not easier to predict the underlying determinants of the productive capacity although the

aging of the population is by itself pretty straightforward. how people will react and whether they will retire at the same age is less clear. driver of growth is the slow growth of the labor force. we will have strong growth until 2017 and the implication of 2018 seems like a cliff. >> there is a. of catchup over the next few years and then it will level out. can you explain the big reduction in net interest payments over the next kate from your previous forecast? what is driving that? >> we have revised down our

projection of interest rates paid by the government, interest rates and the economy in general. we did that in response to a very careful reevaluation of interest rates that we did as part of our long-term budget outlook. we reported last month. we started by looking at interest rates during the 1990-2007 period which was a fairly stable inflation expectation and no significant economic downturns on the scale of the one we have been through. we tried to assess with various factors in the future would look like relative to what they look and in 1992-2007 period there were a number of factors that suggested interest rates would be lower in the future than they were in that past period. one of those is the slower growth of the labor force. another is a larger share of income going to high income people who tend to save more and

thus provide more savings available and less pressure on interest rates. the third factor pushing down interest rates slightly slower productivity growth going forward than we had seen in the past. the fourth factor is we think there will be a somewhat larger risk premium. people who hold treasury securities are holding a safer asset than if they hold private investments. given the events of the last several years, and some underlying factors, we should get a larger risk premium. treasury rates will get pushed down relative to other securities. there is a set of factors we think will cause interest rates to be lower than in the past but the other side of the ledger is that some things will push up interest rates. one of those factors is higher federal debt that we had seen in

the past. another one is that we expect somewhat smaller capital inflows from abroad than we have seen in the past. some of the rapidly growing foreign economies are making greater use of their savings for investment at home and send less of their savings here. a third factor pushing up interest rates we think is the greater share going to capital although we think there will be some rebound of the labor share of income from the levels it has fallen to. we think the labor share will be smaller than in the past. there will also be fewer workers in their prime saving years as baby boomers move from the years where they save a lot to where they are drawing down on their savings. we have a set of factors pushing in different directions. in our assessment, we wrote about this last month, the factors pushing down interest rates relative to a few decades ago, we think will be stronger

than pushing up interest rates. on balance, and the second half of this coming decade, we think rates on treasury security returns will be 3/4 of a percentage point lower than in the 1992-2007 period so more 2.2 5%. that reassessment we did earlier this summer and applied in the long term we are now applying our tenure projections. by bringing down interest rates on treasury securities, we have brought down the government's interest payments. i would emphasize that the interest payments are still quite large and still growing very rapidly. we think that annual interest payments by the federal government will be nearly $800 billion by 2024, more than three times what they are today. i want to be distinct.

if we have a downward revision, the contour of interest payments are still very strikingly off. you can see interest payments as they -- as a share of gdp rising to three percent. dramatic increase than would be the case if interest rates rose more sharply than we have projected. so this is neither a negative or positive for the american people? you say is harder to a gym late wealth and save money? >> it's a complicated question. , that ispremium distinctive to treasury securities. are rates thatrs would affect interest rates on a

variety of securities. whether one wants those rates to be high or low depends on who one is and where you are in your life cycle. if you're trying to buy a house, low interest rates are good. if you're trying to save for your retirement, higher rates of return are good. there is no simple correlation between interest rates and what's good for people. we generally think more output is better for everyone who gets it because they get a share in that. interest rates, there are winners and losers from rates being higher or lower. whered like to add that this picture comes from, the gross interest payments is growth increase in interest rates. relativeebt as a share to gdp will be a little higher in 2024 than it is today but not that much higher. we think interest rates will be a good deal higher. that's the main factor driving

the interest payments relative to the size of the economy. any other questions? we don't get you in public too often so forgive me but, your term expires next january. do you want to return? >> i have nothing to say about my personal future. i love doing this job. i'm very focused on doing it. i'm going to worry about what happens at the end of the year only get to the end of the year. sure you will be the first in know but you will be relatively early. [laughter] i'm really not focusing on that right now. we have a tremendous amount of interesting and important work underway here and that fully consumes my attention and i am enjoying doing that and i plan to keep doing that this year. >> going back to the corporate tax receipts, that is related to

