especially in the future. think that aat we long-term budget of this nature for this major parts of the mandatory programs, so-called entitlements, is a major part of getting it revamped budget act into place that can successfully keep our budget on track and do so realistically, within the constraints of the economy and of our other objectives and goals for our federal budget. >> thank you. . marvin turn to dr phaup. and then afterwards, we will turn it over to the audience. mr. phaup: maya asked me to talk about tax expenditures today and their treatment in the budget. i can only begin to say something about this by first berman, with whom

i wrote a piece of a years ago. lynn has written papers with a lot of people in this room and i know you agree with me it's a wonderful experience. it certainly, it changed my thinking about tax expenditures so thanks to lynn. the second thing i want to do is thank maya and the committee for setting the five-minute rule. you probably don't know that but today there is a five-minute rule. there's a woman standing behind that you can't see, but when she oures the "stop" sign, microphones go off. i think that is a great idea, especially for discussing of budgeting. because to have a constrain on the use of valuable resources, in this case time, has a nice way of giving incentives to people to make choices that are efficient. >> and what do you make of the fact that we all broke the rules? mr. phaup: i didn't know you did. [laughter] phaup: in support of that

role, actually gave these brief remarks a title and the title that i thought would be 1/2opriate would be, "4 things to remember about tax expenditures and budget reform." in the hopes i could get to each one in at least a minute. you know what tax expenditures are. i mean, they are well-known by everyone in this room, that they relate to preferential tax somement afforded activities relative to a normal tax structure. know, we include exemptions, exclusions, deferrals, credits, and so on. the rule of thumb, the best way to remember what a tax expenditure is, if you don't mind writing it or entering it form, it is probably a tax expenditure.

now we come to the facts of those things we don't mind disclosing on our 1040. the first fact is that they're really big. w few dollars here and a fe hundred dollars there. you add it all up and pretty soon, as someone once famously said, you get to $1 trillion. the annual value of tax expenditures exceeds $1 trillion, which is more than 25% of total cash spending. which is more than 5% of the gross domestic product, the value of all economic activity in the country. these things are really huge. they're big. the second thing to remember, and this is what i had trouble with for a long time. but i'm persuaded it's true. they are equivalent to cash spending for almost everything. so, almost equivalent. until save the "almost"

later. but david bradford, deceased economist, made this point, i think, brilliantly with a proposal he made some years ago. he was proposing to significantly reduce the size of the federal budget. he wanted to really whack it. but he did not want to reduce services or benefits that people got. so, he thought, how can i do this? what he came up with was, the weapons apply tax credit. so, under his proposal, which he offered facetiously -- don't take it seriously -- but what he offered was that the department of defense would henceforth not pay cash for its ordinance and equipment and instead, it would pay suppliers with tax credits. and then you look to see what happens in the budget. tax collections dropped and outlays drop. we have heard a lot today about things that are in the off-off budget. tax expenditures are really off

budget. they only show up in a budget in fact, as a gross unallocated reduction. in revenues. so, in fact, that is exactly bradford's point, which is a third thing to remember. they are big, equivalent to cash spending. either thing is, they are virtually, not quite, virtually invisible in the budget. when wefact is that adopt these tax expenditures all that shows up is we get a reduction in budget outlays. we describe them -- sorry, we get a reduction in revenues. it is no change in anything else. it does not look like these things have any cost, at least to the budget folks, people making budget decisions. in addition, we use language to kind of reinforced our attitude toward tax expenditures.

we call them tax cuts. we call them, in some cases, letting people keep their own money. least,ggests to me at that these things are costly. how could it cost something to let people keep their own money? even jon stewart on "the daily show" who usually gets things right, got it wrong. he was criticizing the president for talking about spending through the tax code. say, thatzed him to is where we raise money, not where we spend it. in fact, though i think the president had this one exactly right. when i say they are "almost" invisible, i have not been collecting that portion of analytical perspectives, which you have already. there is a table back there, tax expenditures by program. the joint committee produces another such table. but that information is not

salient to budget makers. like a lot other things that we have been talking about today, like, which kind of costs are really controllable and the budget right now with respect to say, entitlements or with respect to long-term spending that they in fact, are missing in action. it is very easy to ignore the existence of those expending equivalents that are large in the budget. so, what? so what if they are distorted? if we were all perfectly rational, you know, economic man, economic woman, economic person, it really would not matter where those numbers were. the front page, or tucked in the analytical perspectives. rational decision makers would favorite them out and use it.

