Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150106

Includes the manner in which subsidized payments on the national debt. Congress is appropriation law is standing conflict with the debt ceiling log which caps the amount of debt the federal government can go at any one particular time. Since enacting a statute in 1917 congress has routinely prescribed budgets mandating spending that so plainly exceeds projected revenues that they will inevitably require the treasury to borrow funds in excess of the debt ceiling to make good on our obligations. And for Decades Congress has improved approved home virtually every time we have crept close to the Borrowing Limit and all in all this is a very good thing because it is the largest borrow in the world a default by the United States government would in all likelihood trigger a worldwide economic depression. All that changed in the summer of 2011 when the republican majority elected elected to optimize the debt ceiling. And use the threat of the federal default in the resulting and the resulting calamities that would result to obstruct. And despite rep it is quite likely this summer when the federal, and the available proceeds treasury funds dwindle we may face another debt ceiling standoff. Borrow money or unthinkably raise taxes. They posit that these options would ha a further consequence. Whatever option he chooses will be in direct contradiction to a statute andption he chooses will be in direct contradiction to a statute and would fail to execute a duly enacted law. I attempt to analyze his options under the test prescribed by Justice Jackson. Now, i am sure most people are familiar. But it involved president trumans unilateral seizure of the American Steel industry. And Justice Jackson offered his concurring opinion. For questionable cases of exercise of president ial power. They fluctuate. He offered his famous three zone template. Now, the president acts pursuant to explicit or implicit congressional authorization. The president s powers are at there apex. All the powers of article two. In the second so we deal with situations where congress has chosen to remain silent. The distribution of power. In this congressional indifference or acquiescence and may be seen to invite independent measures of president ial responsibility. The motive, analysis it often depends upon the imperatives of events. Zone three involves situations where the pres. President acts in the face of implicit rejection. The power it can only be sustained if it falls within an exclusive exercise of power. Enacting what later became the tafthartley act. Considered a version that would have authorized the president to seize Domestic Industries but the version ultimately enacted permitted to such language. Further because further, because seizing American Industries cannot be regarded as a preclusive power the seizure was constitutionally innocent. If so what does it yanks down steel tell us . At first blush it seems like the ptions fallen herself. The unilateral cancellation of programs all explicitly prohibited by statute and certainly the powers to tax and spend our exclusive legislative powers. Youre in town and its progeny teachers when multiple statutes bear upon the president s powers the scope of authority cannot be deemed by looking at a single law but must require careful consideration. I contend that viewed collectively the situation faced by the president would not fall within the three zones because each of the three zones contemplate coherent congressional instructions. It can implicitly create the mediate the exercise of power. The debt ceiling standoff the president will be paradoxically faced with instructions. You must read these programs it would be absolutely impossible to comply. The president must choose allowed to break in order to save the other two two, and i would suggest this requires expensive txonomy to include a fourth zone of power to deal with situations that have not happened before. So what standards should apply in this . Justice jackson himself acknowledged congressional acquiescence invites independent measures of president ial responsibility. This line of reasoning only applies in the zone of twilight. Such a command comes without congressional discretion. When congress has issued inconsistent contradictory commands and has steadfastly refused to clarify or prioritize which command should precede the other. In my view that act acquiescence invites independent measures on president ial responsibility. Constitutionally which commands mt be sacrificed. Basically they assert the president is faced with this choice. Must choose one of the three laws to sacrifice. I do not arise easily and argue that this sort of abdication is an existential threat to the longterm stability of our democracy. I wish i had more time to talk about it. And as the maxim goes anything follows from a contradiction. Having said that, i am not here suggesting the president should unilaterally raise taxes. I think that would be an act of political suicide. The application has authorized that extreme action. To to conclude i will leave you with words of warning. Thinking of the crisis faced in the korean war, the power to legislate for emergencies belongs in the hands of congress. By engaging in standoffs congress has allowed core legislative power to slip from its grasp by forcing the president to confront an emergency of congress is on creation. Thank you. Back next we have Professor William marshall. Thank you for coming out today. I actually thought it would be canceled. I read in the paper that Mitch Mcconnell has decided he wants to work with the president. So our era of congressional dysfunction is over. We can get together and move on. The interesting thing about president ial power is peoples ideas evolve and change. With president ial power you can pick the exact date where he changes. Inauguration day a lot of people loved president ial power and a lot of people really hated it. And that is the kind of background we have to deal with when thinking about pres. Obamas exercise of unilateral executive action. I happen to support Immigration Reform strongly and a lot