Ballpark 4 Million People a month get hired. This is a very dynamic economy. Youre not waiting for the retraining before you can fill a nursing vacancy. So if take you a look at that, i pulled up the data on it is plac displaced workers. Asking at the Interview Time and it look s back three years, so n average a year and a half, are you now. Employed, unemployed, out of the labor force. And does construction really look that different from the rest of the economy. And i could ask this question by looking at people who lost jobs in the Construction Industry and looking at people who lost jobs that were labeled in the construction and maintenance occupation. And these are whats called long tenured displaced workers. These are workers who had held their job for at least three years before losing the job. And what you can see, construction, the general economy, they look pretty much the same on this story. The idea that you have to focus on retraining, retraining is important, dont get me wrong. I think its a very helpful part of helping workers and helping the economy. But the thought that you shouldnt do monetary and fiscal stimulus because youre waiting for retraining to come in doesnt pass muster. Here it is with all workers, not just the long tenured. They dont have it by occupation. Same picture. Doesnt differ very much, construction and the economy as a whole. So my bottom line is we have an unemployment crisis. We need to be running not just Monetary Policy to stimulate the economy, but fiscal policy. And unfortunately, the federal government has been moving the wrong way on helping the unemployed. And has been doing it in a way thats lets just call it not very intelligent in the sense of cutting spending on things that we really need to spend more on as well as things that we ought to spend less on. Were not seeing a focus on what helps the economy grow, on investments, investments in infrastructure, investments in education and training, investments in basic research. Because thats an important part of the growth of the economy. And with the drying up of federal research funds, theres a whole generation of potential basic researchers who dont see an Employment Opportunity down that road. Well, what about the debt problem . I call it a debt problem in contrast to the unemployment crisis. And washington thinks we have a debt crisis and only an unemployment problem. I call it a debt problem because long term we must be doing something to gain sustainability, but the thought that that would derail the economy in the short term, just the a debt hechl amount of debt public seems to me to be sdra ordinar extraordinarily unlikely. But is there anything i would recommend doing right now that would have a serious impact on the Long Term Debt problem . And is something we know how to do . And is something that is worth doing on its own . And the answer is Social Security. Which as far as i can tell is on the agenda of no politician. Thats why im an academic. And, yes, under current law, a couple of decades from now, everybody would be getting a 25 cut in their benefits. And that would be a crisis. Its the crisis that were facing in the reagan years the last time we did a major reform of Social Security. And we can wait up the last minute and do something about it. And the Congressional Budget Office assumes thats what will happen. And the debt proceed skrejectio based on the assumption that that benefit cut doesnt happen and the benefits go on being paid. So if we restore actuarial balance, and there are a lot of different ways of doing it, naturally i think the book i wrote with peter orszag close to ten years ago is still a good start on the problem. With that book, 45 years down the road from it, we took 25 of gdp reduction in the debt held by the public. So this is not something trivial. This is a big deal. This is worth addressing. And to be fair to the panel, i looked for something that dean baker had said that i could disagree with. This is 1999 admittedly, i had to go a long way back, but there he is saying Social Security, lets not deal with that. I think in the current time given the unemployment crisis, given the fact that any fix of Social Security will be slowly phased in, and if we do that, it wont be undone like lots of cut backs get voted and then unvoted. If we fix Social Security, it will stay fixed for the term that the fix applies to. So lets stimulate the economy. Lets focus on investments to do that. And lets fix Social Security. Thank you. [ applause ] thanks very much. Im sure that will generate a lot of questions from the audience. But first lets give the other panelists a chance to respond. Did it y you want to go first . Sure. I wont get into Social Security, but i would be stronger than you by saying i think there is little concern for the the debt at present. Japan i think provides a fascinating example because there is a new government in japan, came into office last fall with the explicit policy that they would stimulate the economy. And its still early in that story, but their growth rate for the first half of 2013 has been 3. 5 . And just to get starting points, their debt to gdp ratio, gross debt, about 250 . So more than twice as high as ours. So thats one reason im not concerned about our debt right now. And if we look at the metric of Interest Payments to gdp, our Interest Payments relative to gdp about 1 . By comparison in the early 90s, they were over 3 . So we have a while at least in my true until we think the debt is posing a serious burden. I want to go over a few points. I agree with most of what peter said, so i dont have that much to beat him up on here. But i will emphasize a few points. And take a couple things a little different direction. First off, i was looking at his paper which had data through for the most part august of last year. And its kind of interesting to me, if we were looking at the beveridge curve story as of august of last year, it was much worse problem or much more anole that we had the Unemployment Rate at 8. 3 instead of 7. 3 and pretty much the same vacancy rate. If we look at how much are we out of line, thats by about 40 . And i cant think of any big changes in the economy. So if we were looking at this as a story of structural unemployment, about 40 much the structural unemployment we had has disappeared. I can think of one simple story that i think explains a lot of that. As you know the period of extended benefits has been cut back. And i suspect thats a big reason for the fall in unemployment. If we look at the employment to population ratio, thats changed very little over the last year. So for the most part, it looks like the story of people actually leaving the category of unemployment. P not good news, but simply as evidence of a problem with structural unemployment, that problem at least has gotten considerably less serious. And when im saying people leave the labor force, there also has been Good Research showing that most people when their benefits are ending, theyre not going into employment, theyre leaving the labor force. Again not necessarily a happy story, but again if that was our story of structural unemployment, that much of that seems to have gone away fairly quickly. And i should add, and again you can argue what you feel about unemployment benefits, but i think that a lot of what has gone on in terms of the bevernc bench oig curve is a psychly cal policy, the implication being as we shorten benefits, people will have a lower Unemployment Rate. Again, not a happy story when it means people will simply leaving the labor force, but looking at this as evidence of structural unemployment, what weve done is keep people in the labor force who have not otherwise be in the labor force. Ill agree with kevin here. I have no idea where kevin will take you. To my view, remind every that the finding is that the shifting out of the beveridge curve is entirely a story of long term unploimgu unploimt. So people unemployed less tan 26 weeks, no shift out whatsoever. Okay. Well, to my mind thats a pretty good reputation of the structural unemployment story. Theyre not being hired with any less frequency. Long term unemployed were short term unemployed at one point and they got hired with the same frequency as before the shift. So if were trying to make an argument about we have a fundamental structural shift in the economy, i think that helps to undermine that story. So again, i dont know if thats xhakt exactly the direction kevin will take that, but when you see there is no shift in the short term beveridge curve, that does undermine that case. And peter made this point and i want to carry it a step further. Looking at the construction sector, there is a lot of folk wisdom that the story is we lost all these jobs in construction and manufacturing and the replacement jobs are in health care, wherever they might be. And again just carrying peters point a step further, he was looking at the displaced workers story, we could look at Unemployment Rates for construction, the industries. Construction and manufacturing. And construction is a seasonal element here, but it really wont change anything. Construction unemployment for people used to be in construction in august was 9 . Roughly 5 of the workforce. Difference between 9 and 7. 3 , thats adding one tenth of 1 to the Unemployment Rate. That cant explain very much. So those wondering about manufacture, its about 6. 3 . Unemployment rate for people who had been in manufacturing is actually somewhat below the yoef overall Unemployment Rate. So it might be a more complex story, but someone wants to tell a simple story that we lost all these jobs in construction and manufacturing, those arent coming back or coming back slowly, that doesnt fit the picture very well. Clearly that cant explain anything. The next point i was going to make is that we have a flip cite of the unemployed. If we want to make an argument about structural unemployment, at least implicitly is a story that we do have these sectors that have labor shortages. So on the one hand, we have these workers with the wrong skills. On the other hand, there is implicitly some industries, some occupations, locations that have real labor shortages. So the question that i want to ask is what are those . Obviously wed look for the most obviously rising wages, presumably longer workweeks because we have firms that want to get more workers but they dont have the right people with the right skills, right location. And again you can again, you could look through the economy. I dont think youll find a major sector where thats true. I have people in north dakota. Im willing to give them north dakota. The labor force for people who havent looked at it, 30000,000 in north dakota, increase that by 25 . Weve gotten 100,000 workers, reduced the Unemployment Rate by 1 . Im sure theres a few other nakts out there. You really cant tell the story, not easily. A couple of other points. One was the point michael made in the beginning being bad jobs. I just did a simple test. I addressed the change in restaurant share of unemployment by the state against state Unemployment Rate. So the question is are the states that have the highest growth in restaurant unemployment, restaurant being bad job, sorry for anyone in the restaurant industry, highest growth in restaurant seem to be doing well getting a lot of jobs or relatively poorly, the answer was relatively poorly. There was a strong significant relationship between the Unemployment Rate, a positive rate of higher Unemployment Rates corresponded to higher share of restaurant jobs. My takeaway from that, i wont say conclusive, my takeaway youve got bad jobs because you dont get other jobs p well know more if and when we see the economy recover. The last i make, this deserves to be driven home a thousand fold. Ill try to make this, not at well, perhaps, but again, there is an important distinction between whether the structural rate of unemployment has risen and whether they could usefully, whether the economy could benefit from stimulus. Lets hypothesize before structural unemployment 4 to 5 , now 5 to 6 . If were still looking at Unemployment Rate of 6. 3, that to me would suggest we have a lot of room for stimulus. I think we have to keep that in mind unless were prepared to say strut ral Unemployment Rate is Something Like today, some room for stimulus and we really ought to be talking about that. So ill stop with that. Thanks for the comments, quite challenging and stimulating. I think in the end the punch line will be i think on policy you and i will agree. When im done decide whether we do or not. At least an abstract principle theres a possibility theres a structural problem that needs to be addressed because of the latest characteristics of the recession. Thats in my research and writing including some with dean that ive been focusing on. The basic idea is so we had the deepest recession, a very long deep recession with very high Unemployment Rate for a sustained period of time. So this recession is a little bit different. If we go back prepresident Herbert Walker bush, if you look at recessions typically they lasted less than a year, gdp would drop a couple percent, then the year after go up 6, 7 , wed snap right back. This one we went down, we stayed down, we didnt snap back. So the question is what kind of enduring problem might arise from such a recession and does that present a challenge to policymakers without throwing away this is the part i want to make sure is not misunderstood, not throwing away traditional tools, do we think about maybe adding a few that we havent used before. I think as a logical matter if you go back and look at the beveridge curve peter showed, the one thats parallel to the one for the last decade but further out, sure, as an abstract principle with clever enough stimulus policy, monetary and fiscal, whatever that might be, you ought to be able to slide along that one until you get to an Unemployment Rate you view acceptable as well. But the question is that the only thing you should try . Is there a reason to think about why this time might present unique challenges. I think for me ive been moved by, indeed, some writing by dean and others that suggests that when you have when you create a stock of folks unemployed for a long time, they are uniquely difficult to reattach to the labor market. In fact, one of the first things that made me think about this or wonder about this was when Vince Rinehart was still here and had his data and also carmen and roggeoff and his wife working on what happens after a financial crisis. One of the things that really stuck out when you look at the data was that if theres a financial crisis and a deep recession that follows a financial crisis, then in the typical country that has a financial crisis, then a decade after the crisis happened the Unemployment Rate, now im using eyeball, double what it was before the crisis happened. Its very common for the Unemployment Rate to stay high a long time after a financial crisis. Back when we were in the crisis is something we were all starting to worry about. This going to be a really long one. You worried about it, made the point thats why we should do infrastructure stimulus. Who cares if it takes a long time, its a long recovery. The question is why is it that the Unemployment Rate can stay so high so long. The important factor, after somebody longterm unemployed becomes longterm unemployed or unemployed for a good long time, they face very, very unique pressures and challenges that i think policymakers have been tone deaf about here in the u. S. This is the chart that you showed. So im just saying this relates back to the point if youre wondering about the beveridge curve, which is one of the topics here, relationship between vacancies and unemployment, it does seem like reemployment or longterm unemployed is an issue. Im not saying causal, but the question is, you know, is it likely that the folks are now longterm unemployed but didnt think thats what was going to happen when they lost their job a few years ago, that they are going to be especially challenging for, say, oldfashioned plain vanilla fiscal policy to reattach to the labor market. I think that without going into it in huge detail, this is just a congressmen, that i think theres really for me an overwhelming case that longterm unemployment is a uniquely awful thing, that next to the death of a member of the family or something, it has a very, very horrible effect on the people. In the United States today we insufficiently have a sense of emergency about the poor people going through this right now. We need to be open to policies other than the traditional stimulus policies because of that. For those of you watching on tv, you dont necessarily have to leave the tv and go type this in but if you go to aei. Org youll see this event on the website and the materials there. If you want to look at my slides or peters slides or some Additional Reading material from the panelists, then the links will be there. But you know, i mean, for the longterm unemployed theres an increased risk of death for older males following a job loss, death rate increases for older males with a job after previously being consistently employed. Thats correlated with health, death and health are correlated, increase in male suicide rate by 1. 