but humans are like that. we don't work that way. -- my time is almost up. there is a common example that many of us have encountered in real life. followed your firefighters, they are not paid -- volunteer firefighters, they are not paid and they are happy with it. they have these teachers that say "pride, not cash." but they incur plenty of expenses. so occasionally a township will decide to pay them for their expenses. it is very hard to get that through especially in this day and age. if you propose to pay them, you can be sure you will not get that through a legislative body, but if you propose to just do, even if you don't have the money, even if you just change the proposal slightly to say, we're not going to pay them cash, but we are going to give them the equivalent in tax abatement for personal property

or real property, you have a much better chance of getting that through. point i am trying to make here is that, if information is not salient, is not present, is not on the table when you are making budget decisions, it does not matter if it really exists. it is nott is, if present or salient, it will probably not be taken into account. and it adds to fiscal illusion. we end up with an efficient choices probably, at least in the article that we wrote. the bias goes this way. with tax expenditures not being salient, you have a bias towards cash spending. you also have a bias towards total spending in that model. of course you have a bias towards doing things with tax expenditures. the bigger point about the treatment of tax expenditures in

the budget is that the way numbers are presented, the way information is communicated to decision-makers, matters for decisions. we are not all calculating fully rational individuals who get every bit of relevant information. it has to be easy to make better decisions. and that rule is one that i think has applications to the control of entitlement spending, as well as tax expenditures. so, that is four points. they are big. they are equivalent to spending. they are invisible and they distort decisions. it doesn't have to be that way. the way we do budget accounting, the way we put the budget together, is not written in exodus or deuteronomy are probably our chances are only one in five. we made it up to support a

functional purpose. and if is not providing us with information that we need to make better decisions easier, then we should start thinking about changing it. somethings sole says thatiting and aloud makes a lot of sense to me. he says, " there are no solutions, just trade-offs, for every difficult decision." that is clearly the case here. so, what berman and i offer is not really -- we do describe the solution. but at least in this case, it seems to me that the trade-offs appear favorable enough that we should reconsider how we treat tax expenditures in the budget. >> thank you and we have about 15 minutes to do questions. actually, i wanted to start with the political questions. so, in a split of a climate

where we have just on friday, mr. the statutory deadline for passing a budget, i want to open this up to the entire panel. toit realistic in this point be having a conversation about the total reform of the budget process? or is it reasonable to think that there are smaller, incremental things that could be done to improve the outcome that we see? >> neeley we will go in order here. -- maybe we will go in order here. believes,o just because somebody did not act on the report this week or this year does not mean that it will have a long shelf life. and then three or four years later when the time is right, that is when these ideas come to fruition. this is a good time when we know the political leaders are in a supply chain, looking to enrich of the field of ideas knowing that maybe three or four years down the blood, that is when the

window will open. whether it opens because of a crisis or a political revolution, who knows? but it is incumbent on us to feed that supply chain now as budget reformers. jim, i can't believe you are leaving without a question. [laughter] will probably get a long e-mail with all of his thoughts later. >> it does not make a lot of sense to making criminal reforms unless you at least have a vision of what your bigger comprehensive reforms look like, where you want to go. otherwise, you would start making incremental reforms that but even the wrong direction. that said, nothing can get them right now. it is a huge undertaking. we will redo the entire 1974 budget act. i think we have developed what it will look like and the budget process that lays out a strategy that includes physical goals that have more in valuations and analysis of what is working and what is not than we currently

do, which has consequences if we don't act. sort of a roadmap of what it like thatok inspires bigger and broader changes, but we could list what the consequences are for not acting. that will help us move in the right direction. >> can i ask a follow-up question? how do you develop that broader strategy, that broader plan, in a political climate where you have house members of for reelection every two years. and the moment they are reelected a return to the process of becoming reelected. >> i think it is true on policy issues, which is why what we need are policy reforms. we need to overhaul what our current budget blueprint is. that is much trickier around election cycles. and we can see as anybody who talks about doing something responsible seems to get punished for talking about that during the campaign. buthe budget process is so technical that there may be an opportunity for people to work andther on the hill

