i didn't come to represent me. i didn't camera present diane french coal. representing the people on the street right now. it's the only heat we have in december. and the hurricane happened in august. .omebody needs to hear why were less than 500,000 people spread over 50 states? that's the question my neighbors want to know. and again, it was 10 years ago that hurricane katrina hit the gulf coast region will stop one million people were displaced and about 10,000 people died. we will show you scenes from new orleans after the

we don't know how it will end. it is also possible that five years down the road we will be back in afghanistan. it is much worse than the taliban. the taliban is deeply entrenched and harley defeated. if -- and hardly defeated. if we end up in five years in a new civil war with new save

havens for the taliban and isis, then i would say does not worth the price. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span skew and dave. -- c-span's q and day. those participating in the right to civil jury trials agreed not to sue in litigation. they will take part in his aspirants to hosted event. -- aspen institute hosted an event. this is just over an hour. >> welcome to this discussion about the ceo jury trial. it has a mandate from the congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. what we have the opportunity to

do tonight thanks to alan's husband, this wonderful program, is to delve into the bill of that we are things less leeway, that is, the seventh amendment to the constitution. we will ask why isn't that the double jury trial -- why is it that the civil jury trial which trialsnted 30% of all previously only represents 2%. it really is a disappearing right. we'll ask whether that is a good thing and whether we should do anything about it. let's begin with the text of the with thison and beautiful new edition of the cost from the national constitution center with a thrilling introduction by yours truly and david rubenstein about what we have mentioned.

the introduction tried to explain how the rights that were promised in the declaration are implicit in the constitution and were codified by the bill of rights. let's turn to the seventh amendment. heart, like the fourth, but the fact that i seventh suggest that it is less earlier to me. i can find it right here. here it is. "in suits at common law where the value of controversy shall is one of thethis two places in the constitution where a dollar amount is specified -- "in suits of common law where the value of controversy shall exceed $20, the right shall be preserved and be re-examined then according to the rules of common law." ok, to begin our discussion we ,ave our artery -- our honoree

one of the great lawyers of america and one of the defenders of the jury trial. represented plaintiffs in the north of case and the city against donald douglas. the greatest of all civil trials of the past generation. steve is a passionate defender of his disappearing right. -- of this disappearing right. did the framers have in mind when they wrote those words? and if you were a delegate of the constitutional convention today, would you argue that the same words should be inscribed in the and the constitution and the constitution in the bill of rights were very much bound up with this idea of trial by jury. it is the only right.

not free speech not carrying weapons, nothing. . rightby jury is the only that is mentioned both in the declaration of independence as a , mentioned in article three of the constitution, and the subject of three of the first 10 amendments known as the bill of rights. number five guarantees the right to grand jury, number six, a right to a jury, trial, articleminal case, seven, the right for a jury trial to be preserved in the civil case. trials.ll about jury if you read the debates of the

constitutional convention and the federalist papers, what you find is that the reason rehab a isl of rights today all because our founding fathers who got together to write the constitution in 1787 did not include in the first go-around, a right to a civil jury trial. the anti-federalist southern states were very much opposed to even ratifying the constitution. unless the federalist promised that a bill of rights would be passed, which contained the right to a jury trial. so this was a strong tradition that goes back 800 years. for anglo-saxon people. the colonists and founders felt that this was important.

they felt that juries were necessary to protect them from an overreaching central government, from corrupt or biased judges, from -- a lot of it was economics -- because the jurors -- the idea of jurors were that they were debtors -- protect debtors from paying creditors. there was a lot of that going on. so i just think that you have to have the history to know -- they were very concerned about their juries. every states constitution except two container right to jury by

-- containment the right to a jury by trial. between 1776 and 1787 container --containment the right containe the right to jury by trial. in civil cases. before we get rid of it, we need to think about what we are doing and consider whether this is a right that is maybe worth keeping. i think that your question is fair. if you are writing a constitution today, would you insert a constitutional right for trial by jury. i very much argue that, of course you would. the name of this program is truth founding and victim compensation. i think there is no better way to find the truth then to have a jury of 12 people, a cross section of community, diverse

ears, 122 years -- eyes, 12 hearts, 12 brains are better than one. sure, there are good judges and fair judges, but not all judges are good. when you keep in mind that in this country, two thirds of the judges are elected in partisan elections, it becomes important that we keep the jury to protect us and to compensate victims when there is some form of wrongdoing. all the empirical research shows , without exception, judges who have tried jury trials think that the jury gets lawyers who have lost jury trials think that the jury gets it right even though you lose the case in your heart of

hearts, you say i deserve to lose. and the entire mock trial, jury simulation industry, which is built up in this country now where you bring in a group of citizens off the street and in a day present the case said them, that convinces me that the juries get it right. there, you can watch them actually deliberate. you watch them behind one-way glass deliberate. or you watch them on video deliberate. and when you see them deliberate and when you hear the reports that they give of their deliberations, they are very conscientious. the second thing i would say is that a cross section of people, you are much more likely to get somebody with expertise -- more expertise in everything but the law then you will from a single judge. you get lawyers on juries, accountants, economists,

scientists, you get a very high quality of jury, particularly if you figure out how to make trials shorter which is something that the bar and bench has to figure out how to do. then you also -- juries are representative of the community, people are more willing to accept their verdicts. a jury gives a legitimacy. and jury also -- when you talk about truth finding -- truth finding involves who is telling the truth. juries are much better at identifying who is credible, who is honest, who is being decent and fair on the witness stand and judges. judges may be better in applying the law and that is their job under our system. juries are told he have to

listen to the judge for the law, find, oncets you you find those facts, no other court can second-guess you. that is an important -- our founders put a lot of faith in the ability of a group of citizens to find facts. the amendment says they are so good at doing it that no other court or jury can second-guess what the jury has found. there is a very important role that juries play. jury service is one of the highest manifestations of being a citizen. whenever any underprivileged or minority group has fought for its rights, whether it be blacks or women, the fight always begins with the right to serve

on a jury. and that is funny. i mean, you can go to youtube and google jury service and say there is a lot of fun made it up people avoiding jury service with excuses, but in fact, the people who serve really do become better citizens. i suspect that the next supreme court case on same-sex -- whether you can discriminate against people because of their sexual preference, may well deal with whether a lawyer can exercise a challenge against a potential juror because they are homosexual. the law is very clear, you cannot do it on racial grounds or in gender grounds. so it is important. the empirical research done on that is that people who serve on

juries are much more likely to vote than other people. they are much more likely to pay their taxes then other people. it makes them better citizens. and the final point i say is that, judges -- think about elected judges -- we live in a citizen's united world where judges get elected by raising money. there are no limits. there have been cases in this country where big corporate interests have stopped to buy supreme court justices. that doesn't cost much and it doesn't cost much to buy a trial judge. so that when you appear before them as a litigant, they remember who you are. i think to protect the average