of the other substantive goals, but imagine a republican president who cannot get through a repeal of a Capital Gains tax and decides unilaterally to not enforce it. He makes the announcement that no one has to file a scheduled the end dont have to declare money from Capital Gains. Would that be constitutional . We have so many other tax issues to enforce. So lets think about Something Like that as background when we talk about it unilateral president ial action and the question of a part of this panel congressional dysfunction. What is congressional dysfunction can . What does that mean . Maybe i am thinking back to seventh grade, but i thought the design of the constitution was to create dysfunction, checks on things happening too quickly, friction, quick friction, the things should not happen to easily or quickly. If we if we take a look at history, from the very First Congress opposition was immediately raised. Martin van burens administration burens administration was met with folks who started off by saying we need to do everyting that we can to make this presidency fail. This particular congress is one of the most irresponsible and history. Mitch mcconnell starts off by saying he we will do everything imaginable to make sure the president ial agenda was not passed. Lets come to compromise when there was no strategy. But all of that as background does that Mean Congress did anything wrong . There is a reason why an out of the Administration Party would want to do everything to obstruct the party in power because they no the party in power will build on successes for the next election whether it is a reelection or to increase power, Congressional Authority or elect a new president. This is this is called the permanent campaign, the phenomenon we face are where each party consistently looks forward to the next election. The idea that an out of power party we will do everything that they can take on some breakdown should not be unexpected. Inappropriate . Why should that party try to help the Current Party retain power . Finally, there is another particular example out of place to suggest congress is trying to block an agenda because i thought legislation was supposedly the province of the Congress First and not the president. There is a reversal. That that is a little bit of some of the reasons i am skeptical as to this notion that their can even be something called congressional dysfunction. Acting somehow unconstitutionally when it does not enact or follow through. There are areas i would support giving the president power. Therefore when the president is elected news that he is invested with a power regional officers do not have david pozen has a brilliant article out saying that presidency should have the power of selfhelp. The president should be able to step in and transport congress is doing to be able to accomplish his agenda. In the short moments i have left, do we we want to add to president ial power . The president has already amassed five crazy power by a number of circumstances that is just a Natural Evolution of the office. That has invested the power. The second is media. The focus is often on the white house because it is easier to take a look at one person as the embellishment of the nation as a whole. More more information at his or her disposal than the congress. Enormous resources of the administrative state. The congress cannot even put other kind of limits on the president s ability to manage the estates for the political purposes. I will come back to this. There is a oneway ratchet. Unless you deal with president ial power subject to judicial review that is not often the case. Often it depends upon what previous president s have done which just keeps on increasing. Whether we need need to create and test a presidency with more power than it has seems to be pretty controversial. What are the harms of suggesting that the president has extraordinary power . To say that when Congress Acts to obstruct the president should have additional power to overcome that. That is what it is all about. Paul wellstone was going to do everything that he could before he died in a plane crash to stop the iraqi war. That would have been congressional dysfunction or would have led to it that he succeeded. Does that make it a improper, or is it exactly think we want to congress to do . Second the interesting thing about congressional dysfunction and using that as a reason to advance president ial power actually encourages the president to shortcircuit the political system. Instead of going into all of the places that the states with which there is opposition that he can just say i need to take these doors on my own. Think about the predicaments. If Congress Opposes to strongly he can say at this. I can now just circumvent their opposition or if congress says, okay, i will give you some of what you want to do what i want to curb your enforcement power or authority the president can sign the law subject to a signing statement. This is a centering of continued power into the presidency that we should all be concerned about. We have we have a choice. One is between a dysfunctional federal government and the second is increased centralized power. I think the structure of the constitution suggested that we should live with some of the former, the dysfunction in order to prevent too much power. Power. Let me go back to my beginning and talk about senator mcconnell and speaker bader. Times change. Adjusting constitutional law to deal with four or six years of history is not necessarily the best way to construct a constitutional law. Thank you. [applauding] we have thousands of superman and associate professor at fort University School of law. I will switch it up here. Thank you. I will be talking about the president s recently enacted programs. But. But i will be talking about it from a slightly different frame. Unlike bill and chad i will i will not be talking about the horizontal separation of powers. I will not be thinking about a vertical separation of powers between the state and federal government the kind of things that, when we talk about state and local Immigration Enforcement policies. I will try