5 . So as of now that means were still about 128 suicides per month higher than we would be if we didnt have the longterm unemployment problem we see. Increased risk of dying of cancer. You see these rates. Again, i think its related probably to increased stress. Im sure there are a number of factors. Also increased prevalence of comforting substance abuses and so on correlated with oncological risks. For workers, half experienced loss of in come of 40 or more, so that refilling the hole is a really, really big challenge. Once workers who were unemployed find jobs, their earnings stayed persistently low for a good long time. So those significant losses are also going to be something i think will tend to make them be reluctant to reattach to the labor force if there are alternatives such as disability they can turn to. Longterm unemployment is such an awful thing for a family that parental unemployment increases the chance of a child repeating a grade by 15 . Children whose fathers lose a job when they are young have lower earnings by 10 when they are adults. And, of course, you see things like divorce and so on. So my point is theres a horrible human tragedy that gets worse and worse when a person is unemployed for a long time and that weve got millions of these people in the United States right now. Just having extra aggregate demand is not enough. Dean, you probably know this fact, but the probability of being reemployed if youre, say, over 55 and out of work for more than a year, do you know, its pretty close to zero. Its pretty close to zero. But these are people we need to reconnect to society. This is why some of the writing is kind of funny. Ive been celebrated more than usual, if at all, in some left wing places over the last years because ive been arguing, for example, for a number of measures to reattach people to the labor force including direct hiring, the Government Jobs Program where we hire people so they have a job, so they can look for a job for a year. And so i would just say that i think the data say to me because weve had an extra long recession with extra high unemployment, that weve created a class of people that because of stresses, awful Life Experience that can hit somebody who has been out of work for a long time, that they will start to have Health Problems and become a person that an employer might not want to take a risk on, that we need to be really super aggressive about reconnecting them before its too late. Just relying on aggregate demand management seems to me to be insufficient. Thats what ive been writing about. I promised at the beginning id have a highly dramatic moment, dont we agree. Thats this moment now. Dont you agree . Thank you. Context. Yes. Targeted programs on longterm unemployed are something weve underinvested in for a very long time, and the cost of underinvestment is particularly large now. But lets ask about the context where those programs will be functioning. If its in a tight labor market, they will be functioning dramatically differently from how they will be functioning in a loose labor market. You retrain people in a place where in an economy where its very hard to get jobs because there are a low number of vacancies. The vacancy rate is very low back on those beverage charts. The probability of payoff goes down. Yes, i agree, we should be investing and helping to reconnect the unemployed. But i hope you will agree that a plan like that is far more likely to be valuable if its accompanied by actions that give us a much tighter labor market than we have now. Okay . Good. The second thing i want to do is, again, a context shift around something dean said. When you talk stimulus, sounds like something out there, you turn the faucet, stimulus, turn it the other way it goes away and you dont get details of whats involved. If i were focusing on what do we need to do to tighten the labor market to enhance economic growth, the word stimulus would come late in my presentation. I would start off by saying that we have underinvested in infrastructure for decades. And that hurts the economy. Its not just the jobs if we repair a bridge, rather than have it fall down and rebuild it. But the economy functions better when the bridges are up there, when the airports are running better, when the trains are running better. We need infrastructure spending. And the question i would ask, is this a particularly good time to be acting against this multidecade neglect. You bet. Because in part, the workers who will be drawn into it would have been otherwise unemployed. The social cost of that Infrastructure Investment is a lot less than it would be in a tight market. And we do get the employment bonus when the newly hired spend, the multiplier. I want to start with we have a severe infrastructure problem. This is a great time to be addressing it. And as a bonus, it will make kevins plan work better. Id say the same thing with basic research, which is vital for the economy. Id say the same thing for our need for k through 12 investments. We need experiments. We need to have a better sense of what works and what doesnt work, but youve got to have a very curious view of the teaching process to think that laying off, what is it, 500,000 teachers in total to date, 400,000, a big number, is going to help with education. That seems to be very unlikely. We need to be addressing these problems and this is a particularly good time to be addressing them. The other thing i want to do is without in any way taking away from the real concern about the longterm unemployed to talk about the real concern about young people right out of school. The labor Market Studies show on average very rapid Earnings Growth when you leave school up to your mid30s. Thats widely viewed as having to do with the process of accumulating experience, finding the right kind of job for you. There are multiple ways that accumulated successful experience adds to your productivity and adds to your earnings. Studies comparing the wage growth of people who start out in a recession with people who start out in a tight labor market shows earnings are hurt for a decade or more just because you started in a loose labor market rather than a tight labor market. So i also want to say weve got to do more for the young people. Number one on the list is create a tight labor market. Beyond that, yes, there are education elements and training elements that we could make more use of. But the whole point is its not an eitheror issue here. The programs helping the labor market function better are programs that will work much better in a tight labor market than a loose one. Okay. Thanks very much. Since we have such happy agreement here, i assume no one has questions and Everyone Wants to go home early. Well take questions. We have aei Staff Members Walking Around with microphones. Again, since we are on cspan wait for the microphone. State your name. We have a rule here that each question must end with a question mark. Please keep that in mind as well. Raise your hand and well try to get you a microphone. I wonder if you could talk about the Labor Force Participation rate and what they think is behind it. An issue related to what youre talking about, maybe not totally germane. Id be interested how much is structural, how much cyclical, how much involved in the coming year. How much back to what professor said, how hot do we have to run the economy to get that back up, Administration Rate back up. Thank you. First off, we should be clear, most is not age related. Most of the stories is a decline in prime age workers. We all know about the aging of the baby boomers. Some of that, probably a quarter if that is people moving into retirement years. Its people 25 to 54 is where you see the big decline. In terms of structural cyclical, i see that as a continuation to cyclical, people dont get jobs shortterm unemployed, not jobs as longterm unemployed, at some point they give up. That looks like a cyclical story. A lot of these people may never get to work again unless we do something special. We can stimulate the labor market but might need Something Else to get them back into the workforce. I see that as a dire situation. I see it as a cyclical story that can are have instruct ral ramifications. If someone goes unemployed for a period of time, that could be an issue. As a question, if youre a policy pessimist and you thought all because of unemployment insurance, disability, explosion of people on disability rolls, how much of change or decline in participation might you be able to attribute to increases in disability . I really see disability as being very little. Its not as though we changed eligibility rules in disability. We did back in the 80s but not recently. If you look at the age adjusted disability rates, were actually somewhat below what the Social Security administration projected a few years back. Thats not a big part of the story. We do have higher unemployment because of measured unemployment because extension benefits but thats a story people staying in the workforce counted as unemployed because you have to be looking for a job or say youre actively looking for a job to get benefits. I dont think theres much of a story there. The rise in disability and this happens every downturn, we always have some workers who were employed with problems. People have a back problem but employed with construction jobs. In a normal healthy economy they might be kept on the payroll even though they are half speed. When its time to lay someone off, they will look at someone in their 50s at half speed versus someone 25 who can lift half as much. That person looking for a job, that disability would be a problem. I think thats most of what were seeing with the rise in disability. Let me come back to the question and put in another element. We have a serious trend issue that shows up in the earnings distribution. The tendency of hollowing out the middle. What computers and communication improvements have done to job opportunities. And not everything thats a problem in the labor market shows up in the Unemployment Rate. I think what we need to be doing is looking we obviously dont want to say were not going to take advantage of the technical advances anymore. That luddite solution is not a healthy longterm strategy. We need to recognize that together with this severe cyclical problem we have a trend of changes in technology thats happening at a rate thats much faster than we have seen for a while. So i think its important to be addressing issues like education, relative to computers. Education for the jobs that computers are not going to be good at. Same thing with globalization issues. So i think here we want to pick out the particular cyclical issues but we shouldnt lose sight of the trend issues, which was really the same theme i was making around infrastructure and basic research and education reform, that that should be adaptive to recognizing this additional problem. And that problem is probably a contributor, probably a small contributor. I havent dug into it, around Labor Force Participation. The flip we know its been going on since the mid80s, retirement ages have been creeping steadily up. In part people are healthier. In part earnings didnt grow the way people had thought they would given the history. Weve had some wage stagnations. There are a number of additional issues that dove tail. Its not we have one problem we need one fix and were done. I think its important to address these multiple dimensions. Thank you. With chinese news agency. Some studies show during the crisis over 8 million jobs, a major chunk of those jobs lost centered in some highpaying sectors like construction, manufacturing, professional and business. But five years of the crisis started, the major chunk over the jobs gained in the United States are in lower paying sectors like hospitality, retail and education. So is this a trend . Is it more difficult for the United States to create highpaying jobs for young people . Thank you. Ill take a shot. I think that the quality of jobs inevitably linked to quality. Increase in restaurant employment by state versus Unemployment Rate by state. I think basic story here is because people cant get better jobs they are taking bad jobs that might not be there. A friend of mine looking at this, we had some back and forth object it. He had just done casual analysis. Youre seeing a big increase in the percent of College Educated workers working at fastfood restaurants. These are people going to work there after long periods of unemployment. So basically people have no other options. Now, were we to see the economy generate another 7, 8 million jobs, a lot would be good jobs and wed see a sharp decline in restaurant share, bad share of unemployment. I do think those two are linked. To give you my optimistic story, ill feel good for a moment. On the one hand i think the shortterm, government stimulus. The longerterm with major imbalances in the economy, the trade balances being the major one. Somewhere along the way, i dont know if were talking two years, three years, five years, ten years, i envision the u. S. Somewhere closer to balance trade. That will create a lot of manufacturing jobs. Its not a question of liking or not liking manufacturing jobs. That is