certain tax breaks expiring at the end of 2013 and more tax breaks will be expiring. assumesenue projection that the tax breaks that expire will not be renewed and the tax breaks that will expire will not be renewed. -- in fact, they are renewed i don't expect an exact figure here -- but if they are renewed, what kind of affect does that have on the deficit? >> you are correct that the baseline projections assume the tax policy follows current form. we do provide at the end of chapter one the section on alternative assumptions about fiscal policy and look at alternatives on the spending and tax side to give policymakers a sense of what might happen if they made different choices. if all of the expiring tax , thations work standard would reduce tax revenues by

about $900 billion over the coming decade. if no otheron, changes were made to taxes or would then generate about $200 billion of additional debt service. if all of the aspiring -- expiring tax provisions were extended and no other changes were made, deficits would be almost $1 trillion -- sorry -- almost $1.1 trillion larger over the coming decade than $7.2 trillion would rejected. anything else? ok, thank you all very much for being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> tonight, a discussion on social workers and their goals of improving the lives of americans. magnet prep a school in hartford that only accepts first-generation minority students. he talked about the cost of incarceration. here is more. we are spending in some

communities on education and incarceration more than anything else. we are dropping a lot of money at the backend. communities, $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 a year to incarcerate. imagine if some of these preventative programs, imagine if you had $50,000 her client -- per client. you could buy them a house for a year. that money is poured down a whole. -- hole. we allow the political forces to say, lock them up. three strikes, you're out. and then wonder why they are vagabonds when they come out and cannot get a job. worry student loan. -- or a student loan.

and then we wonder why kids do not have anybody in their lives. we see how this thing happens. it is a couple of small decisions that become big. >> that was part of an event held earlier this summer on ways to help impoverished minority communities. you can watch the entire event at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> tomorrow on washington journal, george washington university -- a george washington university professor looks at what is next for isis. crisis management. why some candidates survive a crisis while others do not. plus your facebook comments,

phone calls, and tweaked. washington journal is live thursday at 7:00 a.m.. twoext comer marks from federal immigration judges. will hear about the effectiveness of the courts to deal with the cases. and what can be done to help the children. this is close to one hour. >> >> i want to thank everyone for coming today. my name is jamie horwitz, member of the national press club and the newsmaker committee. on behalf of the club and committee, i want to thank you for joining us for this very special newsmaker, an unprecedented newsmaker. we will hear from two federal immigration judges this morning. before i introduce our guest, i

want to take care of a little housekeeping. we have usual rules. for this particular newsmaker we have unusual rules. the usual are to questions each. members of the press club and any credentialed journalists may ask questions. we ask that you identify yourself and your news organization and will recognize you if you have a question. the unusual rules -- i should say that our guests, although both are federal judges, they are here in the capacity as leaders of the national association of immigration judges, affiliate of the national federation of affiliates and technical engineers, the union that represents not just immigration judges but other judges like administrative judges in d.c. and social security judges and others in the private sector. so if you quote our guest today,

you should reference the fact that they were here as leaders at the national association of immigration judges. also, what would i newsmaker be on an issue related to the law if we did not have a legal disclaimer? you should know they are participating solely as officers and are not representing the views of the department of justice or the executive office for immigration review, the views they might express or their own, which we will perform after consultation of the membership of the naiha. so now that we have that out of the way, let me tell you a little bit about our guest today.

these two women hold the top offices in the national association of immigration judges. they have held those fort 12 years. in that capacity they regularly speak to colleagues that are immigration judges throughout the united states. denise noonan slaven has spent 20 years as a judge and works as a krome detention center in miami. prior to that served as a prosecutor for ins. she worked for the department of justice. the criminal division bringing to justice nazi war criminals in the united states. dano lee marks is a 27 year judge raised in san francisco. prior to that an attorney where she specialized in immigration and where she also was the lead counsel in the landmark supreme court case that set the applicable standards for asylum cases. so first, we will hear from judge marks.