a different frame. Think about vertical agency. Not only from the top the pres. And cabinet officials but from the bottom and the middle and that these relationships provide an important set of checks and balances within the agency can also provide normative support for maybe not all but certainly some of the types of president ial actions we are talking about on this panel today. There are two core features of this kind of vertical agency relationships, what i call experimentation. Not discretion at the top, the kind of discretion that lowerlevel officials with the cbp Committee Executive office of immigration review, a day today enforcement. They do that. But instituting removal out of respect for the harms that the protection would cause to a particular individual where equities are especially strong and can do so for reasons that would eventually become policy bases across the board in and of themselves for categories of individuals. Enforcement decisions are made with policy rationales in mind. When this happens time after time those policy choices can begin to percolate within the agency and later become reflected in the kind of acrosstheboard directive we are talking about today in a number of different kind of ways. I will talk about of one or two. The first involves a situation that was space bar numerous binational samesex couples in which you have a a us citizen and Foreign National in a samesex relationship with a wornout eligible for traditional familybased family based immigration benefits, kind that many routinely use. And the reason for this is the numerous states that do not reflect the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry but for many years the issue of Section Three of the defense of marriage act. Tiffany numerous couples from being able to use the ordinary adjustment process. The position of the Obama Administration for many years while it was not defending the constitutionality was to do nothing. You can think of this as a horizontal issue. We will embarrass the Obama Administration. These couples as we see in the context of dreamers with respect to talk about. That would be a horizontal way of thinking about it. The vertical dimension you try to persuade individual officers to exercise favorable discretion. In removal cases you try to get an immigration judge to close or get a long continuance or maybe get a dhs attorney to drop the preceding or go to a us cia as to prevent a removal proceeding. This actually worked. Lawyers can do this where government trial attorneys agreed to exercise discretion by consenting to administrative disclosure. Us benefit administrators agreed to defer action in cases in which the Foreign National partner was not even in removal proceedings that. Immigration judges willing to do the same. Of one piece at a a time and slow going. While the larger lawsuits or still in their briefing we were beginning to see a kind of culture time time after time administrative commonlaw decisionmaking among agency bureaucrats. Eventually after enough cases have been decided we saw a directive directing lowerlevel officers to grant prosecutorial discretions longterm samesex committed couples. That is the first feature. There are other examples of this as well. First i want to talk about the second feature, the separated and overlapping jurisdictions among the subunits of the executive branch. A lot of jurisdictional overlap. A Foreign National may be caught up in a issue that you may not be able to get solved by one agency. These are the kinds of internal checks and balances i am interested in. Exercising a form of oversight. We saw this because often times is a dhs attorney was unwilling the immigration judge would agree to it. Another example as to do with him to thesis in which the department of state and the legacy both share jurisdiction over interpreting the actual requirements developing interpretations and told one went out. Anotr example has to do with mandatory Detention Program which light level officers refuse to comply with the idea should mandatorily comply. These two features, positive redundancies within the agency helps us to see the change not just from the top but from the bottom as well and helps contextualize and provide normative support for some of the kind of broader prosecutorial discretion programs we are talking about today. President ial president ial action is not about starting from scratch but rather trying to make policy that reflects what is already a longterm Agency Practice administrative commonlaw. This rectifies inconsistent behavior among various line officers. Dot treat like cases and like ways. Replacing an absent judicial review because these enforcement provisions. Often different from the conventional story administrative constitutional style. The literature is the president as a designer in chief. Empowering empowering those agencies to take on or different and greater action particular kind of lowerlevel agency discretionary power is hard to do that because it was not reported. Its often the attorneys on the ground to have the most amount of information. I am not saying the horizontal approach about the limits of president ial power and the fit between the two is not the right starting. , but i dont think it is the only frame. It is the interplay that can bring this important additional lens to the discussion to complement the frames we use. Thank you. [applauding] thank you, professor. What i would like to do is open this session to questions and answers. They have given us rich food for thought and points of disagreement. I would start by posing one or two questions, and you are welcome to approach the microphone. I ask if you could begin by identifying yourself by name and affiliation. My first question hearkens back to something that professor merkel said if you use on president ial power might change on inauguration day. To what extent procedural concerns are in fact, driven by substantive disagreements over controversial areas like immigration, samesex marriage, and the budget. The first thing i say is there is a misconception among the public and the bar in general. The body precedent that governs the