mostly what we trade still. I do think we will see more better paying jobs. The question is how long does it take us to get there. I actually have a question for peter, too. The one thing about the information revolution that probably is a positive as were trying to think about past couple of years, hence, when things are more back to normal, we ought to be a lot better at matching vacancies and the unemployment. It used to be i had to read the want ads, now i can Search Online and say exactly what i am and find the 60 positions nationwide i might be qualified for. So one, it does seem like major contribution to the profession, should be a lot better. And a lot more officials. So what impact should that have on the answer to the question. Does that mean after, say, in the fullness of time, i should be more bullish on our ability to generate great employment for people because were matching them so much more efficiently . Sorry. I think thats a small potatoes item. The attention to the dynamics of the labor market and not narrowly making those links calls for recognizing the multiple steps involved in filling the vacancy in finding a good match. So yes, it may be now that i post my vacancy online and i get 200 applications on the first day rather than 30 spread out over a week, but the problem of interviewing, selecting, finding a good match, that i think is where the real frictions are. And of course often you dont find out until youve employed someone for a while. So that part i dont think were going to get dramatic improvements in, apart from a small slice of jobs that really are hard to spot the connection. Because a lot of those areas, as with academic economists have been highly organized for a while. Theres an awful lot of the job market where youre looking for some be who is a fit. If the job market is tight, youre willing to do the training it needs to do them. That part of the process is what i consider to be the significant part, getting the matches. Not finding a potential person to hire. Sure it will help a little bit. It will also complicate well get technical for a moment, the externalities in the job certainly process, because when you have multiple applications by each person, because it becomes so much easier to do lots of them, thats doing to complicate the process and may bump out people who would have been perfectly adequate fits otherwise. Its not, given the multiple dimensions of the Online Computer change, the impact is, first of all, i suspect small. But secondly even a bit uncertain. Id like to just focus on something washington is talking about right now. Syria comes to mind. Im just wondering, i actually looked up at these figures. Every time theres been a war, unemployment has gone down. World war ii, korea, vietnam less, iraq less. Generally unemployment has gone down. This is one action that could be taken. What do you gentlemen think about that possibility . Well, whatever with syria, i sure hope its not enough to bring down the Unemployment Rate. That may be a sufficient answer to that question. I think, of course, is it gene spurling . Sterling . Yes, sir. You called my gene spurling but sterling. Every once in a while i get something for gene spurling and i realize that wasnt meant for me, for those that know who it is. My question is whether theres further consensus i can get from this group, to talk about if were going to spend money how we might spend it better for dollar per expenditure. Peter got into this when talked about we should spend more on infrastructure and education. Im going to offer one or two others, one of which is wouldnt it have been better when we do things like Social Security tax breaks to stimulate the economy to concentrate that on low wage subsidies for the same dollar of expenditures rather than spreading it across the board, without any major goal for employment. The other one might be more controversial, if you look over a period of time from beginning to the end of the obama administration, by far, the biggest increase in spending, hundreds of millions of dollars will be for medicare and Social Security which one might argue dont encourage employment but at some level, given benefit levels, might encourage people to retire earlier despite whats going on with the elderly. Im wondering if you take the same dollars and thought about it in across the board bipartisan way, couldnt we have done a better job providing stimulus more likely to be pro Labor Force Attachment and pro employment . You could pick other examples if you like. I guess you already said stimulus. I think at one point in congressional testimony a few years ago, a few targeted programs like this that were part of the last stimulus. If you look at the program evaluations, they counted for disproportionate share of job creation by any estimate. It goes back to why i was thinking about, you know, because it is an emergency, in my view, and we need to do something, one of the things we need to do is have a lot of evaluations of different proposals to employ the longterm unemployed, Something Like negative in come tax experiments we had a long time ago but here trying different ideas and trying to see what works. But the thought that got me going on this was that ive been pretty suspiciou of the stuff w called stimulus last time would be effective. One back of the envelope way to see the picture that motivated me down a big Research Agenda here actually was if we spent the stimulus hiring people at the u. S. Median wage for a year wed have created 23 million jobs, which is about 10 times what the administration asserted they created. So if we start to view longterm unemployment problem being weve got a few Million People we need to reconnect, then i would be wary of trying to have another trillion dollar stimulus so i could get another 2 million jobs. A couple things there, first off, well be back and forth on this, together at my alma mater, plugging a show. Im not anxious i should qualify, id be happy to see us cutting medicare but not benefits. We spend twice as much per person as the average other wealthy countries, thats in health care, with very little to show for it. Theres enormous potential for saving, which id love to see us do. If you look at the situation of older workers, people in their late 50s and 60s, people dont have a lot more retirement. You could say they werent wise in saving. The reality, theres not much to do about it now. Im not anxious to see those programs cut back. One point in terms of spending more efficiently, kevin and i have done a lot on this jointly. One thing im fond of is work sharing, which germany has done incredibly effectively. Germany has been no greater since the down turin. Their unemployment 7. 8 in 2007 to 5. 4, maybe 5. 3 today, where ours went the other way, 4. 5 to 7. 3. They did that by keeping people at work, a variety of programs, work sharing being one of them. One of the things disturbing mae we got, congress passed, president obama signed a work sharing provision in the bill that extended payroll tax cutback in 2012. What it does is the federal government picks up the tab for work sharing, which 25, might be 26tates now, including california, new york and texas, including some big states, the federal government will pick up the tab for every worker on work sharing rather than state ui plans. Youd think that would be good incentive for states to push that. As best i can tell they are doing almost nothing. Im saying that from having talked to people in state beaurocracies. Ive learned to appreciate living in washington beaurocracies. Unfortunately they dont seem to be moving here. This seems relatively unobjectionable program. Voluntary and part of the employers that do it in washington state, one of the leaders in take up, fairly low. They have surveyed employers overwhelmingly. The ones that use it like it. You get to keep skilled workers on the payroll rather than looking for a new worker when business picks up. Seems like a winwin. Whats kind of nice, to put it simply, all the things were talking about are about shifting the demand curve out, which we need to do. Its harder to do than simply increasing the number of people employed at every output. Thats a simple policy id love to see more take up on. Unfortunately it seems a hard thing to do. Let me put in a little here without getting into details on the stimulus, either criticizing part or applauding part. Its not something i studied. There is a tendency among macroeconomists to focus on the multiplier issue, to focus on how many jobs were created by this spending. It seems to me, and that was the theme of the items i ticked off, you want to start by asking the question what are you getting for that money, whether a tax cut custody of some form or direct spending. What are you getting for it. Is it worthwhile . The problem to my mind is we have a lot of Government Spending thats valuable and their too little being spent on those programs. We have a lot of Government Spending that isnt valuable. Too much spent on that. The narrow focus on the multipliers, jobs created on the side, seems to me not the focus we should have in talking about this. We should recognize this as a vehicle for going after the good things. And if they are worth doing, they are worth doing. And if you get a multiplier, thats a bonus. But its more lets look at what this is a good time to do. Lets look how much of it makes sense given how much the labor market ends up tightening. Okay. We have time for one last question, i think. Sort of pivoting off deans last question there or response, rather. What do you think we could learn from europe, 7 or 8 unemployment for a long time is very new and something we obviously dont like at all here in america but this has been par for the course for most of the European Countries since the early 80s. I remember kevin saying, you should look at direct honor programs. My understanding of the european evaluation lit turs when the governments directly hire people, the market doesnt help them find jobs outside direct hire, doesnt value the experience provided in the public works programs. Are there other lessons you think we can take from europe . What is europes 30year experience trying to combat high unemployment, getting people back to work. What lessons would you all draw from that . Ill go first while you gather your thoughts. I think that my favorite direct hire in the u. S. Would mirror programs in germany that encourage the private sector to create jobs for folks in part by taking Training Programs away from government bureaucrats. So you mentioned bureaucrats. It created a joke in my mind. Remember when they had to rename the bullets because we couldnt call our Basketball Team the bullets anymore . A lot of people proposed names, my fear was the bureaucrats. Wouldnt it have been great the washington bureaucrats, they would quake every time they came. I think moving towards better training, privatized training, programs that offer private firms big bonuses if they place a longterm unemployed person in a position. Not by hiring them but by matching them and training them. I think there are some innovative programs that weve been studying here at aei in europe. They have gone through really awful programs and reached the kind of stage where they are past denial and trying to fix some of these countries. Germany, again, the labor policy has been a leader in that regard in terms of trying to create new nongovernmental things that match people to jobs. I think there are some things but obviously awful things in european labor policy as well. Once you make it unlawful to fire a person, of course, its going to be hard to convince somebody to hire a person. So there are a lot of things we wouldnt want to copy. A quick comment to your last word, the experience across europe has been different depending on the country germany being a Success Story nordic country had employment rates below ours for the last 10 or 15 years. We could point to the failures but theres also successes there. I just want to point out that neither of my colleagues here answered your question. Because your question and im going to applaud that. Your question was what do we learn from europe. We can learn this from that country, this from that country. The question was put wrong. I think its important to not think of this block out there called europe and oh, my god. Whats really important is we not go down any road any of them have ever gone down because its the wrong dimension. There are things weve learned, this is not labor market related, more macro. Its good to shut down zombie banks and its awfully handy to have your own currency. Okay. That does it for us. Thanks very much for coming. Thanks to our great panel, and thanks to kevin for organizing. We hope to see all of you at an aei event very soon. Thank you. Secretary of state john kerry will be on capitol hill again this morning to urge congress to approve military action against syria for using chemical weapons against its own citizens. Hell be joined by secretary hagel and general dempsey. Live coverage at 10 a. M. Eastern on our companion network, cspan3. I can remember so well the day that it happened, because my father was, of course, a minister, and so we had gone up to the church. My mother was the choir master, and so wed gone up to the church to get ready for service, and all of a sudden there was this loud thud. And we knew a bomb had gone off. You just knew that in birmingham in those those days, but we thought maybe within our community. And within a little while, mrs. Florence rice came in and said 16th Street Church had been bombed. A few, little while later, we knew the names of the little girls who had been killed, and denise mcnair, who was one of those little girls, had been a family friend, kindergarten friend. Theres a picture in the book of my father giving her her graduation diplomacy from kindergarten. So it was a very sad and, in ways, terrifying day for our community. A 50th Anniversary Commemoration of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing live sunday at 11 a. M. Eastern and throughout the day on American History tv on cspan3. [applause] now, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg on the rulings of the high court involving health care, affirmative action, Voting Rights and gender equality. The event lasted an hour and a half and was hosted by the National Constitution center in philadelphia. [cheers and applause] how wonderful to look out on this sea of faces and to welcome Justice Ginsburg to the National Constitution center. I am jeffrey rosen, i am the new president and ceo of this wonderful institution. [applause] i have been on the job for three months, and i cannot imagine a conversation that i would rather be sharing with you than the one that were about to have tonight. The National Constitution center, as many of you know, is a very special place. We are chartered by congress to disseminate information on the constitution on a nonpartisan basis. We are the museum of we, the people, were a center for education, and were americas town hall, the one place in the country that brings together the best arguments on all sides of constitutional debates and allows citizens to make up their own minds. As part of that, we sponsor constitutional