>> welcome, everyone. hang onto your hats because today the judge and i will take you on a whirlwind tour of an alternate legal universe. you may think you recognize the terrain but the normal laws basic to everyday events do not seem to function as they do in other places as we expect them to. i am talking about looking through the looking glass world of immigration courts. experienced lawyers are surprised to encounter many of the things i will tell you about today. most members of the public do not have a clue about the realities of the world. when they do come face to face with the laws, they are often dismayed. any fan of a crime drama and recite the miranda warnings given when someone is arrested. you have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot

afford one, one will be appointed for you. not true in immigration courts. there is no right to appointed counsel. one has the privilege of having an attorney's help if he can pay , or if he is fortunate enough to find a willing volunteer. this is true, even though all respondents have the burden of proof. that is the legal obligation to prove they are able to remain in the united states or qualify for benefits under complicated immigration laws. last fiscal year, only 40% were unrepresented, a figure that roze to 85% if only detained dockets are considered. as you look around our

courtrooms, you see the immigration judges are doing so many things that we look like the guy behind the curtain in the wizard of oz. instead of a court reporter, judges and immigration courts operate digital audio recorders to create the formal record. most of us do not have bailiffs or clerks to maintain security, and we mark and archive the evidence we receive by ourselves. last year 83% of the cases we heard required the use of a foreign language interpreter. in one of more than 260 exceed different languages. even more difficult, immigration judges have to decide a witness's credibility, usually without the testimony of any other witnesses to the event or cooperating documentation, because to paraphrase a higher court, people rarely are able to present a note from the persecutor explaining why they have been targeted. and we must make these decisions by placing the stories in a

context and culture that is literally or into us. even more complicated is the fact that we deal with cases that are often in effect death penalty cases. situations where if the person is removed from the united states they may be killed upon returning to their country. even when the cases do not involve a claim to asylum, we often hear cases of longtime lawful permanent residence. some came to the united states as children. children facing permanent exile to the united states because of crime such as minor as repeated petty-thefts. since there is no statute of limitations on the convictions that cause people to come before before us in the court rooms can be decades old. our immigration walls often times the hands of the judges

hearing the k -- case. add to this picture the fact that there are only 227 field of immigration judges located around the country. handling of dockets that currently exceeds 375,000 pending cases. although that averages more than one thousand five hundred cases per judge, because caseloads are not evenly distributed, judges like me have hundreds more. i personally have over 2400 pending cases. it takes about 15 months for the first arraignment type hearing in my courtroom. after that anywhere from three and a half to four years before the merits hearing is held. so by now you are asking, how could this come to pass? we have the answer. it is because the immigration

courts are the forgotten tstepchild. our role is to serve as a neutral court but paradoxically we are housed in a law enforcement agency. because we have been left to the mercy of the political winds that constantly buffet immigration issues, we have been resource starved for decades. the financial needs of the immigration courts simply have not been made that the work we do deserves and requires. the budget is currently inadequate and the strain is showing. due to the crisis caused by the surge of unaccompanied children, serious focus has been placed on the immigration courts recently. unfortunately the picture revealed is not a pretty one, despite the many accomplishments and the remarkable amount and quality of work being done by

immigration judges and staff. morale in the courts is at an all-time low. we acknowledge our dockets all too often proved true that adage that justice delayed is justice denied. there is a solution, but it will not be quick and will not be cheap. fast, inexpensive approaches have been tried and failed so many times it seems absurd to ignore futility. rather than knee-jerk solutions to the present crisis, we must take the opportunity to look at the structural flaws that have allowed the crisis to impact immigration court so adversely. we must establish an independent

immigration court under article one of the constitution. we need an independent court system that stands on its own to provide transparency to the american public as to what we do, how fast we do it, and what the funding needs are in order to meet the task. immigration law enforcement must stand on its own and not be allowed to overshadow or control the immigration judicial process as it has in years past. the results of that approach are clearly reflected and apparent in the immigration courts today. history has told us we should expect surges just like the past flows from central america or cuba or haiti or china, just to mention a few. to be efficient and operate economically, to guarantee fairness, our immigration courts need to be independent, both from the prosecutors and the

respondents who come before us. in order to withstand the political firestorms which surely will continue in the future, we need the protection of judicial independence, which all other courts rely upon. we predict the improvement will not only enhance due process and ensure all those who come before us are treated fairly but will also prove to be financially cost-effective. when there is a concern that due process is being denied, class action lawsuits are filed. there is economy in timeliness. when cases moved through a court system without undue processing delays, outcomes are more accurate and the cost of competitive reconsideration disappears.