relationship is promulgated by the court. Very small fraction the president governs the different branches. The overwhelming majority comes from what has happened in the past and how tomorrow, in, in madisons words how the constitution liquidated. I share bills concerns and that is one of the things of my paper. In fact, power has accrued in the presidency that was never meant to be there. Background suggests otherwise. The first ever unilateral president ial invitation of the United States. I would, i guess, and thi is not a party affiliation. Much more support policy wise but i worry very much that packs that he may feel pressured to take may set precedents that future president s would use. Over time they may like the war power and how we engage in war might become the norm. I just want to add that this is actually we need to be careful in terms of talking about separation of powers with too broad a brush. Immigration law is exceptional in a lot of ways and i agree with a lot of the points that have been made. We need to be careful and not just change our separation of powers. When you look deeper into Immigration Law congress has given the president of a lot of discretion to enforce Immigration Law. We need to be careful because it may be in some substantive areas what the president is doing is not really extending president ial power as much as it might seem. Additionally in the unique context of immigration, immigration, of the policies in general, you held up his most recent memo i i am forgetting the exact phrase, but it is one in a series of memoranda about exercising favorable discretion. This this argument has obviously been made. On a slightly different level these are issued time after time. And so from a certain perspective i disagree that there is nothing new. If we want to focus on the ordinary we should recognize these look like the ones that have been issued his 70s and 80s. May have to lean over. Lets think of the filibuster. The democrats to not get rid of the filibuster. The pit around. They are not even embarrassed about it. One question i have is, did the president of the what he eventually did . And then when he could not get it through said well maybe we could just do it by unilateral executive action after all. I guess i will answer that first. I feel like you said that your open question. First you try to use the ordinary mechanisms. Congress will pass legislation. By referencing the article on selfhelp uk for us that argument. There are measures that can be the appropriate remedy for that kind of core constitutional dysfunction. I have a microphone down here. Be careful. Hopefully no one will get hurt. Immigration law is complicated. The possibility that perhaps the president did not fully realize his own power when it came to Immigration Law. I i would like to invite anyone who would like to ask questions first, on bills point, in fairness to the president , he said that as a political matter. I urge everyone to read the opinion. It raises much more difficult questions if you start to think about the possibility the president exercises authority not to deport anybody. He simply did not have the manpower and the money to do anything else. What should we think about these situations of president ial aggrandizement of power when in almost every one of these cases no one has standing to take the president to court and how should that have us think about aggrandizing president ial power as opposed to other situations someone could take them to court. The problem i dealt with, there is a possibility of judicial review, but that would be a long road. Access to the ceiling. The bond would be radioactive. Redemption occurs and there may be litigation and bond holders would have standing. If the president raised taxes i am sure there would be a line of lawsuits. We clinton versus the city of new york. The the recipient of the program would litigate and have standing. The bigger problem with the my personal recommendation will not pick winners and losers. It might be a long road. [inaudible question] part of the problem, its a plausible argument perfectly possible argument that it is not legal on the other side. I agree that the opinion is tempered, but i do think that the question you raise is a real one. What kind of checks are their. And that i think is a problem with president ial power and having the Justice Department be the final arbiter of that might work in some instances and might not work in others. Some of those kinds of issues. Next question. A question from the perspective of those who do not no a lot about Immigration Law how is this different from the normal exercise whether he is within the boundaries of the normal exercise of delegated power. Thinking of this as analogous to the epa exercise on Climate Change after congress refuse to pass legislation. It seemed reasonable to infer this was within the agencys power to decide the delegated power to act. I will just say, it is not exactly like that. The founding constitutional law cases in Immigration Law, Supreme Court talks about a plumber a powerful lobbying to the the political branches over Immigration Law. As i alluded to in my talk trying to figure out when you talk about a plenary power how you divide that up. Because immigration could be an issue of immigration tied to sovereignty, this ultra strong power. In the power you sort of necessarily need to include that discussion which would be different from other areas. There are a number of people in this room right about and have addressed this. I would refer you to the opinion that has been mentioned. Some of the articles and online pieces. With sweet doctrine. I i didnt know about the relationships with lowerlevel. But it is another way of not just looking at the headtohead combat between congress and the president. Something that has longterm expertise built into it by the daytoday activity. There is not a lot of judicial opinion upon this. Thank you. I have also been sitting back in this energy law cluster trying to think about parallels. I wonder if we in the broader scheme of the symposium which is about executive authority which expands from what you are