conversations, and as i say tonight, it is impossible to imagine a better one to be having than the one that were going to have right now. I should say to insure that we all enjoy it fully, please, turn off your cell phones and remember, no flash photography. Tonight i have the tremendous honor of welcoming a constitutional giant, a woman whos been called the Thurgood Marshall of the womens movement, the second woman to sit on the Supreme Court and a dear friend, please welcome once more Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. Thank you. [applause] Justice Ginsburg, youve honored the Constitution Center by coming here before, but im so thrilled that youre here during my first months on the job. We met many years ago, i think it was 1991 when you were on the u. S. Court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit, and i was a lowly law clerk, and we bonded over opera. I think we talked about that. And since then you did me and christine, my wife, the great honor of marrying us ten years ago, and christine is here in the front row, and this is our tenth anniversary, and we remember that day with great pleasure. But i want to begin by noting that just last weekend you performed another marriage which was a bit more historic, and that took place in washington. Tell us about that. That was the first samesex marriage performed by a u. S. Supreme court justice. What yes. It was the marriage of michael kaiser, who is the head of the kennedy center, to his longtime partner whose name happens to be john roberts, the same name as the chief justice. [laughter] it was a simply beautiful wedding. The high point for me of ther is is of the ceremony was Carolyn Blackwell who sang. It was exquisite. There was lots of family on both sides, lots of roberts, lots of kaisers. It was like a wedding of two people who were deeply in love with each other and were finally able to make their shared lives a lawful relationship. [applause] how did you feel as a justice performing the ceremony . What did it say about america . Its one more example of what i see as the genius of our constitution. If i asked you the question who counted among we the people when our constitution was new, well, not very many people. Certainly i wouldnt, certainly not people who were held in human bondage and not even most men because you had to be a Property Owner as well. So think of what our nation and our constitution has become over now well more than two centuries. The idea of we the people has become more and more embraced so people who were once left out, people who were once slaves, women, native americans did not count in the beginning. So its come about as a result of constitutional amendments, in the case of the civil war, three civil war amendments and judicial interpretation. And an idea that was there from the beginning, equality. And yet you can read every page of your pocket constitution, you will not find in the original constitution, you will not find the word equal or equality. Even though that was the main theme of the declaration of independence. So the word equal becomes part of the constitution in the 14th amendment. So i see the genius of our constitution and our society, how much more embracive we have become than we were at the beginning. Um, i wanted to note that we talked about opera before this conversation started, and you have recently been the subject of an opera over the summer. A a music student has proposed a new opera, and ally ya begins scalia ginsburg. [laughter] it sounds like one of the great buddy movies of all time. The story of how two people are, what, locked in a room and the only way to get out is to agree on a common approach to the constitution . What is this opera. [laughter] and what is it like to listen to . Its roughly based on the magic flute. Justice scalia has to go through certain trials [laughter] and hes not able to do it on his own, so i come along and make it possible for him to succeed. The opera is still in progress. [laughter] because the composer just graduated from the university of maryland law school, and he needed to take off part of the summer to study for the bar. [laughter] but he, this idea came to him when he was studying constitutional law and realizing these opinions and reading these opinions and thinking i could take these words and make it into an opera plot. Perhaps if i recited the first words of Justice Scalias opening aria, youll get the idea. That would be great. Please do. [laughter] well, its his rage aria. [laughter] and it goes this way the justices are blind. How can they spout this . The constitution says absolutely nothing about this. [laughter] the man clearly has talented. I got from the np rush an excerpt npr an excerpt similarlyinspired lines, ruth, can you read, youre aware of the text, yet so proudly you failed to derive its true meaning. I think its going to be a huge hit, and i want you to do the philadelphia premiere here [laughter] you and justice and a scalia han longtime friends, and you go the opera together, and i remember years ago before you were nominated for the bench, they had just heard justice and scala answer the question if you were locked on a desert island, who would you like it to be with . He said ruth bader ginsburg. So youre dear friends there wasnt much competition. [laughter] you know what . I think youre right. The alternative was lawrence tribe. [laughter] its a tough call. I think all of us want to know despite this friendship, there have been some serious constitutional disagreements between the two of you, most notably between this past remarkable Supreme Court term that a just ended involving Voting Rights and affirmative action, and very strong words have been exchanged. How is it possible to maintain this personal be friendship when youre really engaged in intellectual and constitutional conflict of such nature . I should say that one of the hallmarks of the court is collegiality. And we could not do the job that the constitution gives to us if we didnt, to use one of scalias favorite expressions, get over it. [laughter] we know that even though we have sharp disagreements on what the constitution means, we have a trust, we revere the constitution and the court, and we want to make sure that when we leave it, it will be in as good shape as it was when we, when we joined the court. This, there are a number of cases that are not picked up by the press too often where Justice Scalia and i are in total agreement. And if you think of the last term of Fourth Amendment cases, the one where nino was in dissent. The question was whether the police when they arrest someone suspected of a felony where they can take a dna sample. The majority be said dna today is just like fingerprints yesterday. Scalias dissent was, the na is marvelously dna is marvelously effective in solving up solved crimes unsolved crimes. But to pretend that its being used to identify the arrestee, the arrestee has already been arraigned, so we know how the arrestee is. It is being used to find out whether this person committed some yetunsolved crime. And thats all very well and good except that our constitution says that we are not to be subjected to unreasonable searches, that the normal rule is if the Police Suspect a person of committing a crime, the police goes to a magistrate, presents probable cause for believing this person committed a crime and gets a warrant. Well, thats whats missing when you take a dna sample, run it through a computer and find that this person has committed in the case we had it was of a horrendous rape. I thought that was one of Justice Scalias most inspiring dissents. It was hugely important. He had that great line about how our hearty forebearers would have been appalled by solutions into their mouths, and its a very important reminder of the necessity of warrants before collecting information on people without suspicion. Despite that important agreement, though, lets not underestimate the highprofile 54 decisions that that the courts been handing down recently, and youve been quite vocal about this recently and have said in a number of places that this, if this trend continues, this will be a court that may be among the most activist in history. What did you mean when you said the Roberts Court is turning into one of the most activist in history . I should define the term activism as i used it for that purpose. It is a court that is not at all hesitant to overturn legislation passed by the congress. So to take two very recent headline examples, the Affordable Health care act passed congress, but the court, well, the court held that the Commerce Clause didnt go that far. But thank goodness, there was a taxing power that saved the case. But the readiness to strike down a piece of legislation under the Commerce Clause, insurance is surely commerce. It was astounding to me. But the worst case, i think, was the Voting Rights act case. [applause] that passed congress overwhelmingly, i think it was unanimous in the senate and 330 some odd votes in the house. If anyone knows about the Voting Rights, how it affects the system, i think the elected representatives have an appreciation of that, that the unelected judges dont have. And yet despite the overwhelming majority in congress that passed the Voting Rights act, the court said it wont do. The formula is out of date, so congress would have to go back and take this the Voting Rights act passed originally in 1965 on johnsons during johnsons tenure. It was renewed by nixon, ford, both bushes, and it was the second bush, it was the most recent extension. But the court said it wont do. So i think thats an example of striking down legislation on a subject that the people in the political arena are better informed about than the court. I want to ask you about all of those remarkable dissents, but first i want to note how extraordinary it is that you have issued them. I have to say ive known you for a long time, ive admired your opinions, and youve been called a minimalist and a judges judge. But it seems that in the two years really youre on fire. Youve found your voice [laughter] youre sounding like my hero, louis brandeis, and its gal van his oohing. Galvanizing. Youre using words like hubris, you have these wonderful metaphors about umbrellas and getting wet. And my question before we talk about the substance of these remarkable dissents is what emboldened you or freed you up to express yourself so powerfully recently in a way that you hadnt before . I had a good model. For most of my years on the court, Justice John Paul stevens we split 54, and he was then senior among the four. He was fair in his distribution of dissents, but he did keep the major cases for himself. And so i was heir to that role of being the most senior judge in the, on the dissent side. So its really a question of your role. And as you say, as the senior associate justice, you have the prerogative when youre in the majority either to write the decision yourself or assign it to the judge you think will do the best job. And when youre in dissent, you can write the principal dissent yourself or assign it to whom you like. How are you using this power . Have you made a premium on unanimity, and are you trying to convince the four dissenters when theyre together to all join the same opinion . Yes. Ive met with my colleagues in the Affordable Health care act case. I think we spent almost three hours just talking about how the dissent should be written. I asked for any suggestions my colleagues had. They saw the draft of my opinion before it circulated to the full court, so i could make sure that i am speaking for the four of us and not just for myself. I think its much easier for the public to comprehend one dissent instead of four. So we make a deliberate effort not to splinter. Sometimes, not often, its unavoidable. But for the most part, we can come together on a dissent that speaks for the, for all the dissenters. It is easier to comprehend. There are cases, important cases like bush v gore. That was because there was no time. The court agreed to take the case on a saturday, briefs were file bed on sunday, argument filed on sunday, argument was monday and decisions were out on tuesday. So each of us wrote our own dissent, and there was no time to meet and say lets put these together. These that youre setting out of the four liberals being united against the five conservatives is very different than the one that chief Justice Roberts offered when he took office when he talked about the importance of unanimity and trying to persuade his colleagues to verge around opinions, to avoid these 54 splits because its bad for the court and bad for the country. Is that a tenable vision . Has he had any influence or is the court going to continue to polarize with 54 votes . What he projected as desirable in his very first term, the court was unusually together. And theres a clear explanation for that. The first term of chief Justice Roberts was also last term of justice i Justice Sandra day oconnor. So her last year, his first year, there was more unanimity than we have seen since. Ive said a number of times and i think anyone who checked would find its true that the the year she left us in every case where i was among the four because she had remained i would have been hong the five. Among the five. So her leaving the court made an enormous difference. You know, when i teach constitutional law, i always begin by telling students dont imagine its all politics. You know, you can think that, but if thats your tenant, ten youll miss everything thats beautiful and meaningful about the constitution. You talk about Justice Oconnor being replaced by Justice Alito, and i have to ask you, is it all politics in these cases . Republicans against democrats . Well, i think all of us would answer surely not. Many times i will vote or write an opinion that would not be the law if i or if i were queen. [laughter] so if we see, we seize this fundamental instrument of government differently. But theres certainly no horse trading at the court. If you vote for me today, ill vote for you tomorrow. That never happens. And we just have some very different views. Lets take the 14th amendment equal protection clause, for example. Today the equal protection guarantee extends to women. But if you ask the question back in 1868 when the 14th amendment became part of the constitution, did the people at that time envision that women would be citizens equal in stature to men . And the answer is, surely not. But as i see the equality idea, its will from the beginning, and it is its there from the beginning, and it is realized by the society over time. So while i would say its true that in 1868 women were a long way from having the vote, but then we have the 19th amendment, and they get the vote. We have a Civil Rights Movement that makes equality guarantee for race, what it should have been from the beginning. And all of that influences or even drives by view of what the equal protection clause means today. When you tell that story of the expansion of equality coming from constitutional amendments and from the Civil Rights Movement and from acts of congress, i think i begin to understand the passion of your defense in cases like Voting Rights and affirmative action and health care. Lets talk about Voting