it is cheaper to resolve these cases that the trial court immigration level, rather than clogging the appellate courts. our current system makes the expensive outcomes almost inevitable and the cost for more -- it cost far more than it would cost to invest properly in immigration trial courts in the first instance. we urged a clear common sense solution of doing things right the first time. we are at the creation of an independent court under article one. the time for this has come. >> good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. judge marks has taken you through the looking glass with an overview of the court system and how it differs in many ways.

i am sure you will find it curiouser and curiouser as i give you specific examples of how our courts and law enforcement agency causes problems solved by establishing immigration courts under article one of the constitution. although the law considers us to be administrative judges, our agency considers us to be attorneys representing the united states government. we are being asked to serve two masters of the same time with different priorities. a judge is supposed to be independent and fair our operators. how can we expect to do this if we are an attorney representing one of the parties before us cap go the conflict is inherent in being asked to serve two masters and is seen in many ways. one is the lack of contempt authorities with the attorneys. while there is a way to sanction private attorneys for the court, 18 years ago congress recognized

this was unfair and inadequate. they passed legislation to hold any attorney by the department or appearing before them in contempt. the department of justice has failed to enact regulations out allowed judges to exercise contempt of authority. based on the arguments the attorneys cannot be sanctioned by other attorneys from the department of justice. one fundamental role is x partake contact, communication with the judge is not allowed. basically because it is not fair. however, communication about cases between supervising judges of the immigration courts and supervising attorney are commonplace because we have a common client, the u.s. government. in some cases this x partake

contact can to the discipline a -- lead to the discipline of a judge. in one case there was a complaint and it led to the suspension of the judge. the private attorneys and respondents were never informed about the complaint or disciplinary action. another area where judges are called upon to act inconsistently in the role of judges is in the area of recusal. in a normal court one of the parties may asked to excuse himself or herself if the judge that has a personal conflict. however, the department of justice has imposed itself as an additional party in this process. since the department views them as attorneys, they believe they should make the call as to whether a judge refuses himself or herself. so for example, a judge cannot continue to participate in the

case at the department finds a potential conflict, even if the parties are aware of the potential and have stated they see no need for the judge to recuse. in a recent case a judge was ordered to recuse herself from all cases involving a specific nationality, even though she saw no conflict of interest him and none had been raised by the party and the department of justice conceded there was no actual conflict. this is not the independent case-by-case type of adjudication that expected by judges. the recent docket changes are another example of how we are serving two masters and not necessarily serving the public in the most efficient way. there is no other court that would turn the docket on its head at the request of one party , but the immigration court is flipping the docket by moving

cases of newly arrived children to the front of the docket at the demand of the department of homeland security. in some cases it may make sense to hear the cases early, certainly not in all of them. if the child is coming here to be with parents who are already in the courts docket, it does not make sense to hear the child's case first. it makes more sense to hear the parents case first, whether then send them to the back of our mind 15 or 18 months out when the child cases heard. the system would be better served if the decision of whether or not to prioritize cases is made on a case-by-case basis at the request of the party at the judge discretion in the way that most makes sense. this is not an amusement park where you can fast pass approval proceedings. another example is how removing the immigration courts and creating an independent agency

to determine the courts under article one would assist the public is just think concern without alleged misconduct. at this point when complaints are filed they are handled as internal disciplinary matters. these take place in secrecy. sometimes they are even kept secret from a judge involved. the transparent discipline system where the public knows of complaints and whether that judge was sanctioned served the interest of everyone. the placement of an immigration court and law enforcement agency also leads to funding issues that judge marks has alluded to. bringing more cases to the immigration court, the sphere underfunding has been highlighted. the courts are dependent on the budget of the law enforcement agency that ceases as an afterthought at best. the priority is funding law