actually, especially in a year where very little is getting done, take some time to study the act, bring in the experts, and started figure out what a major overhaul could look like. -- and start to figure out what a major overhaul could look like. >> well, i agree. like what yogid, bear said, "if you don't know where you are going, you will end up somewhere else." it is very important to have a sense of where you want to go. that is why the idea of the budget is so important. to get people thinking differently about entitlements, i think that is very important. i think also what this point, it is very important to get large constituencies who are affected by any change sort of into the room together and say, we understand your needs and desires and your fears about how

changes might affect you. let's start having a conversation about how we maximize your hopes and minimize your fears in such a way that the country as a whole and budget system is affected. there is an operation system called convergence that is beginning to assemble those groups, to have the kind of conversation. us on the table have been involved in the beginnings of that conversation. i think this is a period in the sense that because you know you can't get something done fundamentally, it does focus the line. let's now get back to basics and think through, what would you have to do to prepare the grounds so that things are aligned? you got something ready and already thought it through. you have the constituencies it.ing about i think it is a great opportunity, actually.

>> i will ask one more question and then -- because i don't want to take up everybody's time here, because they could ask about a million. wanted to draw a thread between a couple of themes that came appear. we talked about long-term budgeting and we talked about looking into the future. the chairman also brought up his concern, which he referred to as institutional biases. i assume that his point there is about dynamics. my question is, how do you address both of those concerns and how do you keep the confidence level among all members and the numbers they are seeing. a criticism you see on both sides of the aisle is there is a lack of space in the models that exist right now and the ability to correctly predict how we will spend money and what a budget should actually achieve over time. >> yeah, i think there is always going to be criticism of whatever model you use, whatever approach. i think that goes with the

territory. i think one possible solution might be for cbo to acknowledge that there are perhaps, some alternative models that are good enough. i mean, the test of reasonableness -- the projections of those models to be published alongside cbo's most confident assessment of what things will look like. that would essentially, mean that cbo's role is not like the final arbiter, but is the , like what it says in leviticus. that might be a way of diffusing this in such a way that you keep solid proposals, but allow some variation, some room for maneuvering. that might be a way to deal with this. >> [inaudible]

i think cbo does a great job within the confines of what they have to work with. change those confines, would be my judgment. i don't have any more to add. >> not knowing exactly what dr. price is referring to, i think it could have been two things. the fact that there is a sense that baselines don't treat spending and revenue identically, in a parallel way. i think you actually want to look at both of those and you want to again, back to my belief that the budget process only works both sides if the outcomes are not prebaked into the rules. when it comes to dynamic scoring, this is a tough one because there is no question that you need some time of analysis that shows the growth effects of the different policies he would be picking and

there is no question that we don't know how to do it yet. we don't know how to make those projections, but i think we should be looking at parallel estimate, which would make a lot of sense. you have the traditional static estimates, that you also include dynamic estimates. that would be on the revenue side and the spending side, and that would go to your question. we have a budget that favors conception roughly by 84%. this is not a recipe for long-term growth. if you are able to look at the bothh effects of spending priorities would help us pick more progrowth and a sustainable policies from both sides. mean, i would say that, i think budgeting has gotten more difficult since cbo has formed. budgeting is much more integrated within the economy. he kind of questions we have to take on are much more difficult.

view, thein my political miracle that such an agency has been able to withstand the crucible of politics and keep not only their analytic integrity high, but be the model for international organizations that are increasingly adopting cbo's. the challenge really is, how can we create analytic tools, but without having them become decision rules? when analytic tools become decision rules, the pressure on analytic agencies and political leaders alike becomes very difficult. that is where you really earn your money as an analyst, as maya said, sustain a approach where you are presenting multiple options and letting political leaders making those decisions. forcing those decisions to be made by an analytic agency and mechanically be translated into budget figures is a really risky path. >> let's open it up for a couple