victim, you need to have a jury. you can't rely on a judge. the founding fathers believed that judges could be corrupted, they could be bribed. you know who the judge is an advance but you don't include the 12 jurors are. you cannot fix the jury. for those reasons, if i were writing a constitution today in this country, i would insert a right to trial by jury. mr. rosen: thank you for that superb opening statement. that deserves a round of applause. [laughter] [applause] it is my great pleasure to introduce bert ryan. he went on to one of the most distinguished careers as a constitutional litigator and supreme court advocate of our time. he has had recent victories in

important cases like the shelby county case where the court imposed limits on the voting rights act and the court has agreed to take up the case he is involved in. which is to may decide the issue of affirmative action. bert, justice susman made a case for civil juries, like the fourth amendment right that protects us against overreaching government and he said civil juries remain relevant because you have legitimacy, they are good at finding facts, and they are good for citizens who serve on it. they are the kind of public school of democracy. i want to ask if you are at the constitutional convention, would you vote for the seventh amendment? if not, why? mr. rein: just on the point of history, if you think about the way juries originated in england, they were in a world in

which the king was absolute. he had absolute power, he appointed all officials including the judges. there was no independent judiciary. the only check on that was to ensure that groups of citizens -- particularly criminals -- could hold the authority to say, we know the facts, we have sworn to ascertain the facts, we are familiar with members of the community and people involved with the best ability to figure out what is true. to offset the absolute power of the king, you develop the jury. up to the revolution, the americas, united states was under the jurisdiction of the king. and the king continues to assert absolute power. so the judiciary was not independent. and when we have the constitution, a separation of powers in which we have an independent judiciary. that makes a big difference in

context. i think we cannot read the history is totally one-sided. you are in 1787, reacting to a past when one set of characteristics that may not be true today -- and i think i just say that as a prelude -- i don't think history commands us or counsels us to institute a seventh amendment if we didn't have one. i accept that we have one. in criminal cases, because you are sectioning people in -- sanctioning people in bringing the weight of the community against them, i think the jury has a role in legitimizing criminal penalty. you shouldn't have to be punished unless there is a consensus that you committed the act. civil trials are different. they are varied. lots of things happen in civil trials. turning just to civil trials in leaving aside for the moment things like the fourth amendment

where their adjuncts of the criminal system. in subpoena matters, judges decide them anyway so they are really not the protection of the jury. why should we not look at jury trials as the the all and end all? first of all, a macro issue. this system would break down. if you look at the number of disputes that get resolved outside the province of trial, that is almost a necessary element of our system. if we tried all of those, all of us would be sitting on juries continuously. it would become our optic -- it would become our occupation. society cannot afford it. there is a cost to the civil system. what are the costs? you have to bring in people to sit. many of these people feel they are being ousted from their occupations and being disrupted in a field that it is an undue imposition and especially because we bring in many more

people than ever sit on a jury. so many people spend time waiting around to see if they will be on a panel and whether they will be the petty jury and they don't come away with that positive feeling, they come away feeling that the $30 is no recompense for disrupting my life and then because of that we have to have procedures to command them to comment -- to chase them if they don't. all of this is not free. the system is not cost-free. it imposes substantial cost. it is not like when you can round up the peasants and serfs and say, you would like a day off from the field come in and , be a juror. that is one practical consideration. a jury trial imposes costs on the court system. you have to have people to bring in the panels, to ensure that people show up when called, you have to have the same judge sitting through the trial.

as if you are trying the case because he cannot walk off the bench and say, folks, this is all yours. he may not pay attention to the testimony but you should. you have all of the same costs that you have in the civil system which is prevalent all over the world except here -- maybe a little bit in australia and canada. they have a few civil jury trials, england has them for libel, but we are unique in this. that is another cost that does matter. then, they are going to litigate cases anyway, they are going to have discovery no matter who we have to adjudicated . experts sitting around figuring out what clues you might have to how somebody may react. our theory is on the one hand it should be across section of community and they should bring the community wisdom, but all trial lawyers know you move

heaven and earth to make sure the jury is a community of people who agree with you. or sympathizes with their cause. so you have a preacher selection so you can get clues as to what kind of things may appeal. you have to push to see that you have people more favorable during a jury trial, you have tracking -- you get a group of people and pay them to listen to the same thing to tell you if it is going over well with the audience -- this is not cost-free. that is one reason people worry about a jury trial because you build up cost. so i think we cannot have a system where it is universal. it will work. -- it will not work. it is impossible. if you have it in a can be -- if they find a class of cases in which the stakes are big enough and the clash over fact over what happened in the world is big enough -- how do you distinguish that? how to decide what goes to a

jury? should it be in the hands of litigants? should be in the hands of the court? there may be a better way to sort out jury cases from nonjury cases. on the micro level, assuming here is the case -- is it better to give it to a judge or jury? i think the sources of controversy over that are you have the statistics that pretty much judges and juries sees a case the same way. it is a two edged sword. if you are not getting any different results on the jury, why are we spending this money and time and effort to have one? it basically -- it is not universally true but it is true and 85% of the cases, what number show. second, if you go to the jury, in colonial times, there is a theory called nullification. the jury could decide rule of law or not, we are not doing this. we are drawing the line. these are the king's rules.

the classic case always taught the john peter singer trial. you bring them up for libel because he is insulting the king, and the king's judges are about to put him away in the jury says, no. we are walking out of here. this is a nullification of the law. nullification is controversial in itself when you have an independent judiciary and when you have a legislator -- elected legislator and an elective executive it is a little bit different than having a king who rules by divine right. so to what extent juries decide cases on factors that you would not say are part of a legal framework but really part of their community? that is a tough question. you might not like it. you might like it. but it is different and it does give an opportunity that if it doesn't exist in a system where judges at least are sworn to and will try to apply legal rules

and say the results should be dictated by the rules -- now, i think that when you try a case, there are two kinds of facts that become involved. and particularly because of the many new remedies we have invented in the many new laws we have invented that are not just simple who done it? there are historic facts. what happened? there could be disputes. who said what to whom? who drove a car at what speed? these are historic and juries have common sense and probably would agree with judges most of the time about who is saying is -- who is saying it incredibly, who is telling the truth, whose story holes together? we also have many cases dependent on what i would call predictive fax, they are theories about the world either scientific controversies or economic controversies and academically we have developed many new techniques to evaluate them. now you call in 12 people who may or may not have ever heard

of any of these techniques and you say, folks, you are going to see two economists up here with phd's -- they are not lying because they don't know anything except what the theories are and they are going to show you their regression models and you are going to figure out whether the prices be in charge were the result of a conspiracy or just the result of the way to markets work. and good luck. do we really think that you can get an evaluation of those kinds of issues? you have drug liability cases. the issue is of particular chemical substance capable of causing a certain kind of injury and this is something that if you look at the development of drugs and the fda and this could need an expert of panels you can wait for years. but the jury is told, you have to decide. you cannot say, maybe. you are going to vote. it is a very different system and whether considering the kinds of questions we bring to court -- whether it makes sense to have juries's and other

question. remember, at the time of the constitution, experts were not allowed to testify in court. they were not allowed. in the middle of the 1800s, they can and in the criminal process -- they came in in the criminal process with handprints and footprints and you would need an expert but they are now , universalized -- almost no case starts without some kind of expert if he can get in and you know they become the kind of narrators of the story and people use them and quite effectively to do more than conveyed expertise. they are allowed to jog conclusions -- not conclusions of law -- but they are allowed to speak to issues so they become very influential -- they were not known at the time and whether you would see the system differently given the way trials are conducted -- i mean, i think that is another very difficult question. and you see judges grapple with those kinds of expert issues and find great difficulty.