enforcement officers and prosecutors as judge marks has put it, relegated to the status of cinderella, getting whatever is left over after the program the department of justice considers more important or funded. as a result, instead of hearing cases within the first few months, cases are delayed for years, allowing individuals to become you meshed in the community. leaving those who would be able to obtain a legal status to become productive members of the community in limbo. i hope this us help explain why the national association of immigration judges believes the immigration courts are these of the puzzle that does not fit into the law enforcement framework. if the puzzle is to be solved and for us to protect our borders, and new to create and

fully fund an independent agency under article 1 to administer the administrate -- the courts. thank you. >> we will now open it up to questions. if you could identify your self and news organization and if you have a question for particular judge, if you could let us know. >> [inaudible] they are protected somehow -- how will this affect their rights?

>> you are referring to the 2008 trafficking the dems act, which does bring u.s. law more into conformity with international law come up but domestic law and international law have long recognized children are different. they are a vulnerable population that need special protections. the immigration courts, judges do take steps to assure those cases are handled appropriately. we have to make sure there are guardians. we have to make sure children are given more time, but the association has come out and stated we believe it is a mistake to bring these cases to the front -- front of the docket because they by their nature need more time. you need more time in order to gain the trust and confidence of a child who is been a scary situation when they come to court. they need to be reunited with

family members and responsible adults who can help them locate counsel. our association very strongly encourages measures that would help encourage attorney representation. attorneys make our system better, people who know what the right are are able to work through the system more quickly, more effectively and becomes a positive for both the prosecution and those who are appearing before the courts. because the courts are better prepared and ready to go. we believe the traditional protections should remain or be enhanced. >> [inaudible] can you go over the difference in evidence and how different it

is from the regular procedure. the question of evidence, please. >> evidence in immigration court proceedings is different. for example, immigration court proceedings, hearsay is admisable. the weight to be given to hearsay evidence is different. obviously a witness who is seen something directly is given more weight than someone who has heard something from somebody else. generally speaking the evidence rules are little bit looser and immigration courts and federal immigration courts. i wanted to make one other point about children's cases brought up with respect to the trafficking victims protection relief act. there is a lesson to be learned in history here. the lesson is this, at one point the courts decided to try to streamline the immigration court

process to reduce the number of cases and make them go much quicker. they streamlined them by changing the process by which the immigration reviews cases to make them go much quicker. the result was we had a huge crisis in the federal courts at that point. more and more cases were going to the federal orts. probably were a lot of different reasons. many thought they were getting during best due process so they took the appeal of their. as a result we had huge funding problems. the u.s. attorney's office had to devote more and more resources to these. the same problem happens if you try to streamline the children of the border, and that is the less due process of the lower levels, it will translate to appeals and overwhelmed the higher levels. did you want to say anything else on evidence? >> [indiscernible]

>> one of the most disturbing features, to me, of the immigration system that we have a brother-sister relationship with the u.s. department of homeland security. they have regular meetings where from time to time individual cases are discussed and that filters down to action taken against an immigration judge. it certainly has a chilling effect on immigration judges if they feel the department of homeland security will file a complaint against them. that complaint because of the current system goes hand-in-hand because of the lack of complaint process, the private attorney on the same pace may never know a complaint was filed by the department of homeland security about how we work conduct in the case. >> another aspect of interference is there are very

blury lines sometime between process and actual rights being affected. there are times when the department of justice will implement a decision they believe is simply procedural him and they are not trying to control the outcome, but the judge in the case feels like it will have an unintended consequence and have a detrimental effect. that is where we feel it is simpler and cleaner to take us out of a law enforcement agencies of the judges are making the administrative decisions because they sometimes impact the substance. >> [inaudible] the governor recently reported between 1996 and 2012, about 2 million immigrants were be allowed to be freed before hearing.