talking about the delegated authority under statute and this additional layer but a push and pull going on where speed and local government on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts, epa undercutting the Clean Air Act on Climate Change actually has state attorney generals on both sides pushing. I guess what i would ask and it may not hold as well in the plenary power context, but if you take the broader context across a number of substantive issues , to what extent does that leave the concerns being raised not so much for the immigration context but offers. Because there is so much push and pull going on among the three branches and Different Levels of government perhaps that helps to balance out over time and prevents the seismic shifting. Had me until the end. What it does by repeating am repeating what i said before. Talking about how the administration can use the military is safe for political purposes is becoming a blueprint. Becoming more and more sophisticated with their own political purposes and and i do not see congress. An effective check. Thank you. Our next question. This is directed primarily at chad. Like the framework and you are clearly right that when congress is equivocal that as to decrease power. I want to push. The fourth zone looks like a variation of the first. The bus process takes some completely different argument. Maybe we can make a constitutional argument. The less violent. The president president raising taxes makes us insane. I think so. I do not see the constitution as limiting it so much from a practical standpoint. Ignore the death ceiling because the other two options involve picking winners and losers. It will be hard without being accused of having political bias. If you raise taxes, taxes, where you raise them who you impose them on. You do the least violence by unilaterally raising the ceiling. In terms of lack o good standards and rules to govern what happens i think that same criticism applied to. There is not the imperative of events. Justice jackson is a hero of mine but but i wonder if he got that out of a fortune cookie. What i would say in this situation is that congress has the the president s discretion is limited by what congress has already done. If he did see politically unthinkable and unilaterally raise taxes and cannot do it beyond what was minimally necessary to pay the tab. The constitution creates priorities. Judicial salaries cannot be cut. Payments required to be made good on takings cannot be cut. Beyond that congres has issued contradictory instructions. The only inference you could draw is, is, you have to figure this out. And the last thing and i am probably going over my time. When you are dealing with this it simultaneously resides in all three at the same time. When Congress Gives the president a command, a command, by definition carries with it all authority necessary. Well, in an appropriation statute how can that not include lawful access of the funds necessary to appropriate and paid bill. In the sense congress has implicitly authorized the president to access funds to pay for these things but they have also negated the act. It occurs simultaneously. You know i think the answer to that, the problem, the situation is basically one where Congress Needs to clean up its act. I am probably taking too ch time. Thank you. Our next question. It follows what you were saying. I just wanted to. Out quickly , if you are talking about spending money there is no judicial review. I think before you jump to the conclusion you want to think about the fact it has been pretty much an understandinthat there is no power allowed. A long common and state law tradition. I want to push my main question, and you started nswering it. I thought it is the most overrated opinion for the exact reason you said. The Twilight Zone well that it we will be politics and practicalities. It seems to me what he is saying is it is a political question and the court should not get involved. I am wondering if involved. I am wondering if you could say a similar thing and zone for. The the president can be free to pick whatever he wants to do. Again, that is basicall jackson said it is a political question,ot a legal question. We hav an opinion from the court, a unanimous one involving situations. What i would say from a normative standpoint is the consequence o default would be calamitous. It will it we will be a situation that the court cannot resolve and this would be kindling for trashcan fire skipping is warm at night. You know, it seems like the what we will have to happen, the president will have to act quickly and to something, and it will probably be it probably will not be a court therapies were limited it will be the next election. We have about ten minutes left. You are fine. Richard leedy, university of kansas. I was i was interested that none of the people in all of the discussion of congressional dysfunction, no one talked about congressional dysfunction. It seems to be a pretty significant connection between what happens and what congress can get away with doing or not doing. I would be interested in your comment on the extent to which the probms we find ourselves in be traced back to the inability of the electorate or the electoral dysfunction that does not discipline behavior by anybody. Thanks. I kno ts poi prab ctroversial, but th pblt he theysems, aeeal mper stem to those who have adopted a constitution similar to ours, again they are the same on paper but liquidated differently in practice, but i think that the big difference is that there is one that is coming to life now in that those countries have multiple existence. And so whn you have multiple parties in of extremist parties and in our system, wehave liqudatehistorically where you almost had to paties,one deole ty ebo ve cseo he dd i t eaf isreme any we trebonara ua be getting extremist tight partisan in to the system, and i have some fear that perhaps we are sort of breaking down into a multiparty system. Historically our type of government has a function that has and function well in those systems and this might be the result of that and i dont know. On the other hand this is entirely