one other thing i think that leads to is the question of time. because when cases are tried people say, this is a deficiency, the judge does not decide at the moment. he goes back, he can look at the transcript, he can look at the exhibits, and if you need to think about it, he can take a month to think about it, sometimes more. he is not told, you are going to be locked up until you decide. juries are told basically you better decide or we are going to keep you locked up for a while and so that instantaneous kind of reaction is very good for sorting out conflicting versions of real offense in the past may , not be the way to sort out more difficult controversies that are theoretically dependent. the last thing i would say being the devil incarnate is what we are seeing is kind of an historic liberal pull and tell because at the

time of the constitution, the conservative forces were trying to enforce his were not necessarily on the same side and what you are tugging between is the application of rules of law as a predominant way to decide controversies versus the application of human judgment, community consensus, and how to codify the law. -- consensus can modify the law. if you have a seventh amendment, that is only partially true because you turn over to man -- and i don't mean this only men -- men, women, whoever -- the job and the opportunity to modify the application of law. so i think in that situation, i would not pass the seventh amendment as it stands today and i think very hard about how to determine whether there is and should be a class of cases in which it is amenable and also

how in the course of those cases the issues could be allocated , between judges and juries because they always are. mr. rosen: thank you for that opening statement. a round of applause for justice rein. [applause] what a pleasure to introduce ken feinberg. he is the nation's leading mediator and champion of alternative dispute resolutions. in his remarkable career he has , been special master of the 9/11 victims fund and was appointed by attorney general ashcroft. he also administered the $20 billion fund created by british petroleum for victims of the spill. he assisted the virginia tech president. in giving gift donations to the victims of the on-campus shooting. in short he has had more , experience than anyone else in administering huge and complex alternatives to the civil jury

system. you have heard the arguments on both sides. i want to ask first, tell us what it was like to administer the 9/11 victims fund. is something like the 9/11 victims fund or the bp compensation fund a plausible alternative to the jury system? how did you put a monetary value on those lines? -- on those lives. mr. feinberg: these funds i administer are a precedent for nothing. for nothing. you will see them as aberrations. three and 15 years. the 9/11 fund created by congress 13 days after the attacks, if congress had waited two more weeks, it would not have created this type of fund. bp oil spill, bp walked into the white house, saw president obama, walked out, and announced, we will create a $20 billion fund.

up front, no trials. 20 billion to compensate all of the victims of the oil spill. i received 1.2 million claims from 50 states. i got 15 claims from colorado. i didn't know the oil had got to colorado. alaska, 35 foreign countries, sweden, norway. build it and they will come. [applause] [laughter] these programs are not a threat to the trials. they are not a precedent and it is important they not be a precedent. the 9/11 victims compensation fund was absolutely the right thing to do after those attacks. sound public policy. the country wanted to show the world, we take care of our own. it worked. 97% of all eligible families that lost a loved one in the

world trade center, the airplanes, the pentagon came into the fund. taxpayer money. taxpayer money. don't ever do it again like that. don't ever create a fund like that again. you will never see it again. you should have read some of the e-mails i got during my administration of the 9/11 fund. my son died in oklahoma city, where is my check? dear mr. feinberg, i don't get it. i don't get it. my daughter died in the basement of the world trade center in the 1993 attacks. committed by the very same type of people, why aren't i eligible? it was not just terrorism. explain something to me. last year, my wife saved three little girls from drowning in the mississippi river and then

she drowned a heroine. where is my check? bad things happen to good people every day in this country and you do not have a 9/11 fund. there was no 9/11 fund after katrina. after tornadoes or forest fires. or earthquakes. that is not america, these funds. to delegate all of this authority, president bush, ken, i want you to do the 9/11 fund. no committees, no appeals no , second-guessing, you decide. that is not the constitution. that is not checks and balances. i can see why steve sussman would be very concerned about that, frankly. president obama with the bp oil spill. great job, thank you. on behalf of the american people, you got out in 16 months, $6.5 billion, two people who suffered economic harm.

great. great ?all that was was a handshake between bp and the president. no laws, no regulations. except for what i said that. that is not the constitution and that is not america. i get involved when policymakers decide, very rare. we have to think out-of-the-box. steve sussman notwithstanding. steve is right in a lot of what he says. even if he isn't right, he invited me. [laughter] the fact of the matter is, policymakers, i don't decide these programs. policymakers do. congress, the white house, general motors. they decide. let's set up a fund. they call me. they want to avoid the cost of litigation.

they want to avoid the inefficiencies and delays of litigation. i am paying people in 60 days. they want the certainty. victims want certainty. these programs are all voluntary. 9/11, 97% took it. no one has to come in and take the money, everybody does. bp, 92%. gm, we are going to finish this month with ignition switches, 99% take the money. my final point, why do people come into these programs? mark mueller is somewhere in this audience. mark mueller represented 350 people in 9/11. families. ask him. 97%, we must be doing something right when we set up these programs.

just remember, i am not here to wage another view between bert and steve. i think the trial system, whether you like it or don't like it, it is here to stay. it is part of our heritage, part of the fabric of our country. if you think you are going to change the seventh amendment or if you think you are going to somehow as a matter of constitutional policy undercut the role of the jury in our society, you are dreaming. a better question for these two eminent law clerks, a better [laughter] a better question for steve and bert, why aren't there more trials? that is not a constitutional convention question. that is -- what is wrong with

our system today that more people don't take advantage of the seventh amendment? but what i do, books believe me, , it is better studied, not in a law seminar, but in a history class. what i do is no threat to our legal system, to our lawyers, or to our judges. these are rare aberrations and they should be seen as aberrations, not to be encouraged. there we are. [applause] mr. rosen: superb.

steve, i think his question is excellent. the seventh amendment is here to stay. why is it so few people take advantage of it? tell us the history that led the numbers to decline. what would you do to increase the numbers and have more people take advantage of their seventh amendment rights? >> the trial lawyers and judges

have done a very bad job. what is the competing dispute resolution? people will always have disputes. you will have a service, what is litigation competing with? whatever you are selling, if your product is too expensive, or not deemed to be safe, the competitor will win out. that is what happens with arbitration. arbitration is private dispute resolution. arbitration does not create any precedent, these are paid, private judges. the lawyers have been at fault and the judges because they have, in a way, hobbled juries in finding the truth. the jury is not supposed to read anything in the paper or look at what is on the internet. a jury of your peers were supposed to come to court because they knew something about the case. now we are looking for the lowest denominator on juries. trials go on forever so that the judges -- the judges allow them to go on for weeks. the consequence of that is the only person who serve our juries

are unemployed or retired. that is not good. the jury instructions are totally incomprehensible. although they were written in english. you cannot possibly -- a lawyer cannot sit there and listen. felix by frederick could not listen to a jury charge in the patent or securities case and tell you what it meant. there are a lot of things -- and i just read this book written called "a trial by jury" by a princeton professor. every time they asked the question to the judge the judge , said he would not answer it. you don't get written instructions. you are not allowed to ask questions. you are not allowed to discuss the case. everything you can do to make it difficult for people to comprehend, we have done to our jury. that has got to change.