only 800,000 people showed up. does that affect the impact of an aggression courts and what do you as a cause of it. >> statistics in the immigration court arena are extremely difficult to parse out and it plied -- apply to the partial reliance -- reality. under the computer terms, i believe in the old days, garbage in and garbage out. you get statistics you get based on the information. our system of data keeping is not up to par i believe. it is antiquated. i am skeptical because i am not sure they are complete or accurate. again, this is not just the department of justice. it is not intentional. it is a factor that cases are extremely complicated and depending on how you define that

outcome you can say the person was present were not present or there was a decision or not a decision. that is difficult to really know whether people will really failed to appear or not. one people i have seen highlighted who looks at the legal decisions made in 1996 that were designed in order to help enhance appearance rate and that has not been a way to test whether current law really does allow that. our changes of address really being noted in the system so that we have an accurate address for them? are there notices of of appearance being delivered to people? are they knowingly ignoring the notices or are they uninformed? there are many questions raised by the figures that need much further investigation. >> go ahead.

i was wondering if you could comment on what impact do have seen sending out more councils and lawyers across the u.s. to help out, in case -- they expanded it over the summer, they provide more legal aid to the children. wonder if you see an impact to that? >> i believe you are referring to the president and mission of americorps 100 we go -- lawyers and legal assistants -- have you seen anything in miami? >> i have to say in this goes to

the previous question, one thing that really affects its whether someone is accentuated or not. some one who has an attorney tends to appear at support hearings. that reason is especially because of the concern for vulnerable population which we consider to be children and mentally incompetent individuals. we do not endorse for illegal or presentation for those populations. i think it is essential for children to have representation. that will result in reduced significantly the problem. >> what would be the justice department's argument about having an independent immigration courts? >> the justice department today has not taken an official position. the executive director of the executive office for immigration review can speak for himself,

but i believe he has said until you see an actual bill or proposal, it is difficult to comment. it is hard to imagine exactly what arguments would be made against. i suppose one would be what the department of justice want to admit they are less than stellar in the court? i doubt they would want to say that. there has been the concern that this might be an expensive transition. we believe there is tremendous expense in the dysfunctional system we have now. the considerations being made at congress now are in essence throwing good money after bad and expecting a different result. we believe the system needs to be reformed.

it cost less as you go up on higher levels of appeal. >> i would say most organizations that have looked at this and every organization has looked at this and endorsed the idea including the american bar association, american judicature society. national association of women judges. american immigration lawyers association has come in support of an independent agency court. i think the main thing we have heard is money. if your gas tank has a leak, and you keep filling up with gas or fix it first? that is what we need to do, fix the system so we can retain

judges, respond to these types of crises in the future. >> you talk about separation and independent court system. what will it take for this to happen? an act of congress? given your are ready victim to political whim, is this wishful thinking in the fact that there may not be affected and this will be very expensive shift. >> creation of an independent court under article one would definitely take a act of congress to do that. but we feel the time is right. this is the kind of immigration reform which would be positive

to everyone from every political spectrum. it is more efficient enforcement to have a resource court, a court whose results are not challenged in successions. in certainly allays the fear due process is being compromised as we work more quickly. advocates for immigrants like the idea as well. we have not heard anyone say it is a bad idea. it is just common sense. >> i just want to add, our court has been the victim of a lot of political winds house within the department of justice. there was a report by the office of inspector general and

professional responsibility. during this time there was a scandal with the firings of u.s. attorneys, the same thing going on with immigration judges. they are being appointed with very few or little qualifications. some of the best we have came in that era. we got a lot of people who came through political basis. we were not protected in the current structure from political whims. i think if we are outside as an independent agency, more transparent, that will be less likely to happen. >> who am i speaking to? >> [inaudible]

i get my figures from the transactional records access clearinghouse. they have been fans for years and do a lot of work gathering statistics from the department of justice on the immigration courts. they track the caseload by city. the highest it has ever been. the immigration court not at the highest level. at one point an all-time high of 272 immigration judges across the country. now we're down to 243. in my remarks i said 227 field immigration judges because with all due respect to the managers and supervisors some of them have no dockets at all and some have a very reduced docket.