questions. introduce yourself. let entered as yourself and us know who you would like to answer the question. >> charlie clark, i am a government executive. anybody can answer. i know that the senator is doing budget reform research and proposals. we just heard from chairman price. is there any sympathy from the minority ranking members? as far as i know, there is definitely sympathy for it. i don't know if there is necessarily an agreement on which direction to head. >> i don't think any of the discussions have been public enough that we have a sense of where people are going. i think there is a lot of sympathy from every single person that the budget process needs to be improved. the agreement might stop there, but my guess is they will find areas where they can work together. >> i earlier compare this to tax reforms, in which this is one of those areas that everybody

agrees on, but the goals for each side are a little bit different. >> thank you. my name is tom and i live here in the district. i am a subscriber to "the washington post." [laughter] i thought it was a marvelous piece of work. i think maya and her committee have a lot to do with that. my question is and back to what was said, it is good to have some ideas on the supply line. are there some suggestions still viable as an approach and what would it take to get that dusted off and moved ahead? what you are proposing here as far as budget reform, would that be a help in that regard? to what we think

a lot about that. i also share your belief that it was a tremendous blueprint that showed how a comprehensive deal, that actually respected the objectives of growing the economy and protecting the alnerable and getting sustainable fiscal system in place that would not derail the recovery was an incredible opportunity. and there are a lot of people who believe that. it sort of reflects how broken government is. we are not able to move something like that forward. i think there is always an opportunity to go back and look at those policies. the policy solutions have not changed for a much. we know that we have to look at all parts of the budget and we know we have to raise revenues in a way to help grow the economy. health care costs need to be controlled. we need to put social security back on the sustainable path. one thing i do think is that it may prove -- and again, i think the debt issue demonstrates a broken government is right now. it may prove to be easier to do

this in pieces. and what i mean by that is, you could imagine sort of fixing our budget into a number of pieces. the first one would be not digging. last year we had a budget in place that was supposed to save $5 trillion, but we added another $1 trillion to the debt. stop making it worse. that is the first be. we note -- that is the first piece. we know we to do something with social security. we know we need to fix health care. we know we need to do tax reforms. i think we strongly need to reassess our budgeting priorities, how our resources are spent in this country, looking at consumption versus invest in, looking at the fact that we spend six dollars on the elderly for every one dollar we spend on children and is that the right ratio? the final piece we are talking about is budget process. the best thing in my mind would be, let's do it all at once and let's fix this problem.

if we could put ourselves on a sustainable fiscal path, it would open up so many economic opportunities. it would be so much in the medium and long-term. but if we can't do it all at once, hopefully we can break it up into areas of interest for members on the hill to work on. each one of those pieces has to be addressed by the republicans and democrats together. is right onaya target there. in our history, we have never had a budget commission that has succeeded. the trade-off are too broad. we have had pieces, however. members of congress wanted to be bailed out. they wanted to have somebody else make those painful decisions so they could run for cover. we don't have that with most budget issues. one of the other examples is the property and plant equipment for federal agencies. it is a proposal to have an executive branch to close certain agency field offices. that is another example where

something like that might work. but we tend to resort to much to this notion that the commission will bail us out. that is not going to happen. ultimately, the old-fashioned form of government have to work. >> we of time for one last question. we have time for one last question. am sorry, you already had question is it ok if we go to somebody who has not yet had a chance? yes. >> hello. blake from the federal reserve board of governors. i would be interested in hearing from anyone of the panel if anyone is in support of a balanced budget. i can see the potential and logic behind it, but also more

from the economic side. there is a certain benefit of having both fiscal flexibility and fiscal monetary policy. and so, i guess it would be interested in hearing, how would you try to square that circle, if you wanted to have a fiscal budget that also have flexible he there to address the ups and downs in the macro economy? thank you. no.h, [laughter] >> i think there is a need for targets. and i would say the targets should not be a balanced budget or not. targets are more debt. as the chairman said, he would be for a deficit of 2% or 3% if the debt were down. we have talked about the notion of having debt targets informing the process.

i am worried about a balanced budget that would start locking. we have seen how the politics of gaining approval can hold you hostage. it becomes that much more difficult. our ability to mount the kind of effective anti-recession programs we did in 2008 really become limited. i think our economy would become much less nimble as a result. theyam not as opposed as used to be, but i still not there yet because i think we can get there -- it is too blunt instrument. and what you want to do is have the best targets the mental over a business cycle and i think the what really are matter. just from a political economy perspective, in this case, i regularly see people talking about budget balance amendments to avoid talking about how we would actually get there. i want to talk about the policies that would actually fix the problems and when i hear politicians not talking about how they would fix it, i think it is not fair to put forth the idea unless you also put forth the plan.