Rights dissent which i think really was perhaps your most extraordinary. You, well, first of all, as i say, the rhetoric was unforgettable. You have say early attempt resembled battling the high da. Whenever one form of voting discrimination was identified and to hinted, others sprang up in its place. Were you surprised that texas decided to implement a voter id law just hours after the court struck down no. [laughter] i expected well, that was the metaphor about we put down the umbrella because we werent getting wet, but the storm is raging. I expected exactly that. To happen. Now its a problem what to do. Voter id laws, closing the polls early, putting them at ip convenient places. So the attorney general has asked a federal court to require texas to get advance approval before put anything place some of these political redistricting or other changings. Are sections 2 and sections 3 of the Voting Rights act remain adequate alternatives, or might the court cut back on those as well . I cant predict what the court will do, but perhaps we should explain what section 3 is the bailin provision, right . So the Voting Rights act, one of the reasons i thought it was unquestionably constitutional, so suppose a state that was in 1965 one of those states that did not allow africanamericans to vote. But over the years they had changed their ways, and they were no longer keeping any people away from the polls because of their race. If they have a clean record for ten years, they can bail out. And on the other hand, if a state that was not in the group were required to preclear voting changes originally, those states or districts could be bailed in. So there was a way to take out political units that didnto belong there and add ones that did. And that was the mechanism that congress provideed. But i dont think there was anything said in the majority opinion about the bailin, bailout. Courts, though, have imposed a very high requirement of intentional discrimination before allowing states to bail in which is why very few have bailed in, and these suits may not succeed for that reason. Yes. That remains, that remains to be seen. And section 2 similarly also requires a high degree of intentional discrimination. And even though congress tried to lower the standard, the court has cut that back as well. So its well, the Congress Said discriminatory in effect even if not be, even if you cant prove intend. But what the court will do with that is an open question. But so much of the power of your dissent came from the need, as you said, congress legitimately concluded that preclearance by the federal government was necessary because unless you could challenge this second general ration of voter discrimination in advance, the high da, as you put it, would return. Tell us more about it. Different forms. The original devices were blatant, there was no disguising what they were doing. Literacy the tests in the old days. Just the intimidation of black voters even if they could, were able to get to the polls to register, there were people stopping them from doing that. I mean, it was a violent history that accounts for the Voting Rights act. And then over time those devices, those crude devices passed. But more subtle devices emerge like putting a polling place in an area thats inconvenient for minority voters to reach or opening polls late and closing them early, making it difficult for people who have jobs to come and vote. Redistricting. More subtle, more sophisticated devices have replaced the old, crude devices. And that we can see is happening right now. And you made a very strong argument that the framers of the 14th and 15th amendment intended congress, not the courts, to be the primary defender of Voting Rights. Yes. If you compare take the first ea. It says congress amendment. It says Congress Shall pass no law. So it says, congress, keep your hands off. But the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment in Congress Shall have the power to enforce if the the those postcivil war or amendments. Instead of being a negative check on what the legislature can do, its affirmatively giving the legislature the authority to implement those amendments. You were also critical of the courts expansion of the opinion called northwest austin which a few years earlier had avoided the constitutional decision on the Voting Rights act. That was an example of chief Justice Roberts avoiding the constitutional conflict by ruling narrowly, but are you sorry in retrospect that a you joined northwest austin . I think the result in northwest austin was right. This was a Water District that had never discriminated but was in a state that had. The court read the act to say districts, municipalities, counties could bail out. So you could be part of the state where there was discrimination going on, but in your area there was no discrimination. So i think the northwest austin establishing that bailout was available to smaller political units was a good thing. And then the chief wrote the opinion, and he put in language that came back to haunt some of us haunt some of us. Adam, a very astute New York Times commentator, wrote a piece suggesting that chief Justice Roberts often will make a small, incremental step and get you guys to agree to it and then bring it back to haunt you in the future case where he actually rules on a constitutional question. Is that a fair characterization . You give another example . [laughter] other than, other than the Voting Rights act . I guess, yes. Campaign finance where first in the wisconsin right to life case the buckley, Mccain Feingold was not overruled and then the cue degas was delivered in yes, but roberts wasnt there when it was upheld. There was one decision where he and Justice Alito declined to pull the trigger. Yes. And that was when so lea ya accused scalia accused roberts, and maybe that should go in the rah as well. [laughter] i want to ask you about why you decided to dissent alone in the affirm betive action case, by the thought was here once again the majority was avoiding ruling squarely on the constitutional question, but the fear was that the standard was actually being raised in a way that might lead down the road to the overruling of the case of affirmative action. Tell us why you decided to dissent alone in the fisher case. I thought that the court was taking a position that was astonishing if you go back to the origin of the suspect classification doctrine. It came out of a footnote in a decision by thenchief justice stone in the county products case. This is a chief justice explaining that for the most part we trust the legislative process, and the court is deferential, respectful of the laws that congress passes. So we regard these laws, we presume that what the legislature has done is constitutional. The two categories of cases stone suggested were thats not the right approach. And one was when fundamental liberties, when the guarantees of the bill of rights are at stake, First Amendment rights are at stake, the court is the guardian of the bill of rights, and it should see to it that congress remembers. That congress is to pass no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. The other category, cases where the majority was disadvantaging the minority. So then you really couldnt trust the political process. The minority that was being oppressed didnt have the political clout, you couldnt trust the majority to deal fairly with the thats suspect, what was suspect was the majority disadvantaging the minority. And over time it has become race is the suspect criterion. Its not at all what the original idea was. And the, when a state in the case of fisher v. Texas, the State University wants to have an affirmative action plan of the most moderate kind, who is the court to say that thats unconstitutional . So its being deferential to another decision maker. You sound once again like youre out, youre being a better originalist than Justice Scalia as well. [laughter] we have two cases where youre saying, in fact, constitutional history is on your side, and is youre a champion of judicial restraint and respecting original understanding. The product footnote was an insight that the court had. You know, people think that suspect classification, some people think that it started with the [inaudible] case. But its back there in the days when the court stopped putting down social and economic legislation and recognized that for the most part the legislature should, the question is who decides whats good economic and social policy . Not the court, but the legislature. And caroline was such a case, typical economic regulation case. And the court said what congress did was okay. And then stone thinking said, but be maybe, maybe sometimes we have to be more suspicious about what congress is doing. Thats what the court said in, during the new deal era, but you suggested in your final sort of blockbuster of a dissent, the health care dissent on the Commerce Clause point be, that perhaps some members of the court were trying to resurrect the battle days of economic judicial activism. And you said that the attempt to strike down the individual mandate of the Affordable Care act under the Commerce Clause had resurrections of the lockner case from the progressive era that struck down maximum hour laws for bake withers. Are you afraid of a resurrection of economic judicial activism along those lines . It seemed to me that the Affordable Health care act was just a completion of what was started in the 30s with Social Security. The Social Security act was upheld by the court, and many people thought that after that the court was recognizing that economic and social policy was not its domain. So if the legislature wants to pass a minimum wage law, a maximum hours law, that was the legislatures prerogative. Most countries in the world, most industrialized countries have universal health care. They have Social Security they had Social Security long before we did. So i saw the Health Care Act as just completing that flaw that the government is putting that safety net. People will have Social Security coverage when theyre elderly or when a partner dies, and this health care was part of that same understanding that government does have an obligation to see that peoples basic needs are met. Thats the social is, its a tax that we pay so that people who are no longer able to work will be taken care of. But the suspicion of those who are on economic legislation, to see people responding to the needs for the well being of the public. Anyway, i thought once the Social Security act, once that was excepted, there would be no question anymore about the Commerce Clause extending the health care. And yet the majority on that point introduced a distinction between Economic Activity and economic inactivity, and said congress congratulate this kind of inactivity, then it will resurrect what you call the broccoli horrible. Why you were unconvinced american citizens may be forced to buy broccoli if the individual mandates were upheld. [laughter] there was something about frying the broccoli as well in your opinion, the account of how Americans Health would be improved in order to have to accept the premise of the broccoli horrible. The truth about health care, it was portrayed as taking the young and the healthy and making them pay for the elderly and the infirm. But if you think of the person over the span of time, so today, you are young and healthy. In the nottoodistant future, you will be middle aged, and then youll be old, and then there will be young people who are paying for you. If you look at it as a whole lifespan, yes, you are paying a tax when youre young, and the state is not providing services that you dont need. But over the long run, it evens out. Of course, the question of whether it was our wasnt a tax proved to be central and there was some comedy about it during the debates, all the democrats stood up and said its not a tax, and the republican said it is. As soon as the ink was dried it switched and the democrat said it is definitely a tax and republicans said its not a tax and, therefore, isnt justified. That does reflect the debate of the tribe of Social Security. Social security was attacks. It was not an insurance premium, but it was so thats not a tax. Even though the present tried to Sell Health Care by calling this not a tax, it was a penalty. Penalty. Should that matter what the president called it . It proved not to the president wanted to get the Health Care Act through congress, and it was very strong view that no more taxes. We will not enact any more taxes. So call it a penalty. What did you think of the chief justices decision to uphold it as a tax . All, i thought it was interesting, although he saw this Commerce Clause is limited, he saw the tax clause as expansive. Congress contacts as it will. I mean, it is not indian by how could anyone think that not him in by. How could they think of the criticism today of the Health Care Act, he said in some quarters that this will be the ruination of Small Business. Well, Small Business is commerce, right . It is very difficult to understand how that got back on the reach of the Commerce Clause came about, and i think it will not have, i think it will not have staying power. What do you mean . Will it be over turned . That being yes. And we will get back where we were ever since the late 30s when economic and social legislation is recognized as the proper domain of the congress. And as devoted as you may be to your particular state, there are so many things in this highly industrialized world that states cant do, that have to have a National Solution. That point about the National Solution was another example of you being a good originalist, because you said the framers of the constitution were concerned about the collective action problems in the articles of federatifederati on and wanted to empower congress to act when the states were powerless to coordinate their actions together. You do believe the commerce reading will be overturned eventually. Are you concerned in the short term that might lead to an validation of other economic legislation, environmental laws, health and safety laws and so forth . Im hopeful we will not have that ramification. All the precedents, except this, health care, is the other way. Let me ask now, this was the most remarkable term, but about the Marriage Equality case, about the defense of marriage act case and the perry case. In the doma k. She found it was standing to hear the pace, and in the perry case there was not standing. What was the difference between the two . There was standing in both cases originally. Defense of marriage act case you, i think you know the background of the case since the court decided, is that two people both welded together both will live together in partnership, and one of them was dying and wanted to have the official blessings of government on this union. So they married in canada. And then came back to new york, which recognizes gay marriage and recognized the canadian marriage. And then the one partner died, and the other get Something Like 360,000 estate tax bill from the government. So should have no bill at all if their marriage was recognized, would get the marital deduction. So that was the doma case to originally the government