>> what is the budget for the whole idea? >> we believe the proper size would be to at least double. that was recommended in the bill that passed the senate in this spring of 2013. another way to look at it would eat perhaps one immigration judge for every 600 pending matters. if you calculate it and not way, those figures would allow them to come to trial because there is open space within 12 months. we feel the doctors should not control when cases are heard. in other words, i should not have to say, i am sorry, you are ready to go tomorrow but my first appointment is three years from now and that is what i have to say.

>> regarding the request for asylum, how many do you feel have been granted in the past couple years percentagewise? >> how many have been what? >> asylum request. >> it is very hard for me to get out of seeing what i see individually. those trends are tracked and tracked and the best way to know what the percentages are. it has fluctuated over time. one thing i am aware of is juvenile cases, -- never mind, not an accurate figure. sorry. i think there has overall been a decline over time.

one of the problems looking at caseload for us is the issue that it is not just whether you call it a particular thing to determine what the complexity is. some cases are more complex than others. asylum cases can be more complex than other related cases. even within the realm of asylum cases, depending on the basis for which people are applying for protection, cases can become more complicated and consuming. the current surge is on gang related cases among the most complex of all for legal reasons that i will not bore you with today. >> [inaudible] >> yes. we can do. >> can you give background on that? >> at this time, we have no firm

commitments that we have been speaking with staff and members of congress. political winds are difficult to protect. we are doing our best but it is helpful to have things we are getting today. we've been preaching to the legal and academic communities for years. it is helpful when a general audience can understand the basics and understand the importance. we are often a hidden tribunal people do not focus on. this has captured the american public's attention and that has been helpful to us. >> user the current cases should not be pulled from the docket. what is the situation? are they now in the front of the docket and do you believe they

are getting the legal systems required or what they need? >> i have to say this process is in the infancy. one message -- i am proud to be an immigration judge and proud of my colleagues and one think we believe in is due process and fundamental fairness. even if they are placed at the beginning of the docket, i think judges will do what they can to make sure they have every opportunity to obtain legal representation. it is their right to be able to do so. and to prepare it as fully and as possible so they can have a fair hearing. as of this moment i cannot tell you across the country, need are being represented. i know the legal community is scrambling and are very grateful for the efforts being made.

the judge will tell you we prefer to have someone represented in the court rather than do it alone. especially in an immigration court. one special duty and immigration judge has is to advise them of not only the charges against them and advise them if there is any application they can make to stay in the united states. this gets complicated and children's case. there is a lot of relief other than asylum. they may be a victim of trafficking, special immigrant visa. if they are neglected or abandoned or abused by parents and that is why they are here illegally because they have no one to take care of them and are fleeing the country for that reason. there are different applications to them. visa for someone who is juvenile and needs to be declared

independent court. those applications have to take place outside. they have to be made to the department of homeland security or documented. so we cannot do that as judges. if someone appears to be a deserving candidate, very important to have an attorney. >> are you feeling any pressure to adjudicate or process the cases of those children at the previous question referred to? are you seeing any sort of pressure to accelerate the cases ? some lawyers say they feel the administration is trying to send a message when they say the majority of children will be returned. are you as judges when you are faced with them, do you feel pressure to process much quicker ?

how does all of this end? if this is not addressed, what is the scenario a year from now or five years from now? >> i can honestly say in the 27 years i have never been told what the ultimate outcome should be in the case. however, there are subtle pressures when you know you're supposed to do the case as quickly as possible. you would not be in an immigration judge if you were not kind of an overachiever who wants to get an a on the assignment. there is pressure to do things more quickly and that is difficult. i think what is ironic is it often takes a personal toll on immigration judges. we are very concerned that of artifacts of the bad structure will be a tsunami of retirements

of immigration judges retiring at the earliest possible opportunity rather than working long into the careers because it is a high stress job. most people would laugh. they would say why do judges need a union? they have no idea the working issues are extremely stressful. there was a study done seven years ago that found we were as stressed as prison wardens and hospital doctors, not by the complexity of the cases, the heart wrenching nature of the term attic stories we hear because we signed up for that, but because of the lack of workplace support we get. that is a big concern we have and you will lose experienced judges that are at the peak of productivity if they are not forthcoming. >> [inaudible]

there is no transparency. you work for those in the system. would you anticipate opening that up to an independent agency, and how do you pay for that ultimately and is there an ultimate cost to you guys for creating the new agency? >> you put your finger on some of them. i tried to list some of the issues we have. the computer system we have was chosen by the department of justice. i think there was very little input for what would be accessible. we do have conflict for how accessible it should be and how public the information should be from time to time. we need a system where it is easy access to the information.