one, i think it is too blunt and two, i would love to ship the policy discussions to get us there.' states to balanced budgets and they use a rainy day reserve fund. it is not inconceivable that the federal government could adopt a policy that tends to anticipated future needs rto run deficits and budget accordingly. >> i am also drawn to the idea of a balanced budget amendment because of the rules seem to fail. --hink that is probably why the other panels have made very good points. it is not clear that the balance of the budget is what you are aiming at, so much as a sustainable situation, having debt under control. therefore, it might not be the right instrument. it is a simple instrument that people can understand conceptually and that is what

makes it attractive, but it does not necessarily make the ideal solution. i suspect that congress will find all kinds of interesting and novel ways of getting around such a balanced budget. infinitehere is an reserve of innovation when it comes to figuring out things like that. i really come down where maya s aid. it is important to get the substance right. what should the budget look like and what are our goals and that budget? rather than locking ourselves into just a balanced budget, which may end up with massive increases in taxation uncertain times or massive cuts of other things, or defense spending being cut. instrument,ry blunt like he said, when we should be using more subtle instruments to get where we want to go. >> thank you all for coming today. and thank you, maya.

[applause] if you have additional questions, stick around for a few minutes. thank you for coming. >> c-span's "washington journal," live with policy issues that affect you. and we are joined to discuss monday's supreme court oral argument challenging president obama's immigration policy and the state of play in the congressional and presidential election. congressionalia

congressmen will be on to talk about the 2016 presidential campaign, donald trump's candidacy, and the relationship to the congressional republicans. we also discussed the immigration issue in the general election year. and the senior correspondent for politico will be on to talk about primary day in new york and he latest on the campaign trail, including a look at how campaigns of both sides are wooing delegates and superdelegates. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal." >> representatives from federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as apple's general counsel will be in capitol hill tomorrow morning to discuss encryption technology. we take you to the house energy and commerce subcommittee at 10:00 a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. today the supreme court heard oral arguments in the

immigration case, united states versus texas, which looks at president obama's executive acts on immigration. after the case was heard, members of congress, activists, and texas officials spoke to reporters from the court steps. here is a look. is louis gutierriez. i am a member of congress from the fourth congressional district of the state of and the case has been cemented to the supreme court. i think we did really well. we did well on the law. we did well because the american people support this. noay, clearly, they had argument.

the fact is, millions of people live in the united states in the shadows and they drive. they should drive with drivers licenses. and with insurance. the fact is, millions of people in the united states work. they should work and pay taxes to the federal government and work under the rules, so they don't undermine american markers workers. it seems to me that today clearly, the law was on the side of the people. the president of the united states has taken action. it was clearly established today in the court, that ronald reagan took, that george bush took. the only difference today, it was barack obama who took those issues. and we believe the court is going to essentially say, look, every time a state does not like

what the federal government -- what the administration does, what what this legislature does, the congress of the united states, you can't go in the court and sue. what the president did was lawful, was within the guidance of the laws passed by the congress of the united states. the congress of the united states passed legislation allowing the president of united states to take the actions being considered today. i will say to everybody, i am looking forward. i am very optimistic that next andune we are going to rule they will be formally people signing up not only for driver's licenses, but to be able to protect their families. i thought the arguments this morning were very insightful. the ranking member of the immigration subcommittee and the house of representatives.

very the arguments were encouraging. i thought justice breyer nailed it when he pointed out this was a political dispute between texas and the president. if texas is allowed to proceed every time they disagree with the president, they will be filing a lawsuit. this is some thing should not even be before this court. made it clear that the president has the power to grant deferred action which is based in long-standing and regulation mr. scher. to deny that at this point would be an extraordinary departure from history. that they will say there is no standing to texas to proceed.