was defending the law, as it ordinarily does, but then he decided after the case was heard in the court of first instance, that the plaintiff was right and the law was indeed unconstitutional. So one would think that would render the case moved moot. Except although the government switched sides in the view of what the constitution required, it didnt give the surviving spouse or refund or refund. So the government was holding the money, there was a continuing case of controversy. And thats what the court it was on that basis that the court said, yes, we can physically she hasnt gotten the refund. And if youre concerned about will the court be given the best arguments on both sides, well, surely that was how i think we had over 100 friend of the court briefs in the doma case. So everyone, we were very well informed, very [laughter] you had the adversary presentations and you had the controversy that was not it, over. I was in the courtroom before the doma case and i remember that remarkable moment when Justice Kagan read from the congressional report. One of the sponsor stood up and said, the purpose of this law is to express moral disapproval for gays and lesbians. There was a gasp in the courtroom. Was the case over from that moment because the court said moral disapproval is not a legitimate basis for laws even under flax scrutiny . For some people, as you know, say we should look at the text of the loss of congress passes, and we should not be any attention at all to what legislates history, what they say on the floor, even what they say in committee reports. So that kind of statement was thoughtless. This was an expression of moral this approval. And that would have no in influence on someone who doesnt look at the legislative history. That some people who dont like legislative history includes most commonly justice clear, of course. And you would call Justice Scalia to task for having objected to judicial activism in the defense of marriage act case, but not been reluctant to strike down the Voting Rights act case. Yes. Even without the legislative history, they were reams of legislative history showing the continuing need for the Voting Rights act. Perhaps thats the attitude my question about whats the difference between these cases . The defense of marriage act case is one case where you did vote to invalidate an act of congress, would you early defined as judicial activism. Why was okay to strike down the defense of marriage act but not the Voting Rights act . Because the defense of marriage act was violating the equality, liberty guarantees that fell in, the first category. The court has to be careful to see that congress is not fretting on our most fundamental human values. And the court, you know, doma wasnt the first time in court, in counter to this question. It wasnt so long ago that many states made consensual sodomy a crime. And in the lawrence the court at first said thats okay. Its okay to express moral disapproval, that kind of activity. And then the court turned around in the lawrence case and said, the state has no business intruding on the lives of people who were doing something that doesnt harm anyone. So that was lawrence. And then there was the colorado ordinance case after that. So the court had already the themes that were expressed in doma had already been stated. There was also of course the Virginia Military Institute Case which he wrote so eloquently that said preserving traditions for its own sake is also not a legitimate purpose. That sort of knock at the same reason people have for opposing samesex marriage and made the case perhaps easier for the challengers. You have famously argued, i think persuasively argued, that the court overreached in roe v. Wade, that it read to broadly of the privacy guarantees and it had merely struck an extreme texas law and not settled abortion for the whole nation. It might help avoid the backlash that ended up coming, abortionrights. What is the difference between Marriage Equality and abortion . Why was the court not jumping ahead of Public Opinion in this case in a way that you think it did do in roe v. Wade . The court is a reactive institution. You react to the controversies that are brought to the court. In doma, there was a couple claiming that the marriage had the same rights to be recognized by government as anyone elses. So the only way that case could be resolved is by saying, doma, these people would be treated by the federal government has not married, is unconstitutional. Wrote the wade, i should be very clear, i think the result was absolutely right. Roe v. Wade. Texas had the most extreme law in the nation. A woman could not get an abortion unless it was necessary to save her life. Didnt matter that she would be left in front. Whether the conception was the result of rape or incest. None of that mattered. The courts could have decided the case before it, which is how the court usually operates. It should have said that law, texas law, is unconstitutional. It didnt. There was no need to declare every law in the country addressing abortion, even the most liberal, unconstitutional. Thats not the way the court usually operates. It doesnt take giant steps. So my notion was, this was an issue that was in flux all over the country come in state legislatures, sometimes winning, sometimes they were losing. They were getting political experience, which was a good organizing tool. And then the Supreme Court said, you one. And it also gave the opposition one single target to hit at. If you have to disperse or diffuse your energies fighting this issue in ohio, in california, thats one thing. But if you have one target, roe v. Wade, announced by the unelected life tenured judges, that is a very good organizing tool on the other side. Now, i know many people think that my judgment about that is wrong. I know that there was a very strong right to Life Movement long before roe v. Wade came down. They continued after. But i think that there is no response to the presence of a target of simply not before roe v. Wade. If the court had responded to the texas law and put down its been, its like there was a criticism of roe by great constitutional law scholar, and he said its about a little boy who trotted out at a family party and asked, do you know how to spell banana . And he said, yes, but i dont know where it stops. [laughter] so that, and also, the other aspect of my criticism, the image you get from reading the roe v. Wade opinion is that it is mostly adoptive rights case. Adoptive rights described of what he thinks the patient needs. The images of the doctor and the little woman that is being, its never the woman alone. Its always the woman in consultation with her doctor. My idea of how choice should have developed was not, not a privacy notion, not a doctors rights notion, but a womans right to control her own destiny, to have, to be able to make choices without the big brother state telling her what she can and cannot do. [applause] that has been your great contributions to jurisprudence of gender equality. Will the court, do you think, eventually someday recognize abortionrights as a question involving gender discrimination . I think thats already been the casey decision. The court has an opportunity to overturn roe v. Wade, it said no. Its president. A whole generation is growing up understanding, they are also growing up understanding that they need to come it will be available to them. And in that casey decision, there is a healthy infusion of the woman, that this has got to be the womans choice. And in the partial birth abortion decision, that rhetoric took a rather different form and get ejected that this time the jury was being paternalistic and that women needed protection from the own choices. Women regret their choices, therefore they had to be protected. Yes. The woman had to be protected from her own misjudgment. That she would in time understand she had made a dreadful mistake. But adults make mistakes. They are adults, they are entitled to make judgments for themselves. You are not a fan of paternalistic no. Justice brennan and one of the early gender decision cases when he described this pedestal that many of us have thought women are on in reality too often turns out to be a cage. And when you litigated those cases, you faced male judges who have many of those stereotypical views and decided energy represent male plaintiff because you thought they could better empathize with guys like them. Well, i had at least as many, or more women, plaintiffs than many plaintiffs. We were trying to educate the court that pigeonholing people because they are women, to say that men can be a doctor, lawyer, indian chief. But girls can keep the house clean and take care of the children, that theres something wrong with that view of the world. The mans world with little space in it for a woman and her own corner. The notion was, dont stereotype people because they are male or because they are female. Recognizing that the stereotype might well be true for the vast majority of people, but once there were people who didnt fit the mold and they should be allowed to make choices, to live their lives without being pigeonholed, or because of their sex. And thats what i think the first quote ms. Wright case, Supreme Court decided, was such an excellent example. This was a man whose wife was a teacher. She had a very healthy pregnancy. She was in the classroom until the ninth month. She went to the hospital to give birth, and the doctor tells stephen, the father, you have a healthy baby boy, but your wife died of an embolism. And stephen bowed that he would work only parttime until his son was in school fulltime. So he applied for the Social Security benefits that he thought were available when a wager on or dies and leaves a child in the care of the surviving parent. He went to his Social Security office. And they said we are so sorry, that benefit is the mothers benefit. And you are not a mother. My wife pays the same Social Security taxes that other people pay. The idea was the woman paid her Social Security taxes, the government did not extend to her family the same protection they would extend to a mans family. The man doesnt have the choice to be a caregiving parent. He doesnt get any help with his life partner has died. So it was the idea that men dont take care of children, and women are not real wager earners. They are at most 10 money on this. Thats what were trying to distinguish. And it was, the judgment was unanimous. It was the only time the dear old she ever voted for the side that i was advocating. [laughter] and you know, the court split three ways. Most of them thought this discrimination is really against the woman as wage earner. Some thought it was discrimination against the father as parent. And one thought it was discrimination against the baby. [laughter] that was then Justice Rehnquist is that it is totally arbitrary for the child have the opportunity for the care of sole surviving parent, if the parent is female but not if the parent is male. These questions are central to gender equality, and you have, or did a few years ago, a picture in your chambers along these lines but i think your granddaughter is here tonight. And the picture, isn is it her father holding one of his childrens . It is paul. Cleric knows the picture well. Her mother took the picture. It is paul when he is two months old. These on a bed with his father, and he is looking and paul was such tremendous love comments of thats my idea of a child should have two caring parents. And if every child could grow up with the father and a mother who loves, both of them love the child, we would be, we would be a much better world if every child had a father like that. I think you would agree, dont you, clara . Well, i could continue this conversation all night but i think we should end. But i have to ask you, first of all to say again how galvanizing this voice that you articulated in the past two years is, do you intend to continue to be the liberal leader of the court and right as forcefully in the future as you have been . I think about whats coming up next term and doing the very first sitting. We have Campaign Finance. Is it permissible to put a limitation on contributions . And in the second week we have another affirmative action case. We have recess appointments, and those have been going on since george washington. Even second, the second chief justice of the United States was a recess appointment, rutledge. So he was the chief justice for four months, and then congress refused to confirm his nomination. So weve had recess appointments from the beginning, but the extent of the president s authority in that area will be addressed by the court this year. You have an important religion case . Theres another School Prayer case spent the court has not yet have a chance to opine in recent years. So that will be interesting. Well, i think what it want to close by asking you is, do you expect your dissents to become a majority opinions in the future . Or on the contrary, do you think that affirmative action will involve, the Campaign Finance will be further restricted, that roe will be overturned . Are these things to wonder about, or do you think that in five years, 10 years you will be in the majority or continuing to be the dissenter . Sometimes congress is very helpful. Theres a difference between a case that involves constitutional interpretation where if the court says this is what the constitution means, well, thats what it means until either the Court Overrules its decision or theres a constitutional amendment. But when youre giving the statutes, like our principal employment discrimination law title vii, if the court gets it wrong, congress can fix it. And so one of my most satisfying times on the court was the Lilly Ledbetter case, when my decent set essentially congress, my colleagues really misunderstood what you meant. So make it even clearer, which congress did inside of two years. This is i think most of you know what the case was about. It was a woman who was an area manager at a Goodyear Tire plant. It was a job that had been held dominantly by men, and Lilly Ledbetter, after she worked there for well over a decade, someone put a slip of paper in her mailbox and it just had numbers on it. And it was lilys salary and the pay of all the men doing the same job. The most junior men was making substantially more than lily. So she brought a title vii suit to fight discrimination to me. The jury agreed. She got a substantial verdict. Came to our court and said, she sued too late. Title vii to get to complain within 180 days of the discriminatory event. Is a discrimination started in the 70s. Well, think of a woman in the Lilly Ledbetter situation. First, the employer doesnt give out information so how would she no . Second, suspected that she was not treated as well as for male counterparts. She was also concerned, if they bring a suit, the defense will probably be it has nothing to do with her being a woman. She just doesnt do the job as well. Then if she goes on and shes there for 10 years and shes getting good performance ratings, that defense is no longer available. She doesnt do the job well. So she has a winnable case at that point. She can show pay disparity. She can show that she did the job as well or