there is a lot that is wrong with the jury. in any event, a lot of it originates with the business community. in the 1980's, they began thinking all litigation was bad. that is a we had tort reform and that is when we had lawsuit abuse reform. you cannot buy goods and services without agreeing to give up your right to a jury trial or any kind of trial. every time you click on the internet -- i tried to get in with my iphone this week to the itunes store. terms and conditions, check here if you want to go further. if you did not check, you did

not get in. so i said, i'm going to see if these terms of conditions are. 73-page contract. [laughter] i am not kidding. no one can read that on an iphone or laptop. i am sure that i waved my right to a jury trial, limited myself to damages. the supreme court has blessed this. if you are a consumer, a patient, employee, every time you sign a contract, you give up your right to trial by jury, to access the public justice system. that needs to be changed. badly.

[applause] because it is really interesting. if you are a criminal or accused of a crime and want to give up a jury trial, the judge explains to you, you have the right to a trial and if you do not exercise, this might happen. do you understand? you speak english? makes the accused speak in court so we know there has been a voluntary, knowing waiver under the right of the sixth amendment to a trial by jury. why don't we do that under the seventh amendment? instead we have the supreme , court sanctioning these click through contracts. and contracts of adhesion which people give up their seventh amendment right without knowing to give it up. a study done by the consumer protection finance bureau, the results were published.

90% of the people who are subject to a mandatory arbitration clause are not even aware they are subject to that. that they have lost their right to go to cou, so the public does not understand that you are losing your right to trial by jury because you are voluntarily giving it up every time you buy anything and big business is overreaching, corporate america is hiding behind these arbitration clauses to avoid facing a jury. there are a lot of reasons why we are losing. i think the arbitration is one reason. i think another problem is, eight of the nine supreme court justices have never tried a jury case. that is a lot different than in the day when i was clerking for the court justice.

he was a trial lawyer in alabama. he wanted to protect the jury because he had done it before. he knew about jury trials. all they see are these outlier verdicts, reported in the popular media. there is all this popular word about juries doing bad things, doing extreme things. if we got rid of it, maybe we could save the seventh amendment. mr. rosen: we have about 10 minutes left. there will be a vote at the end of our discussion and you will have to decide whether or not if you were a delegate, you would vote for the seventh amendment today. frame your questions to inform that vote and you're welcome to

ask any of our panels. >> earlier, jury nullification was mentioned. this is an esoteric thing that could be used. could any of you elaborate on it ? >> i'm happy to do it in the moderate role. i will describe it and then bert , i want you to amplify the point you make. jury nullification was at the core. steve mentioned this anger trial where john peters -- the singer trial. he is indicted and he cannot the greater the

, truth, the worse the offense. a jury refused to convict him because they did not think seditious libel was appropriate in a free society. a similar case, john wilkes is accused of printing anonymous pamphlets criticizing the king. he is accused of judicious libel and he objects to the general warrant is invalid because it did not specify a specific place. a jury believes it violated the natural rights of the english people. those are two examples of jurors refusing to convict people. do you really believe given that history of our constitution, the fact that we are now a democracy and no longer ruled by a king means that civil juries should not retain the right to nullify

what they consider unjust laws? bert the context of : nullification, you have an arbitrary authority, you have had no voice in the shaping of those laws. suddenly, you are up against them. the king has said, i know what seditious libel is and i have proven it. what the jury is saying is, we are not going to accept that, we will have no role in that we , don't agree with it. one of the things was, they might have a right to collect, but it is unfair. it is too deleterious to our economy and hell no. it is making law. why do you want 12 people arbitrarily chosen to make law? a little bit different.

everybody wants to nullify something. you have a ruling about gay marriage, you have governors who say, not here. massive resistance to desegregation. those are nullification's. n the torpedoes, full steam ahead, we will do it our way. it is not so easy to support a theory of nullification when your alternative is a democratic process. steve talked about arbitration, these rulings are under a federal law. you could change that law. congress could change the federal arbitration act and say no more of this. it is also true that the number of jury trials declining rapidly before the widespread application of arbitration. so you cannot explain it. it is a wonderful jury-type argument. here is something that will get you mad, but it has nothing to do with it.

that is one of the risks of a jury trial. [laughter] >> we have time for a few more questions. >> have you considered how elimination of consensual arbitration might affect some parts of the economy? would you work as an investment advisor if you know a jury rather than arbitrators will decide whether a disappointed investor gets his or her money back? are you equally passionate when defending the right of defendants to jury trials in class-action settings once there has been a determination that there are common issues taken away from a jury and the defendant does not have a right to a jury trial?

mr. sussman: well, the answer -- i do not think it has that much of an effect on the economy. arbitration has only become big in the last decade. it is something rather new. the economy was doing fine. frankly, if parties are equal in bargaining, they can resolve similar dispute in any way they want, arbitration, arm wrestling, casting lots. i have a problem with -- when i want to buy something, i cannot even read, i go to check something off and give up my right. that is kind of what i have a problem with. i don't really have too much of a problem with your investment advisor situation because -- i

f i don't let to go defend my disputes against you, i find an investment advisor that does not require me to do that. i assume i can do that. in any event, that is my view on that. >> i want to get back to the law school classroom a little bit. back in the day, when he was a law professor, he developed a theory called economic theory of tort. i would like to hear from each of our speakers, your view of the interaction between the economic theory of tort and the right to a jury trial. >> do you want to explain what the economic theory of tort is or shall he get a room -- or shall maryland refresh our memory?