responsible looking at Something Like deferred action for childhood arrival, by nature this is not the electorate the dreamers dont though, but the mobilization not just among themselves but also mobilizing individual members of congress to push the administration on their behalf, you could say that it was a failure and that the dream act and pass after many tries, but its a huge success that they were able to mobilize and away to bring about this president ial policy and not just mobilize as a single contained protest movement but mobilize by pulling all kinds of interesting and important things that are part of the process. So in that sense it is not about electoral dysfunction but learning from the very successful case study of well functioning social movements. It is all about elector electoral dysfunction, at least a part of it is come part of that is increased because of the rise in media and because of Campaign Finance and because of the situation that that leads to. But i think the that we are shortsighted or saying that this going to last forever, things do change in political climates do change. I have a foundational question. Lets assume that they put in place a policy that is the law of the land that declares this is a policy. The president doesnt like it, so the president and he prefers this or put in place a separate policy. And he does so on a programmatic basic. Not for reasons typically attendant to prosecutorial discretion and administrative finance and things of that sort. And he really does it because he disagrees with that policy that is in place and my questio is a simple one. Does the purpose that underlies the president s action there on the constitutionality of that action, or is it relevant or is it determinative . I guess that i will just say that from my perspective the immigration situation doesnt share the same foundation as a hypothetical that you just propose because what congress has said is here are some guidelines and oh, by the way discretion written into the statute a million times and then here we are we will only give you enough money to deport a small percentage of the number of people who are here without permission. So in this context i dont think you need to get to the purpose because i think its just fundamentally a different framework. Your question in a sense came out great because in a way the other frame of a number of the earlier questions of folks were asking about this standard chevron, you asked the kind of foundational question about constitutional enforcement and i want to try to be responsive to this, but i also agree that its hard to think about that question so much in the abstract, which i guess answers your question by saying that the purpose may matter. As joe just said there are discretions built into the soul of the place. There are massive constraints as we know and there is a prosecutorial arm of the executive branch that has resources to deport about 4 of those at effectuate importable. But there is a framework for thinking about this. There is a whole debate about president ial and within that functionalist frame, one of the questions you can contrast this, if you will end it was not defended with the idea that if court to have the final say. As we established, the court doesnt have the final say, but that is a better frame to some degree for thinking about this horizontally, trying to ask nonenforcement and i think that the underlying purpose for policy reasons really does matter and really is part of that broader functionalist analysis. Go ahead. With the efficiency, one quick question and answer. Part of the answer the question they come for the president has refused to enforce the congressional statute and we have a sending of a political question that has been ruled out. They say we have passed the statute and so it matters and it is not a qstion of money or anything else. We cant make you do it. We will find out what they said. Thank you. We have a 15 minute break. Thank you and please join me in thanking our panelists for this discussion. [applause] [inaudible conversations] next on cspan2, the inauguration ceremony for governor jerry brown. Then terry oneill on minimum wage and reproductive rights. That is followed by an interview with ken buck of coloro, prident of the inming publican freshman clas. The nex washington journal, weill talk to a number of catol hil reporters about he opening of he 114th congress. We will also be joined by freshn house mmbers including n bier of viinia, ken buck of colorado and debbie ngell of michigan, taking over the seat o hehusba and snator elect cor gardner will take your cas and ur Facebook Comments a your tweets. Washington journal is live on tuesday and every morning at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. In 2006 cspan aired a documentary entitled the capital, which give viewers an indepth look at the building and its history. We also took a tour of the Senate Chamber and learned about the history of some of the desks in use today. These desks date until after that time in 1819. They require these desks and these desks are beautifully made, mahogany, in late veneer theres even those on the feet of these desks and they were used for air conditioning, the earliest airconditioning is some was here in the capital it was cold ice that was brought in underground school the chamber and used as a way to ventilate within the room allowing the air to come through from the floor. So today as curators we try to preserve at history and we also recognize that every senator who sits in that desk and every event that happens in this chamber adds another layer to the history of that desk. Number is started signing those desks and we have th signature and often they carved it with a nice inside the desk. The 114th congress devils in this tuesday at noon eastern. Watch live coverage on cspan and the senate on cspan2 and track the gop led congress and have your say as events unfold on the cspan networks. New congress on cspan. And monday, california governor jerry brown inaugurated at the State Capitol in sacramento becoming the first california governor to be sworn in for a fourth term. Mr. Brown was elected as californias 39th governor and previously served as governor of california from 1975 until 1983. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [cheers] [applause] im delighted to welcome everyone to the Assembly Chamber for the governor of edmund brown ginger. I know from my colleagues and i come its a great way to target new year by being on hand to see someone who has been such a Strong Partner sworn into office for a record fourth term. Plaster the assembly presented Governor Brown with a commemoration noting that he had spoken here to more joint conventions of the legislature than any other governor. And while technically it is not a joint convention, todays ceremony adds to that record. But the best thing about governor jerry brown isnt the history that hes made the rather the history he is going to make. Governor brown has been a leader in putting californias fiscal house in order and today is the next chapter of that leadership. He has been a leader in making Major Investments inhighspeed rails and local k12 education and today the next chapter of that leadership begins. He has been a leader in boosting californias Business Climate and confronting the Climate Change that threatens the economy and environment. And today, the next chapter of that leadership begins terry and in recent weeks Governor Brown has ari taken steps that will grant californias future, including another exciting appointment to the Supreme Court, a diverse Dynamic Court that will help ensure thoughtful justice in california for decades to come. And i know that we will hear more from the governor today and when he delivers his budget about his vision for californias teacher. The past four years have delivered a Strong Foundation from which to build and i want to thank you all for being part of this historic event and heres to todays history that by working together we will all have a role in the making. Please stand for the presentation of the flag of the United States of california and by the color guard from the oakland military institute. As they come forward. The military institute was founded in 2011 by Governor Brown to offer a rigorous academic and Athletic Program for you. The color guard is a highly decorated group that has one numerous trophies and honors at parades and competitions across the western United States. Please present the colors. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] colleagues, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. The oakland military institute, the color guard is dismissed. [inaudible conversations] colleagues, please be seated. If you would please thank you so much. Thank you for hosting this wonderful event and this historic event of the eighth largest economy in the entire world. I want to echo some similar comments of my colleagues speaker toni atkins. This is a beautiful mosaic and an amazing tapestry of so many different ethnicities and that is the fabric of who we are as a society in this day it is the strength of who we are as californians. This is historic. Historic in nature because we have an incredible man and governor who will help to lead the eighth largest economies in the entire world and when it comes to diversity in higher education, affordability as well as other things, when it comes to dealing with the Climate Change and how it impacts us in california and nationwide as well as globally, and how we grow this economy and develop it to the point that it provides opportunities for all individuals, this is a very exciting time for everyone of us. And it doesnt make a difference whether we are democratic and republican, we are californians first and foremost. Its a deep honor for me to have an opportunity to introduce a very special individual and woman, who is our first lady and also not just a first lady but the special counsel to our governor of the state of california and it is an honor and pleasure for me to introduce our first lady in our special counsel to the state of california, the honorable gus brown. [applause] [applause] thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is okay. Thank you all so much. Well, how to introduce jerry brown he is obviously someone known to all of you and he has been in the public eye for over 40 years, maybe even longer than that. I am sure that you can correct me on that. So i guess i can only say what does he mean to me. When i first met jerry brown, the thing that struck me immediately was his mind. Oh, my goodness this mind that runs at 100 Miles Per Hour it is reckless and seeking it is creative. And frankly for all of us who work with him, it is exhausting. And so it is so stimulating the mind of heads. And im sure that most of you have experienced this from kerry jerry because if you are around him for even a few moments, this is something you cant fail to see. But what many of you may not know as well as his heart and his whole, which i have come to know so well over these years. That i would say, is firmly grounded in tradition and principles and in the past. And i think that jerry, more than anyone, looks to the past for guidance he is one that keeps Close Friends from Elementary School and high school in law school he loves to keep those connections and many of those people are here today. As many of us know over the past year or two they have been probing the ancestry and he really looks to all of that for guidance and for principles. And in many ways i think that is why he entered the seminary at the young age of yearsye e whe dd a theteal ers d thk athawaecform. Tnkhathe acritiake m erct hba f m bau hi mi ke himendssly inerti andyet his hert makes im utterlyevoted and committed. And it has just been teric inwith you. [applause] [applause] but more importantly i think that even for california, especially in this time and place, this combination makes him a perfect governor because he is someone that we know will enthusiastically and creatively forage a new and bold future for us and yet he will do so as hes grounded enough in wisdom that we wont drive off a cliff. And i think that that is what we will need especially in the next four years. So with that, i would like