better than the man. But the court says, now that you have a winnable case, its too late. So my dissent described what every woman of lilys generation new, that if you are the first woman in the field that has been occupied by men, you dont want to be known as a complaint. You dont want to rock the boat. You dont want to be seen as a troublemaker. But there comes a point when the discrimination is starting is staring at you in the face and you have to make a stand. And thats what lily did. The defense put forward the every paycheck that this woman received is renewing the discrimination. So she can sue within 180 days of her latest paycheck, and she will be on time. Thats what Congress Said yes. [applause] as i said, the constitution is Something Else. And the court has made time and again seeing that it has made mistakes and has directed them. I hear you talk about these cases, and they are not the women and the men, you know their stories. You really are caring about the parties and noticing what is going on. Yes. And one of the things about the gender discrimination cases in the 70s, none of these were test cases in the sense that some Ideological Organization said we want to bring this issue to the court, and lets see if we can find a case. These were people like stephen, like sally reed. Sally reeds case was the first one, and it involved appointments as administrator of the decedents a state, and the law already, as between persons equally entitled to administer a decedents the state, males must be preferred to females. Well, sally reeds case was that she had a teenage son. She and her husband were divorced. When the child was young, the legal term is tender years, sally was given custody, and the boy becomes a teenager. And the father said, now he needs to be prepared for a mans world, so i would like to be the custodian. The family court said yes. And sally thought the father would be a very Bad Influence on this boy. And then she said she sadly was right. The boy was depressed. You took out one of his fathers many rifles and he committed suicide. So sally wanted to be appointed administrator of his estate. There was no advantage to her unless it was sentimental reasons. The father up like two weeks later and the probate judge said im sorry, sally. I have no choice but the law said men must be preferred to women. Well, sally reed, she thought and and justice have been done to her. This is a woman who was an everyday woman. She made her living by taking care of elderly and infirm people in her home, but she thought an injustice had been done. She thought that laws of the United States would protect her from this injustice. She went through three levels of idaho courts on her own dime. She had a lawyer from boise, idaho, that she engaged. So that was the turning point case in the Supreme Court. Nothing that the National Organization for women or the aclu created. It was women waking up to the inequality to which they had exposed, for which there was no rhyme or reason. So that suggests that courts cannot do it alone. You really have to absolutely, jeff. One of the features of the reef reef, 1971, we put on the cover page at counsel to womens names, polly murray and or the kenyan. These are women, a generation older, i was, who were saying exactly the same things that we were saying in the 40s and 50s, but society wasnt ready to listen. Put women on juries in every state. The young people today, they have no idea what the world was like then. Women were either not called at all for jury duty, or they were given an excuse simply because the statute said he was excuse for jury duty . Any woman. That was dorothys mission. She had the perfect case against florida. This is a woman whose husband was abusive. He was a philanderer, and the two were engaged in a quarrel. She felt a little bit like billy budd. He has a stutter so he cant defend himself. She was so outraged by this man, she saw her sons baseball bat in the corner of the room, and took it, and with all of her might hit him on the head. He fell. She is being tried for murder in hillsborough county, florida, where they dont put women on the jury room. Women can, to the Clerks Office and volunteer. The womans name was gwendolyn. Her idea was, if i have it on this jury, maybe they will acquit me. But maybe they will better understand my state of mind and convict me of the lesser crime of manslaughter instead of murder. Well, she was convicted by an allmale jury of murder. And her case came to the Supreme Court in 1961. We are now in the year of the quote liberal warren court. They didnt give it. The courts response was, we dont understand this complaint. Women have the best of all possible worlds. They can serve if they want to. They dont have to serve if they dont want to. You can imagine gwendolyn, what about me . And my rights to have a jury of my peers . That case, that lost in 1961, was an easy win in the 70s before the not so liberal court. Why . Because society had changed. Because women had woken up. Because there was a Worldwide Movement that the u. N. And international womens, it was that societal change that the court was reflecting in the gender discrimination case in the 70s. I wish the conversation could go on forever and this will be a model for the kind of ones that hope to be having in the years ahead at this wonderful center, but i think, i do need to close with this question. I had the great privilege of leading this magnificent institution, the one in the country that is mandated by congress to disseminate constitutional information on a nonpartisan basis. Is that an unrealistic quote . We can bring together the best liberal constitutional scholars and let the citizens decide, as the possibly of adjudication an unrealistic ideal, or is it something we can meaningfully strive for here at the National Constitution center . That this fundamental instrument of our government is something that children should know about, and their i went to china some years ago and it was a story in the paper about justice carries constitution in her pocket. The reporter, the chinese reporter was fairly impressed with it. Because in many places you would have a bill of rights. This is equivalent to ours. Maybe much more full some in its coverage. But its aspirational. The constitution of the United States is our highest law, and it trumps any other law. The constitution that has that position thats not just aspirational. And that has stayed with us. Theres the old joke about somebody going to a french bookstore and asking for a copy of the french constitution, and the bookseller says, sorry, we dont deal in periodical literature. [laughter]. It is tragic. You inspired me to do my job and inspired the audience as well. Please join me in thanking Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. [applause] thank you. [applause] the u. S. Senate gaveling in this morning in half an hour. The Senate Continues the debate on the u. S. Response to syria. Today there is news out of moscow that syria has accepted a russian proposal for syria to place chemical weapons under international control. Speaking in moscow syria ats for ministers of the government agreed to the plan to the real u. S. Aggression. According to the Associated Press russias foreign minister says russia it is working to prepare a plan of action which will be presented shortly to the United Nations. President obama reacted to the news saying it could be potentially a significant breakthrough. Topic certain to come up during meetings the president is having with democrats and republicans on capitol hill today. We will bring you reaction on cspan2 as it becomes available. We plan to hear more about it during president obamas address to the nation at 9 00 eastern with live coverage on cspan. Next we show you more reaction to the situation with remarks from the ranking democrat and republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, senators Robert Menendez and bob corker speaking on the senate floor yesterday. Mr. President , i come to the floor to talk about the urgent issue before the senate and before the country. We come to the chamber as we have many times before to make one of the most difficult decisions which is the authorization of the use of American Military power, this time in syria to respond to the horrific attack including the use of chemical weapons on august 21st that took the lives of 1,429 syrians including 426 children. The world is watching. America is waiting to see what we do in this chamber in response to the threats the world faces from those who fought the lines of human decency and used chemical weapons against anyone anywhere in the world. The images in the august 21st attack are sickening. In my view the world cannot ignore the inhumanity and horror of what Bashar Alassad did. As i said many times as a member of congress i do not take the responsibility to authorize military force lately or make such decisions easily. I voted against the war in iraq when every public polk shed said it was popular to vote for the war. I have been a strong advocate of a more robust rolled down in afghanistan. But today i urge my colleagues to support this tightly crafted, clearly focused resolution to give authorization to use military force in the face of this crime against humanity. There are risks to any action we authorize but the consequences of inaction, standing down from full the opposing the norms of International Behavior are greater and greater skill. Due to humanitarian disaster in syria, regional instability, loss of american credibility around the world land in iran and north korea the disintegration of international law. This vote will be one of the most difficult any of us will be asked to make but the American People expect us to make those hard decisions and to take hard votes. They expect us to put aside political differences and personal ideologies, forget partisanship and preconceptions, to even not necessarily follow where the wind is blowing. This is a moment i believe for profiles in courage, a moment for each of us to do what we know is right based on what we know is the best interests of the United States regardless of what the political pundits will say. The authorization senator corker and ira introducing and i ask unanimous consent to be listed as a sponsor and senator corker as the cosponsor of the resolution. Without objection. The authorization were interest juicing the mission producing is clear understanding of american troops will not be on the ground in combat. We worked closely together to put politics aside, way affects, have a resolution in committee and we believe is in the National Security interests of the American People. I said before and will say again this is not a declaration of war but a declaration of our values. Senator corker, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been a close partner in helping to taylor and focus the language of this resolution so it reflects the will of the committee, interests of the American People land at the same time give the president the authority he needs to respond to syrias use of chemical weapons against its own people. What do we know . I see as i was back home in new jersey listening to citizens who came to me concerned and i think it is important to say what do we know . What we know is clear notwithstanding assads interviews according to the declassified intelligence assessment, we know with high confidence that the Syrian Government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the damascus suburbs on august 21st. We know the buck stops with assad. His interview denials aside. We know that he controls the regimes stockpiles of chemical agents including mustard certain the x gas and thousands of munitions capable of delivering them under his control. It is inconceivable and defies all logic that he would not know about the preparations and deployment of these horrific weapons. We know that personnel involved in this program are carefully vetted to ensure loyalty to the regime and the security of the program. We no chemical weapons personnel from the syrian scientific studies and Research Center which is subordinate to the regimes ministry of defense were operating in the damascus suburbs on sunday, august 18th until early in the morning on august 21st near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons and human intelligence as well as signal and geo spatial intelligence have shown regime activity in preparations of chemicals prior to the attack including the distribution and use of gas masks and we also know that the attacks took place from was from those areas that the regime and assad control into those suburbs of the damascus that rebels were fighting and we know that the rebels did not have the wherewithal to have the type of artillery that ultimately delivered these chemical weapons, nor do they have the access to these chemical weapons. Still in the face of all of those facts, be skeptical about assads involvement but the buck stops with assad when it comes to the use of these weapons. Some may be skeptical but we have not done enough to allow diplomacy to work but the fact is we have tried diplomacy. We have gone to the United Nations on many occasions and it has only brought assad more time. That was not withstanding russias belated offer today to take action which by the way may only be on the table specifically, specifically because of the threat of the use of force. Lets not forget it has been very intransigence that brought us to this point in the first place. The fact is on august 28th, a week after the attack russia blocked a United Nations Security Council resolution that called, quote, for all necessary measures to be taken and called for any state that used chemical weapons to be held accountable. The russians could not affect a resolution that simply said any state that uses chemical weapons should be held accountable. On the day of the attack, august 21st, russia blocked the Security Council press statement, a simple press statement expressing concern that chemical weapons might have been used. They couldnt support an expression of concern. On august 6th russia blocked another press statement welcoming the news that un Investigations Team would execute these sites calling for their full unfettered access to those sites. Russia has also vetoed a Security Council resolution enshrining the june 30th Geneva Geneva communicate that called for an end to violence it to syria, vetoed a draft resolution endorsing the arab leagues plan of action that would have condemned human rights violations. They blocked a press statement calling for humanitarian access to the disease city of homes and force syrian authorities to provide the United Nations with humanitarian access. All of these actions that simply would have put the you and in a position to observe and possibly to help they blocked and over the course of the conflict in syria the United States government, specifically the state department has met consistently with its allies and partners as well as syrias neighbors to detect, prevent and respond to the potential use and proliferation of chemical weapons. As ambassador howell power acknowledged in her remarks at the center for American Progress on september 6th the United States has regularly engaged with