>> let's start with steve. [laughter] mr. rein: i honestly don't know what that means. i think i have an idea. [laughter] i did not go to yale. i think i have a fair understanding. you are talking about what role does tort adjudication play in society. in some societies, let's say scandinavia, you have a social contract with the state as a whole with the people as a , whole. if something adverse happens to you, it is the public responsibility to care for you. so that in those societies, activity and blames israeli secondary. certainrve possibilities because you not only want to identify how to help the person who was injured or harmed, you want to at least create culpability outside the

criminal system. in the u.s., we do not have a pervasive social system. in that sense, tort is a vehicle for people compensating themselves for injury as well as attributing blame. it depends on the blame theory. you do not have to have a blame theory. california developed rules, which i think he looked at and they said if you put a dangerous , commodity, you know it is going to injure somebody, you have to build that into the price. is this a matter of where disk -- wherelice come from does social police come from? those kinds of things, trying to take away this question of finding blame in each case. you want to reserve blame for cases in which there has been bad conduct. there are a great many arguments for that kind of the system where you place the price into it. if you are building in an inefficient mechanism, there are two problems.

one, that will come back in the price and it is random. two, if you think of people similarly injured, somebody thinks about going to a lawyer. another person does not think and caning to a lawyer, said social justice, and in his kind of administration, everybody is entitled and relatively easy. a lot of people fear the courts. they do not want to waste their time. the tort system, in some ways, is random. i would say the greatest advantage of the jury system, is the interior affect -- is the interim effect. everybody is scared of the jury and that is why you can settle more cases. whether they are well settled is another question. having a fear factor is like a nuclear deterrence. if you keep messing around, you might have a nuclear holocaust, do not do it. the jury trial and maybe some of the myths around it lead to that kind of behavior and maybe they are the cause of the fact that

we do not have jury trials. because people do not want to take that risk. mr. rosen did you apply it on : the 9/11 commission? mr. feinberg: we do an end run on theories of tort. we invite people to come into a system which does not to fix blame, does not deter. it compensates, that is all it does, individual victims. in 9/11, 94 people, 3%, decided voluntarily not to come into my program. i met with them and i said to each one, why aren't you coming into a program that will compensate you in 60 days with an average award tax-free of $2 million?

some would say, i lost my wife at the world trade center. she would want me to sue to make the airlines safer. to make the airlines safer. you are not going to make the airlines safer by suing. the airlines are as safe as they are going to be. even if you believe that a lawsuit will help make the airlines safe, let the other 93 people sue. let 93 people litigate to make the airlines safer. come in and get your money. well, someday, someday not. that is how i will answer maryland's question. mr. rosen: without the threat of a civil jury trial, would bp or gm ever put up that kind of find? mr. feinberg: i doubt it.

mr. rosen: there you go. mr. feinberg: i doubt that very, very much. mr. wilson: this -- mr. rosen: bert, this question is for you tell me of any kind , of civil case where the biggest issue, the one that amounts to the most money is not intent. i have never tried a case where intent is not the key issue. just like it was the issue in the obamacare supreme court case. what did congress in 10? what did the parties intend? who better than a jury of your peers at ascertaining what people really mean and think and intend? that is not technical.

what is the intent? mr. rein: you do not have to prove willfulness to win. you have to prove it for additional certain rewards, but all you have to prove is that you infringed the claims of the patent. you know that better than anybody else. you are being too cute. thee are live at congressional where cbo director keith hall will give us an outlook for the economic here. this is life. again. morning, i am keith hall at the congressional budget office. we have released a net day to our previous economic projections for the next 10 years. i will briefly summarize those projections gaining with the budget and then turning to the economy and i will be happy to take your restaurants.

-- to take your questions. the federal budget deficit we predicted for 2015 -- 2016 will be smaller than we predicted in march. specifically, we estimate that the deficit for this fiscal year will reach 426 billion dollars, $59 billion less than last year, or 2.4% of gdp. this will be the sixth straight year of declining deficit relative to gdp. however, the debt will reach 13.2 trillion million dollars -- trillion dollars. it is slightly less than the ratio last year, but higher than

any ratio since 1950. over the next 10 years, the outlook does not defer substantially from the one we described in march. under the assumption that current laws generally remain in place, deficit as a percentage of gdp are estimated to remain years, the next three but then begin to rise. at the cbo's current baseline, the deficit falls to 1% of gdp in 2013, but in the next decade much higher. those deficits occur because significant projected growth in spending on health care and retirement programs and rising interest payments on federal debt outpace projected revenues. by the and of the tenure baseline, rising debts push public health debt up to 7% of gdp, roughly 20% of the last

five decades. under current law, both spending and revenues would remain higher as related to current levels of gdp. both will be for the next several years above the 20% average they have been at the last 20 years. outlays would total 22% of gdp. spending on three components of the budget will grow faster than the economy. the major health programs, including medicare and medicaid and subsidies for health s, and social security and net interest payments. spendingst, mandatory other than that for major health care programs and social security and both defense and nondefense discretionary spending would shrink markedly relative to the size of the

economy. outlays in those categories would fall to the lowest percentage of gdp since 1940, the lowest year for which comparable data has been reported. as a share ofes gdp are expected to rise to 18.9 percent of gdp in 2016, primarily because several provisions of law expire at the end of the calendar year 2014. moderate levels before rising to 18.3% of gdp by 2025. the percentage they average over the past 50 years. the changing pattern of revenues as a share of gdp would result in offsetting movements during all or part of its projection timeframe. tax receipts would increase relative to gdp, largely a result of real bracket creep with smaller effects of changes

and other factors. payroll tax receipts would decline relative to gdp, especially over the next several years. reflecting several factors, such as declined to unemployment trust funds. corporate tax receipts would , mostly because of an anticipated drop in estimated profits as a percentage of gdp and the effect of recently expired tax provisions. remittances to the treasury and federal reserve, which have been written -- have been very large since 2010 would decline to more typical levels. beyond 2025, is current laws remain in place them same pressures that contribute to the rising deficits in the next decade would accelerate that -- would push debt up sharply relative to gdp. when interest rates return to more typical higher levels,

federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. because federal borrowing reduces national savings over time, the nation's capital profit would ultimately be smaller and total wages would be lower than if debtor smaller. lawmakers would have less flexibility to use taxing and spending policies for changes. for the economic outlook, our budget reductions are built on the economic forecast leverage anticipate that the economy is expected to grow modestly this year and a solid pace through the next few years. although real adjusted inflation early 2015, the economy now appears to be on firmer ground and we expect the pace of economic activity to pick up over the next calendar year and the next few years. after that, we expect to see

moderate to constrained early growth in the workforce. by 2% thisll grow calendar year, by 3.1% in 2016, and by 2.7% in 2017. above its potential or maximum sustainable rate over that time frame. the economy will grow at an average rate of 2.2%, equal to its real growth rate. consumer be driven by spending, business investment, and residential investment. over the next few years, the faster pace in growth output is expected to reduce the quantity of underused resource, or slack, in the economy. 3.4% inmate was about 2014. cbo next to narrow that gap to

its historical average by the end of 2017. although labor market conditions continue to improve significantly, in the first half of 2015 there is still significant slack in the labor market. key measures include the labor force participation rate that remains about 1% below its potential rate, the employment 0.5% higher than it was the beginning of the session, and the share of those super for part-time over full-time work, which is about 1% higher than the last session. is thatct consequence wages continue to grow more slowly than they did before the recession. we expect that as slack diminishes, increased competition for fewer available workers will lead forms -- firms to increase wages more rapidly to attract available workers. we project further hiring will touce unemployment further