>> senator bob menendez. in listening to the argument, i believe that many of the justice extra questions expose the political theater going on here. is on the standing question which dominated the time of the justices, there is no question that for 60 years from eisenhower to the current president, the president has used executive actions on immigration time and time again. we see a set of circumstances that the argument that a potential cost to the state of texas or two other states would open the floodgates in which any action of an administration or for that matter and act of congress would then create a flood of lawsuits that would come to the united states. so i do not believe, and i think

the justices will come to the conclusion, that texas and the other states do not have standing on a question that is clearly immigration law and is the discretion of the years of whether or not to deport someone. and the second thing, congress has failed to act if in fact it wanted to limit this discretion, it could do so. but it has not and for various decades now it has not. i hope the justices will come to the conclusion the questions brought up in the first place, no standing. congress has decided. we cannot have a floodgate of lawsuits at the end of the day simply because her as a cost. -- simply because there is a cost. if that is the case, it will

become a pathway to give millions of people an opportunity to have some form of status while we find out in congress what our national status should be. thank you. >> good morning. good afternoon. ok. >> ok. >> two steps back, ok. >> ok. >> come closer. >> i am ready. >> i will open it up and then pass it on. >> good afternoon. my name is maria and i the the executive director of the national immigration law center. this morning our communities, our families, we walked into the supreme court was so much hope. we are leaving confident. we know the law is on our side.

the supreme court precedent is on our side as many of the justices said and we are on the right side of history and the law. there are some difficult questions. but we are leaving confident that the federal government made its best argument. we will prevail. we have a number of directly affected individuals here that were in the courtroom. this is probably one of the most diverse audiences in the supreme court. we had several dozen people whose futures are directly impacted by the supreme court justice's decision. they sat there patiently hearing each of the arguments. we want to hear from them directly. first, we will hear from someone who traveled with her mother from los angeles and traveled here because the mother is dapa eligible. sophie, do you want to say a few words? >> hello. my name is sophie.

i am six years old and i am an american citizen. we are united by a mission. we want the same rights for all. we want protection for all immigrants. dapa, daca and immigration reform for all. >> hello. i am six years old. i am american citizen. we are united by a single mission. we want the same rights for all. i asked the judges to protect the children and all immigrants. to help us with dapa, daca, and immigration reform for all. i have the right to protection. i have the right to state with my parents. i have the right to to live without fear. i have the right to be happy. give me the opportunity.

lots of children have dreams like me. i have faith that you as parents and as citizens will make the best decision. thank you. >> you're welcome. thank you for being here. i would like to thank governor abbott for starting this. i want to thank my fellow attorney generals, some of whom are here today. specifically, i would like to think these men for being a part of this. this is an amazing opportunity

and an amazing day for us. our efforts to stop the president's illegal immigration plans go back to a simple days. one person does not have unilateral authority to change the law or make a new law. today we argued the case strain -- strongly for the rule of law. if we allow a president, this one or a future resident, no matter the political persuasion are party to make changes to the law without congressional approval, we will and up with a perverted constitution. so today was a strong day for defending the rule of law and we are grateful for that opportunity. we are open to any questions to scott keller or me. >> [indiscernible] >> we are here defending the constitution and so whether we have people out here or not is not relevant. any other questions? you know what, i am encouraged today. i feel like the justices are going to support the article in

the constitution that requires the lobby faithful executed by the president of the united states and he does not have authority to make law. we had questions from almost all of the justices. thomas did not ask the questions i am aware of. >> what about the question of [indiscernible] -- why not go after the -- you seem to be going about kind of -- why not challenge the memo itself? >> did you heard the question? she wants to know why -- >> the justices asking you, why not challenge the november memo and the drivers licenses?

>> this case has always been about the separation of powers. it transforms unlawful conduct into lawful conduct. i think that should trouble every american the cousin it is congress's power. i think if the president has the power to do that, then it should trouble every american because it is congress's power. we have power from the congress to protect our liberties. i would like to read a quote. two blocks from here is a monument. robert a. taft. that is why we are here today. >> do you think the supreme court may have some bearing on whether -- >> i do not have a crystal ball. i don't know what the justice will do. i know we made strong constitutional arguments today and we feel confident. any other questions? thank you very much.