we have some cases that by their nature are to be kept private. that is the same with respect to a state court. so we do need that type of system. the computers -- our system recently, major funding issues. all of our computers crashed recently. our main frame, the main generators crashed and for six weeks we could not get data. if you were calling in from the outside we could not post new cases. everyone had to be personally called. i was never given an explanation as to why that happened. you do not usually see that in a regular court system. when they call the number to find out, there was no information there about what was

going on. i cannot give you a money figure but i can tell you it is better to spend the money now and fix it now and better to put in a structure where the judges will have more and they will have input for how the agency is set up and how the agency is run as opposed to having it run by an agency that has a law-enforcement mentality. >> that is why we call ourselves the legal cinderella's. we do not believe that the department of justice is advocating for our needs. it is true when people look at an article one court for us, we need more money spent on the process, that is undeniable. the question is, will we have judges who have been in the system that are running the

court system who believe in a traditional model of transparency in terms of where that money goes and how it is being spent and to not have us be at the mercy of the prosecutors. one thing we have never been able to get contempt of authority even though it was legislated by congress in 1996 is the department of homeland security does not want other government attorneys to be levying those sanctions. so the economic inefficiencies in the system because we do not have the authority that we need to run things the right way. >> we only have time for two or three more questions. >> you mentioned the cost and effect analysis and also mentioned you received no commitments but are their champions in congress who are emerging?

>> we have been lobbying in part for a cost analysis that we feel congress has done the proper studies and in part that would have to be an organization that can get access to internal information for how the system currently works. as to the champion, we're working hard and hope they will announce there are champions real soon. we feel we have been making progress. we do feel the situation has shed light on a court that if we pulled a bunch of you a couple of months ago you would not have known we existed or when not been able to explain what we do. that is part of what our job has been and we're waiting for champions to come forward. >> what is the difference between children from mexico and children from other parts of the world? can you talk about the congressional efforts to do away with the distinction?

>> we cannot comment on pending legislation and there is pending legislation on that. that is because of judicial ethics. you need to understand we walk the fine line of making sure we do not violate traditional ethics where we prejudge a case that might come before us. i can tell you the mexican and canadian children if they were to come to the border would be subject to expedited removal. that rather than being screened into the system, they could be removed without having a hearing before an immigration judge. the way it currently stands, they are the only two countries where that can happen. the immigration judges believed there are concerns with expedited removal system. we have lumped those within a series of provisions under the law that are in essence bypasses to the immigration system.

again, america is a country of laws. it seems only fair that people have the right to tell their story at least once to an immigration judge. while we will not comment on pending legislation, not in favor of stipulated removal or expansions of the law that end up putting a larger class of individuals with a five past the court rather than come through the courts and allow the individual judges to hear individual facts and make an appropriate case-by-case determination. >> is the u.s. government in violation of the 14th amendment when they expedite the removal of children with the canadians and mexicans outside of the court system?

>> we cannot comment. we are not allowed to make rulings that are not in the case and controversy in front of us, and that is a legal question that would not be within the legal jurisdiction of the court but a higher court. >> i want to thank everyone for coming, and if you will allow me to make one quick commercial. this afternoon we will have another newsmaker matthew rosenberg, the new york times reporter who was recently expelled from afghanistan. from those of you who came today and are watching on c-span, thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> in a few moments, a look at the role of social workers in impoverished communities. in a little less than 1.5 hours, a house budget committee hearing at programs -- on programs aimed at reducing poverty. after that, the latest from the congressional budget office. call forration judges independence from the justice department. >> this weekend on the c-span networks -- friday night on c-span, american history. -- native american history. and then national book festival coverage from the science pavilion. then a debate co