5.0% in the first quarter of 2017. most of thewever, labor force slack that can be seen is in the low labor force participation rate. we estimate that the current employment shortfall with the number of people who would be employed if the unemployment 20 --qualed its rate in in 2007 is about 2.7 5 million people. accountsf limit rate for only about one fourth of that amount. rateepressed employment accounts for the other three fourths. that development will slow the long-term decline in labor force participation, which is attributable to the underlying demographic trends and federal policies, but it will also slow

the following unemployment rate. years,e next few depressed slack in the economy will put pressure on upward interest rates. nevertheless, cbo expects the rate of inflation as measured by the price index for personal expenditures to remain the same through 2017. an outcome that is consistent with some remaining, but diminishing slack in the economy and widely held expectations for slowly rising inflation. through rates have been -- have been near zero through 2009 will rise to 3.4% by the end of 2019. the rate in 10 year treasury notes, cbo expects, will rise to two point -- to 4.2% by the end of 2019. those rates rise with the

increase in the federal funds rate and the improving economic conditions. we are now happy to take questions. if you could say your name and/or news organization. -- and your news organization. >> how do you account for the $60 billion or so drop in the deficit beyond that revenue is hard? and why is revenue hard, as thought back in the spring, and also your projection on when treasury will run out of room for extraordinary measures, the difference between what you set now and you said earlier. keith: the tax revenues have been higher than anticipated, and we now forecast about $70 billion in tax revenue this

year. the slower growth will go away. we expect about $10 billion in revenue, so we did that net increase of $60 billion. >> why? keith: it is not because of the slower growth. it just seems to be that tax revenues are higher. and that is actually the reason why we changed our date for when the treasury runs out of money. know, the deficit limit was hit in march, and the treasury is now using extraordinary measures to continue to operate. and this higher forecast of revenues in our estimation is until we run out of money between mid november and early december. >> the components of the revenue , can you talk a little

bit about where that is coming ?rom is it on the corporate side or individuals? both: it is actually from corporations and individuals. both were higher than expected. john nicholson with bloomberg be in it. na.with bloomberg b days, we have seen the stock markets particularly going through some troubles. -- in the event since july 7, where would it shape the forecast now and what would you expect to see on paper now? keith: economic growth has been

stronger than we thought since july 7. we were to change things, probably stronger growth for this year and then a little weaker for the next two years. with respect to the stock market, i'm not sure we would change anything yet. fluctuations in equity markets are fairly common. they affect something like when julian dollars worth of wealth -- one trillion dollars worth of wealth that has been lost up to yesterday. but that does not translate into change behavior by either consumers or businesses right away. >> how much are you worried about those gyrations at best?-- at this point keith: -- at this point? economic fundamentals, at least so far, have not been changed. i don't feel too worried about it. >> steve with tax notes.

the report make the comment that tax revenues are lower because expired tax revisions did not get renewed at the end of last year. as you know, congress is you need to think about extending those provisions again will stop -- again. by passinge the case -- and you have done it here several times -- that the section 19 business expansion, that has been renewed and will bring the debit closer. there is more spending and the limit will be closer than estimated in november. keith: that is right, we expect that the spending provision will not be renewed. and if it is, obviously will have an effect on revenues. >> [inaudible] sooner? keith: i'm not sure, to be honest. we would have to sit down and

count. i have to be honest. federal health care spending, it has been growing faster than the economy, of course. do you see any differences in that trend? do you see a faster rate of growth for federal health care spending, or do you see it slowing down at all? any changes -- see it slowing down at all? any changes? some ofe do not have the data yet. we will probably have that by the and in the year. we do expect premiums to rise anyway. and the uptake in exchanges is always a big unknown in our forecast to my because we do not have any experience with that yet. just to follow-up looking at

the larger picture, there has the past several years a slowing in the growth rate in the federal health care spending. the question is, will that continue or will the growth rate return to a faster pace? any better sense for that growth rate is headed at this point? keith: it is certainly part of our forecast that spending on health care will increase significantly going forward. it has been a long-term trend, and then of course, the effect of the subsidies is a big unknown in the exchanges. we do expect that health care spending is going to continue to rise. any differences in your projections between now and march traceable to the health care law? keith: no, it is pretty close to

the same right now. >> on your revision of the increase and potential labor , what droveipation you guys to make that change? has there been any interplay with the afford care act on your projections with labor force participation? inform any thinking about slower wage gains so far over the past 18 months or so? keith: i think our notion of a slightly higher labor force participation in part comes from the pattern. we find people returning to the labor force a little bit faster than we would have anticipated. theakes us think that cyclical impact of the labor force is bigger than we thought before. that is the main reason. i don't know that we have seen any impact on the labor force participation from the aca.

it is hard to know how much that is going to affect things. certainly, you want to keep monitoring it and get an idea of what the impact would be. one of the big issues is that the employer mandate is only partially kicked in this year and we have more to kick in later. we will have to see what impact that has. on interest rates, in your changes from the market a sign -- from the market baseline, you indicate 3 million plus downgrade in interest payments. can you explain that? talk about why that is, because i thought you made a decision on lower than historic rates previously. what new information is there that is lower, or is that just fluctuations in the forecast?

and how does this play into the idea that our interest will become such a big word and that we will have trouble in five or 10 or 30 years paying our continued interest? keith: the change in the interest rate forecast really a look at the financial markets and the expectations in the financial markets. we are beginning to expect a little lower growth in interest rates than we did. we made an adjustment for that. anticipate a rise a significanttes, rise in interest rates. in fact, the picture is still up there. we will also have a very large asrease in interest payments interest rates go up.

>> on the interest rate ,uestion, or related i guess there is a line about no a fortation for a col interest rate inflation. do you have new data on disability and when that will be exhausted in your estimates? the social security is set by law to follow the consumer index. i forget exactly, but it's a one or two your time change. the way it looks now, there will just not be much inflation on the cpi to give much of an index on social security. is what we anticipate.

and the other part, i'm sorry? >> on disability insurance. keith: i don't recall what it was last time, but i know we talked about it in our long-term budget outlook. but i don't recall. they haven't already, democrats will probably use this report to say, look, no need to cut spending. republicans will argue long-term we need to do something about it. who is right? [laughter] this doesn't change our long-term projection, or even our 10 year projection. the pattern is very much like it was in march, very much like it was in january. the growth inlaw, debt is not sustainable. at some point it will get to a level.gh

obviously, you cannot predict tipping points, but at some point this becomes a problem. the wave is going, it is not just that the debt gets to a high level, i think something like 70% of gdp by 2025. but there is also the trend. 70% and growing. that factors into things as well. pathis an unsustainable here for the federal debt. does your point take into account any kind of economic boost from cutting taxes? in other words, do we use dynamic scoring to indicate revenues would not be as low as previous they suggested? keith: implicitly there is dynamic analysis in this work all the time. it is sort of been nothing new in the economic force that we

rely on, the current law that we --y on, and part of the fact part of this is the growing debt probably having some effect on crowding out investment and slowing economic growth going forth. speaking of dynamic, since you brought it up, you guys just recently issued your dynamic estimate of a particular bill, the extenders back in early august. us ther you could give aspects of how that decision was made in terms of the formatting, the table and so on. of that wasw much made in discussion with the budget committees, particularly the senate budget committee? keith: they certainly requested the estimate and i believe it was large enough for the automatic dynamic analysis to begin.