>> good morning, my name is thomas signs. jango intervene -- we represented the jane doe interveners, as you heard. we were granted argument time this morning and join to the solicitor general and defending president obama's use of his presidential prerogative which has been executed by many of his predecessors to set priorities and immigration enforcement. his guidance issued in november 2014 was an exercise of that long-standing authority. the justices seemed concerned in vigorous questioning about whether the state of texas had the right to be in court to challenge that right of enforcement discretion. their questions also reflected confusion about what exactly the state of texas is challenging since it had in its briefing

as it must, that the president has the authority through the secretary of homeland security to determine how to arrange and enforcement resources to determine that certain folks will be low priority and not to be removed even though that is a protection that can be revoked at any moment. 90 minutes of argument went fairly quickly. because of the many issues involved, all of them revolving around why the state of texas had decided long ago to provide subsidized divers license and word determined to oppose those who would receive driver's license under the deferred action guidance. other revolved around whether the president has authority, given that it has historically been exercised by 70 others and what exactly texas was -- they seemed to assign some magical importance to language used in the guidance.

i'm available to answer any questions. >> while was your sense of the chief justice's comments? >> at is always hard to determine where a justice will fall but he was very interested in the questioning, much of it surrounding the standing of the state of texas and work authorization. whether that relates to the injury the state set forth and whether there is any basis to challenge it since statutes gives the attorney general, now the secretary of homeland security, the right. any questions? it was an honor to represent the three jane doe's. very hard-working mothers raising families. including a united states citizen in south texas who the opportunity provided by the guidance to step forward and to seek discretionary relief that will protect them from the daily threat that they will be removed

from their families, that they will be detained and deported. that is all the guidance would provide and we are hopeful that come june the president will be able to implement that guidance and provide that relief. thank you. >> i think it is possible the justices could move before june, the end of june as the outside of when the expectation well come. casesave heard all the they will hear this term. there is no way to expedite their thinking. they have a little over two months to put it all together in an opinion. who knows how many? we hope that once a decision comes, the opportunity will present itself to immediately implement the guidance. >> first and foremost, the standing issue. will we know beforehand if there is no standing? >> if they decide or is the standing, and that is the basis

of their decision, then the case is over. the district judge has nothing else to do but dismiss for lack of standing. it is our hope that they will struggle with the question and conclude that texas does not have the kind of concrete interest traceable to the guidance, and that is redressability by their claim, to strike down that guidance. >> if that is the case, will be no before june? >> not necessarily. it is a matter of how long it takes them to make the decision and put it into writing. we expect them to put the decisions into writing and release it. real-world impact is to be free of the daily fear that they might not come home one day and it that their children, including u.s. citizen children, will have their parents put into detention by ice. that they will be separated and have to make the very tough choice.

do you leave your u.s. citizen , it is unfamiliar to them. relief from that .aily fear thank you. >> i am congressman steve king of iowa presenting the fourth congressional district and i serve on the house judiciary committee where i have been since 2003. i also serve on the constitution subcommittee. i brought a number of the eminence on the house floor that defunded daca and dapa, and the memos, and legislation that administration'--

it is very simple. the white house has argued that they have prosecutorial discretion. you read through their documents and it is clear that even from the beginning, they created groups or classes of people that would get blanket amnesty under the direction given by the president. then the president went to chicago and said that he had changed the law. this separation of powers argument, you have the confession of the president that he has gone outside the bounds of his article to authority and "changed the law." the white house has obviously granted broad, sweeping, group category amnesty to people under daca and dapa. they cannot make the argument that they have applied this on a legitimate basis only. by the very evidence in front of them the have crossed the line.

exercisingt prosecutorial discretion. hearing none. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] that is what the law requires. saysresident's directive

with these broad categories we have created, we will not apply the law against you. how to's have to write a lot to ensure the president will faithfully execute it? we have argued it since barack obama became president. they say it we think we can write a law that is tight enough that we will be able to have enforcement. .hat's what has happened here this is an egregious assault to the constitution, to the letter of the law. has zero president who guilt about violating his own to office. his calculation is purely political. and can he get away with it? he is doing it for the millions of people he convinced to vote for him and his party.

this is about the millions of undocumented democrats in the minds of barack obama and the people on the left. for me it is about the rule of law and conserving our constitution. that optimistic because of the loss of justice scalia. are on this bench today, i think the force of his personality might make more of a difference. is an example of what we will get if we let the preston -- president name next justice to the supreme court. so i think it is ever more -- the need to elect a president who makes a commitment and to honor fe