the russians and the iranians to attempt to get them to use their influence to stop the assad regime from using chemical weapons and that very same day, on september 6th, the United States and ten other countries issued a joint statement condemning the assad regimes use of chemical weapons, australia, canada, france, italy, japan, the republic of korea, saudi arabia, spain, turkey, great britain, 14 other nations signed on to that statement, albania, croatia, denmark, estonia, germany, honduras, hungry, kosovo, lithuania, morocco, romania, the united arab emirates. Only the threat by the president and this resolution that would drive russia and syria to the possibility of a negotiating table. We have tried diplomacy. This action is not a choice of force or diplomacy, it is about both. It is about enforcing International Norms that will let the end of the day leverage necessary un action and help bring about a political solution. For those who want to see un Security Council action, those who want to push syria to sign a chemical weapons agreement and give up their weapons this resolution is the best pact to getting there. Let me finally say to my colleagues who believe the authorization of the use of military force will be nothing more i have heard this phrase several times a pin prick. This resolution will have clear and verifiable consequences. It will help keep these weapons in check. Degrade assads ability to deploy them and i believe prevent proliferation of chemical weapons and their use by others in the world. The resolution will have clear consequences but at the same time it is not open ended. In narrows the scope, duration and the breadth of the authority granted to meet congressional concerns and the concerns of the American People. It is tightly tailored to give the president necessary and appropriate authority to use military force to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction in syria, protect the National Security interests of the United States, our allies and partners and the great syrias ability to use weapons in the future, has a requirement for determination that the use of military force is necessary, that appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to prevent deployment and use of chemical weapons by syria have been used and the United States has both a specific military plan to achieve the goal of responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian Government and the use of military force is consistent with a broader goals of u. S. Strategy toward syria including achieving a negotiated settlement. And limitation of specified, resolution does not, does not authorize the use of United States armed forces on the ground in syria for the purposes of combat operations, assuring there be no boots on the ground. That authorization would end after 60 days, the president having the ability to request an certify for another 30 days and congress having an opportunity if it disagreed to pass a resolution of disapproval. It provides for an integrated United States government for strategy for syria including a comprehensive review of current and planned u. S. Diplomatic and military policy towards syria and status reports to the congress. Let me say in conclusion history has taught us harsh lessons when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. The images of children lying on the floor august 21st were not the first images the world has ever seen of the horrors of chemical attack which were over 100 years ago in world war i. If we do not learn from and live by the lessons of the past, if we fail the test of history, we are doomed to repeat it. If we allow use and proliferation of chemical weapons despite the worlds tour at the gruesome and horrific use of those that were used in the beginning of the last century that we risk the same wars again in this century. It is not failed the test of history, let us say to the world we cannot allow anyone to use chemical weapons again that we can never allow such weapons to fall in the hands of actors and terrorists who would unleash them against american or american interests around worlds sole for all those reasons and i want to make sure the Ranking Member gets time, i ask unanimous consent my full statement be entered into the record. I believe this is a National Security interests of the United States and i passionately urge my colleagues to think about the consequences of inaction. Happy to yield to the Ranking Member. Full statement will be put into the record and the senator from tennessee is recognized. I would like to thank the chairman for his comments, his historical analysis of what has occurred and his comments regarding our ability to Work Together on this. I want to reiterate a point the chairman made partially through his comments. I dont think any of us know at this time whether the offers that have been made from russia and the responses that have been given from syria, i dont think we have any idea whether there is credibility at present. What i do know is there would be absolutely zero conversation about that had our committee not pass an authorization on a 107 vote and if we were not taking this up this week i want to commend the chairman for his leadership on this issue, i have enjoyed working with him on this issue and enjoyed working with him on all the issues relative to syria and all the other things we have done in a bipartisan way and i think it has been the tradition, i know it has been the tradition of this body when it comes to issues beyond our shores, partisanship as was mentioned a moment ago that and do things that are in the best interest of our nation. There is nothing more important than each member of this body will take up than the authorization for the use of military force and i have sensed it in the committee and those i talked to since, each member is looking at this with a sense of humility and stubbornness and i believe that it is up to each member to make this decision. I will say the issues of syria are something i am familiar with. I traveled to the region and i know the chairman and many others have, i traveled three times this year, i wrote an oped in the New York Times in april regarding what our response to serious should be. Our committee thankfully passed out a 153 vote on may 21st with the chairmans leadership, this area of transition support act and this was to support the vetted moderate opposition and require the administration to develop a comprehensive strategy. I know members of this body know that i support this authorization. I helped to write it with the chairman. I am very comfortable with my position in supporting this and believe what we have done, we have done in the right and correct way. I will say that i have been very dismayed at the administrations lack of response after stating publicly if that famer going to support the vetted moderate opposition in certain ways. I have been very frustrated at the response and the lack of support, i was in the area three weeks ago, visited the same refugee camps in turkey on the Syrian Border and jordan on the Syrian Border, saw some of the same refugees that i saw their less than a year ago and candidly dismayed we have not supported the of that opposition in a better way. I know we have urged out of our committees that we have a much more comprehensive strategy. I wish that bill had come to the floor and that the senate had taken action but candidly i am dismayed that this administration has not taken action to do something in a more comprehensive way. No question the introduction of chemical weapons has changed the dynamic tremendously. The chairman was very articulate in explaining why this is important. I want to say to everybody in this body to me and equally important issue for our nation is the credibility of the United States of america. I believe that our president whether you support him or not or whether you like him or not, i believe the president spoke for our nation when he established a red line some months ago regarding the use of chemical weapons and i believe that it is very important for the nations credibility in the region and in the world that we have an appropriate response when we have a dictator like assad taking actions he has taken against international more miss the way that he has but the especially when the commanderinchief of our nation has spoken the way he has about this issue so to me this is about the international more miss that have been spoken to eloquently by many, and also an issue of this nations credibility, the response as people are looking on to what we are going to do and that is why i support this authorization. I want to go back over a couple points, the chairman referred to relative to the substance of the authorization. Most people know the white house sent over an authorization that to me was very broad. It did not define what we were going to do in a specific way. The chairman just talked about the fact that this authorization is tailored, it is specific and let me go over what specifically this authorization does. It is it specifically focuses only to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction to dissuade future use, degrade ability and prevent transfer. No boots on the ground for combat operations. I know there have been discussions about that in our committee, very emphatically this authorization eliminates and keeps any boots on the ground for combat operations from occurring. This has a time limit of 60 days with a 30 day extension which congress can disapprove. It is geographically limited to syriac up only which the original authorization was not, it is against legitimate military targets only which again the original authorization was not and there are a series has to make prior to taking ent action with those authorizations including that it is in the Core National interests of the u. S. And that he has a military plan to achieve the objectives. In addition this authorization requires a comprehensive strategy for and negotiated end to this conflict. Let me refer to Something Else the chairman mentioned, that is the type of activity, there have been numbers of editorial comments in pavers and publications all around the country referring to this as a pin prick. There are other signs by member of the body referring to the duration of this effort and how long it will be and i had the privilege and because of the position i serve on the Foreign Relations committee to be involved in multiple multiple multiple phone calls, personal meetings, one last night the last great length with the president , Vice President and i want to say to every person in this body i have no belief whatsoever that if military action is taken it will be of pinprick. The American Military has incredible ability to deal with issues in a forceful way but also do so in a very short timeframe. I really do believe based on the many meetings we had those with military and civilian leadership i really do believe to characterize what is proposed as of pin prick or to characterize what is proposed as inserting ourselves into a longterm civil war, both of those characteristics sins are wrong. Obviously one of the dilemmas people here deal with is we right policy and it is up to the administration to carry that out and no question none of us will be involved in the direct carrying out but it is my firm belief that there is not a thread of thinking by the administration that what they are considering as a pin prick and on the other hand i have not a threat of thought that there are also considering doing something that is going to involve a single long term civil war. Obviously conflict like this are complex. In closing let me say this. Each senator has to make their own decisions. This is one of those things were lobbying is not something that is going to make senators minds of. Each senator in their own mind and heart has to make their own mind up. What i can say is were going to have an open process. We have talked about the process going forward. I believe that we will have i hope the senators will keep their amendments germain. I hope we have the sober debate about an issue that is the most important type of decision any senator will make. It is important, and i am thrilled by the way that the president decided to come to congress on authorization. I know a lot of people made lots of comments regarding that. Candidly, i am glad the president has come to us with this debate and it is my hope that the senate after hearing the facts and after having a thoughtful debate will approve the authorization for the use of military force of the could agree more with the chairman that if people want to see a diplomatic solution which is the only way we will end this conflict i do not think this conflict ends militarily. I believe we have learned a lot from the last two episodes we have been through and i believe it is important for us to have this authorization because i believe it is the only thing at this point the fact the we passed it out of committee, the fact is on the floor, that might possibly lead to diplomatic settlement. Also believe it is time for the president to lead. There have been a lot of statements over the last weekend the president had multiple audiences to which to speak and i understand that and understand the report out of these meetings can come out in many ways not to be accurate. Dino the president is coming to make cuts major speech to the United States, the citizens of our country tonight, tomorrow night, but many of them, most of them get up in the morning, go to work, raise their families and havent had the opportunity to spend as much time on these issues and that is why we are elected to do this but it is very important for the president of the United States to come to congress and the president of the United States to make his case to the American People. He is asking for this authorization. I believe that it is important for us to give him this authorization and i want to thank the chairman for working with us to make sure we narrowed this authorization in such a way that it meets the test, what the American People and all of us want to see happen but i really do believe that now it is up to the president over the next several days to make his case to the American People as to why the senate, the United States senate should give him this authorization for the use of military force which i hope we will do. Mr. President , thank you for the time and i yield the floor. Senator corker released a statement reacting to a russian proposal that would have syria place chemical weapons under international control. In it he said, quote, while at this point i have healthy skepticism this offer will change the situation, i do know it never would have been floated if the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had not approved authorization for the use of force last week. We will get more reaction on syria with the senate gaveling in right now. The chamber will take a break from 12 00 to 2 15 eastern so senators can meet with president obama on capitol hill. We will bring you any reaction from those meetings and we go live to the floor of the u. S. Senate. To pray with power. Bless today the work of our lawmakers, empowering them to accomplish your purposes on earth, guided by your wisdom and courage