we did that analysis along with jct. figuringhe analysis is out how to effectively communicate the impact. we did our analysis on that particular tax extension relief act of 2015. would increase the deficit by $87 billion over a ten-year timeframe. the estimate that without the macroeconomic effects, you can see where those effects are. in terms of the fort amounting, was that -- the formatting, what was -- was that decision made here? keith: oh, it was our decision. we also anticipate it will

improve the quality of our estimates to be able to improve that -- include that. there was perhaps an issue of our estimates not being centered without having the -- the macroeconomic effects included. that is probably true to an extent, but there is always uncertainty in terms of forecasting the effects. we are kind of used to the idea of uncertainty in our macro forecast. center.entioned could you go over that issue again? keith: sure, the tax extension -- the tax relief extension act is a good example. the increasing deficits with by about $97 billion, but you expect the lower income tax rate will have some sort of macroeconomic effect, reducing a little crowding out and such.

increasepate an deficit by less than that, by about $87 billion. we had a shift of about $10 billion to our point estimate to the impact, if that makes sense. >> how much of a challenge has it been to -- i mean, it is easier probably to do a range of dynamic estimate. you estimate a range of the dynamic impact of inflation as opposed to a single number. has it been a challenge or an issue to do a single number rather than a range? it reallymy mind happened in, because we are asked for our best estimate. we could put a range around estimates without macro effects just like we can with one with a macro effect. i think we are doing a good job to give a pointed estimate.

this is our best estimate. but it is also probably true to communicate the uncertainty in the range. we can do that at least wanted to play. it is hard to do it numerically -- we can at least do that qualitatively. it is hard to do it numerically. range what you expected, or more than you expected? keith: i think it was pretty much what we expected. i did not sit down and try to predict it, but we have been using the macroeconomic effects for a while now and we have the models down, so we have a feel for what that will look like. forward,tes continue it is important to be transparent on the modelers so we can get some discussion about how we do the estimates and maybe we can improve that over time. uncertain isore , howtax extenders bill

much more uncertain is this dynamic score of $87 billion than the standard score of $97 billion? because we hear the score is less certain. this is only a $10 billion difference. what would your thoughts be? on the difficulty with the macroeconomic effects and really, almost all of our estimates, is that there is an unknown thing there. we all know how accurate it is, what the ranges. when we do our forecast, especially something like the long-run forecast, we will do a parameter of values to give you a feel for the accurate a. but that is not released this is the goal standard error -- that is not really a statistical standard error or something like that. hopefully over time we will get a better notion of that and be able to begin communicating that a bit better going forward, what

the likely range will be. cuts pay for themselves? no, the evidence is that the tax cuts do not pay for themselves. -- and our models show that in the tax extension relief act. we are hoping the estimate is more centered now, that we are --ng to get into the right that the point estimate is being more accurate. there has been uncertainty lately. not to be a pessimist, but we do have a fed at the zero lower around. we do have an historically high and growing amount of debt to gdp. these twohe risks to

conditions should there be a global recession, which is presumably not unthinkable given what we are seeing in some of these markets. i'm not sure the markets are suggesting anything about a global recession as of yet. as long as the long-term economic fundamentals remain and change, then this is not some we should worry about stop and what i have seen -- what we should worry about. and what i've seen from the fed is that the fluctuations in the equity markets, that's not the same thing. is one of the reasons why we are concerned about the growing debt, because as debt continues to grow in handcuffs the government if we go into another recession about what they can do policy wise to work through it. we lose flexibility. and to give you an idea of how important that is, i will repeat

something that you probably know. but keep in mind the jet to -- the debt to gdp ratio in 2007 was something like 30% of gdp. we are now up to 74% and that is a huge change. that is a difficult thing. starting at 74% would be a difficult thing to do with another downturn like that. >> there was something in the marchs about -- between and last week about the $200 million in related health care. it was reclassified in march and then reclassified again this time. can you walk us through? keith: i think it was a technical change, but the fact

that it was in our forecast in march makes it a change that affected our estimate of revenues, but it did not fall into the technical category. >> what was the original thing to come up with $200 billion? what was the treatment in march and -- the treatment in march versus the treatment now? keith: that i do not know. i have had too many things to look at. >> we can follow up. keith: so it is absolutely clear we have left you with no questions? its things like there are not as many changes in this update as in a lot of the previous reports. it seems like minor changes. keith: i don't have experience

with previous reports, but certainly the economic change, the drop in and disappointing first-quarter with growth had a bit of an impact. and even now it looks like since july 7, even less of an impact than first thought because the data looked a little better going forward. and then, i guess, the revenue rise. we reallythan that, haven't changed our views on the potential of gdp in the long-term view of the economy and the budget going forward. we have not changed that much. we still have a tricky time because we are still looking at significant slack in the economy. we've got until the end of 2017, at least by our forecast, until that slack is gone. and until that goes, we don't anticipate the wage growth will

be what we would like it to be, what it should be until that slack goes away. i think that will be a challenge going forward. this may be outside your purview, but any thoughts on what kind of policy changes could accelerate that growth and reduce the slack? keith: i wouldn't want to set speculate -- to speculate on that. it is oh is difficult to imagine what will spur the economy in the short run. we are doing now is the setting of the automatic stabilizers. the demand has faded from that. that is what we are dealing with, but you are always dealing with that in a recession. one of the things that i think looks like a real almost unknown challenge right now is productivity is not growing like

it usually does through a business cycle. and i think that is probably a real concern not just to the united aids, but around the world. productivity growth being strong -- to the united states, but .round the world productivity growth being strong. it is actually part of our forecast that we will get a bounce back in productivity, but in some ways it is overdue right now. it that worldwide productivity growth is weak? keith: it is. real clear answer. hopefully when we see it bounce back we will figure out why it was this low. but that is an important part of this forecast and the revised forecast, productivity. when he gets back to something like it usual long-term range of growth.

-- like it's usual long-term range of growth. can you walk us through where that potential gdp has been to where it is now to where it could go? keith: something like potential gdp, it requires a number of things. you get back to full use of economic resources. you get your labor force -- bouncing back and unemployment to bounce back. we've probably got some catch up in capital investment. in fact, part of our forecast is a little ketchup in business investment. actually, that is one of the things that we differ a little bit from some of the other forecasters. we are a bit more bullish about a bounce back in investment. force back andor investment back, and in you hopefully get this productivity back. that is sort of the at -- the recipe for economic growth going

forward. somelthough we've had disconnect between productivity and wage growth, a number of years ago growth in productivity is now following labor compensation. they still are related and we are still expecting you will need to have growth in productivity and competition. and that is one of the things, too, the share of gdp is still low. that needs to bounce back. that will be part of getting rid of the labor market slack and increasing demand for labor services. more questions? notne completely -- well,

completely unrelated. the friday release of the economic analysis of obama's budget, one thing that struck me in that is that you talk about the gmp will be higher, but per becausenp will be lower of the immigration aspect of the president's budget. my limited reading of that is that there are more poor workers and therefore lower wages. i take it if that is not -- i take it that is not that simple. would you walk me through that? keith: part of it is that average inare below their earnings, their income. if you increase immigration, even if you increase employment

with immigration, because they are below average you lower the per capita gdp. and that will be a challenge going forward when we have this declining labor force to begin with. we are obviously slowing our forecast for gdp growth in the future. ad we've got the issue of ratio of people working to not working in the economy as the population ages. if you have slower gdp growth and youth have still a large population, you will have maybe a slowdown in per capita gdp growth. but that will be something a lot of economies will experience the aging population, the aging labor force. >> to follow up on that, the immigration proposal, let's assume that is passed and we have more low-wage workers in the country. that would reduce the average wage. necessarily reduce other people's wages? i mean, middle and upper income

wages, -- it could reduce the average wage, but does that also mean it could reduce the wages whoome existing workers were working before the change in the law? keith: our reading of the economic literature is that it doesn't, it doesn't reduce other wages. that is part of the forecast. and the analysis of the president's budget. i hope i have that right. other questions? you've held up great, though. thank you. is there any reason to continue? i guess i could ask you questions now. [laughter]

that could go a long time. [laughter] .eith: thank you thank you for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[indiscernible conversations]

conversations]

any of what the cbo director had to say, you will be able to watch it later on any of our networks or also at www.c-span.org. congress considers discontinues its break. -- congress continues its break. -- congressman jim

inhofe tweeted out this picture. and representative we'll have heard tweeted out this picture. hurdpresentative will tweeted out this picture. and right now, entrance to national parks is free. thisichard hudson sent out picture. and aarp study finds that about half of retirees are deciding to remain in the workforce. the senate aging committee is looking into that trend. this past season, we hear from a senior citizen from maine who started her own handbag company. it starts at 4:30 p.m. at eastern today. and we will open up the phone

lines for your comments. marks the 10ust 29 year anniversary of hurricane katrina. p.m., a tour of hurricane damage, and at 9:30 p.m., the committee hearing of citizens describing their experiences before and during the crisis. on theseoaded us up military trucks and then they declared the city of new orleans, orleans parish and jefferson parish, a war zone. and it still didn't think in that we were the prisoners of war. >> on wednesday night at 8:00 p.m., c-span's tour of the hurricane damage at st. bernard parish in louisiana. >> you can't describe it. it is your whole life gone. nothing the cement and rubble left. and not only your house, but all your friends and family,

everybody is gone. and now it's got to be a year later and you still don't see the friends and family anymore that used to see. it's a powerful feeling. you don't forget it the rest of your life. >> followed at 9:00 p.m. with a meeting with rare make -- with mayor nagin. the state level or the federal level. i voted for you to represent me from the local level. i don't know where else to go. i don't know what else to do. >> thursday night starting at 8:00 p.m., more from the conference in new orleans with ate and then weg will show you president obama's remarks on the recovery effort 10 years later.

all this week on c-span. administrator craig fugate, new orleans mayor mitch landrieu, local authors and flood victims take part in an event hosted by the atlantic on the 10th anniversary of hurricane katrina. good morning. my name is madeleine and i'm a ian.ear-old new orleans h i graduated from inter school and will be attending princeton this fall. [applause] >> thank you. i was nine years old when katrina hit. paul recounts my experience evacuated to houston. evacuation texasuated to

and a piece of gravel found my eye with anr dug it out aluminum gum wrapper a tongue is an apple that never knew the ground the state of louisiana said i was black so i became black i combed my hair in the shower brown reclusee -- bit me with its woodwind body on my skin and i think of you law -- i rub eucalyptus y on my skin and i ma -- on my skin and i think of yoma playing the violin.

a horsefly is a fly that only aceives its wings after mother pounds me to leather but this never happens because i didn't realized work is red meat until my twin 88 tenderloin -- ate a tenderloin and i could hear his thoughts matalin, i'm tired i'm sorry i made you wait. -- sorry i made you wait i ran into a pole and now i have a sore patch of skin and there are miracle berries that make you believe the nagar -- believe the nagar -- believe vinegar is cream soda

please ingest them and then believe [applause] >> i wrote this next: for today and it's in memory of the night before my family left for the storm -- before the storm. the walls still sweat from noon to 3:00 but you bring home set sumas they will he perfect in a week we go to bed and it is too hot to sleep the floors always look wet in this brackish heat i lay out my close because you said we would see a play but you already know madeis how storms are thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much, madeleine. i think we could've hoped for a more fitting introduction to introduce this series of conversations about new orleans 10 years after the storm struck it. my name is james and it, president and chief -- and editor-in-chief of the atlantic. it is my privilege to welcome you all, including those watching on the live stream at .he atlantic.com i also want to welcome the viewers watching on c-span and wwno.re tuning in on ago, the 100 years atlantic published a story about new orleans declared, "as new orleans is one of the few cities in this country with a path, so likewise it has always been a city of the future, a city of

vast possibility and the plans of france and that of spain and napoleon and thomas jefferson and that of the united states." 10 years ago there were many wondered if katrina had permanently closed those possibilities and put an end to those ambitions, whether the city could ever recapture its former character and former sense of problems. in keeping with the tone and spirit of maddie's poetry, we are hoping to take a close look today, not sentimentally but also not cynically, at the hard work that has been done over the past 10 years to bring new orleans back, at the successes and the mistakes as well, and at the work left to be done. how the city and its people have been cap -- have been transformed by katrina, and how it hasn't changed. how is it better now and how

might it be worse? lookhat might the future like for new orleans? what are the plans on the table today? i feel particularly grateful to be here because 10 years ago i was on a team of reporters who was sent down here to cover the aftermath of katrina. my own experience here was, of course, superficial, but it still left indelible impressions and frustration and the generosity that came during and after the storm. for the conversations today, we brought together artists, environmentalist, politicians, engineers, community activist, and others. we will bring together the panel to address the question of what it really means to know this city. question of the atlantic has returned to from time to time across the decades. elements we have

provided have been quite insistent and my have residence today. in 1901, same story one resident described it as a city of myriad pleasures despite her sorrows. and the atlantic reported that new orleans is old and my seemed a weary, but she is still beautiful and cottages of her charm. that writer went into -- and conscious of her charm. that writer went into more detail saying it was a beautiful cityolorful and odiferous outpolitics are carried above ground and lives carried out underground. [laughter] i have a couple important program notes.

if you are on twitter -- and it is hard to consider that twitter did not exist 10 years ago. please join us in the conversation. my colleagues will be circulating throughout the hall with microphones. i want to thank the underwriters who have helped make this an -- this gathering possible. we are very thankful to the support of the rockefeller foundation, the kellogg foundation, and to jones walker and our collaborators at the urban institute. finally, i would like to remind you to please silence your cell phone, because if it brings while the next speaker is on stage, that would be a grave sin indeed. journalists,eat gwen eiffel, of pbs news hour and she will introduce the panelists. [applause]

gwen: i hope you are well caffeinated because we are.