to call up the chief justice and my husband, our governor to take the oath of office and i ould say again and a little bit of tradition that he is going to take the oath on the bible most of this stuff is about around these days, but we do a little bit of stuff every so often and this bible is one that we got married with, you are inaugurated with his attorney general and now this time as governor and i just want to read it because this was given to my parents for my grandfather on christmas 1951. And in it he said to ann and my father rock, i am happy to present to you for your home the word of god, the eternal foundations are not found in property nor power, man looks to the hills for strength. The st. James version not only is a source of strength and comfort, it is English Literature at its best. I hope it becomes this in your heart. And we are doing so is special. Thank you. Im going to stay right here. [applause] okay, right here. Its unprecedented in california. I jerry brown solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies foreign and domestic and that it will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the. As well as the constitution of the state of california. And i take this obligation freely. Without any reservation or purpose of evasion. And that i well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to answer. [applause] [applause] [applause] members of the legislation the judiciary offices and extended family and fellow californians, i want to point out that i want all the descendents they all came in the 1850s to stand up and let everyone know how this is. And also the second newest justice as well. And the last new justice as well. Thank you. And i know inauguration is always a special occasion. But today it is particularly special as we think about that day 40 years ago when my father and my mother watch me take the oath of office as californias 34th governor and its also special with how far we have come in the last four years and that is when the state is deep in debt 26 billion and our Unemployment Rate was 1. 6 . The state budget after a decade of turbulence is finely balanced. More precariously that i would like, but balanced. California has seen more than 1. 3 million jobs created in just four years in the Unemployment Rate has dropped to 7. 2 . Thanks to the legislature or cutting spending and the economy from recovering and the people for voting february taxes. We also have to thank the people for propositions one and two and for an uncertain future. These are measures that nearly every democrat and republican on the ballot and 70 of voters ultimately approved. Were leaders in reknewable energy and efficiency. Extended health care to millions transforming our educational and criminal justice systems. Were building the nations only highspeed rail system. [applause] and were confronting the drought and longer term water issues. And last but not least we have enacted real protections for our hardworking immigrants including the issuance of long awaited drivers licenses. [applause] in 2011 we entered a mess and through solid, steady work we turned it around. We have not reached the Promised Land but we have much to be proud of. As i emback on this unpress depend fourth term as governor my thought turns to a time long ago when i first entered the chamber, january 5, 1959 for my fathers a inauguration, sat right there, next to my 81yearold grandmother feeling rather awkward in my priestly black suit and roman collar. My perspective was different then. The previous august, as a young jesuit living what was then a prevatican seminary, i had taken vows of poverty, chasty and obedience, to me the boisterous crowd, the applause, the world hisness of it all was jarring. That was 56 years ago. Id learned to like it sin then, by the way. The issues my father raised at his inauguration see ben sell those we grapple will today. Discriminationquality education, the that challenge of finding teachers, a realistis water program, economic development, Consumer Protection and overcried prisons. So you see overcrowded prince. So you see these problems never completely go away and remain a challenge elicit the best from us. To that end we must dedicate ourselves to making what we have done work to seeing that the massive changes in Education Health care, and Public Safety, are actually carried out, and endure. The financial promises we have already made must be confronted honestly so they are properly funded. The health of our state depends on it. Educating the next generation is fundamental to our collective wellbeing, and an issue that has plagued our school for deck calleds is the enormous barrier facing children from lowincome families. When my father was governor he sought to remedy the wide inequities of School Districts by calling for equalization of funding. His efforts were not successful. Now decades later we finally created a much fairer system of school funding, called the local control funding formula. Under the provisions of this law, state funds are directed to School Districts based on the needs off their students. Districts will get significantly more funds based on the number of students from foster care, low income families and nonenglish speaking parents. This program also breaks with decades of increasing centralization, by reducing state control in favor of local flexibility. Clear goals are set and theyre enforcement is entrusted to parents and local officials. This puts california in the forefront of occasion reform. After years of underfunding and borrowing from the schoolsthestate has increased its Financial Support for education. Next year schools will receive 65. 7 billion a 39 increase in four years. [applause] the task ahead are daunting. Making sure that the new system of local control works recruiting and training tens of thousands of teachers mastering the common core curriculum and fostering the creativity needs to inspire students. Teachers need to be held accountable, but never forget they have a tough job to do. They need our encourage; not endless regulations and micromanagement from afar. [applause] with respect to education beyond high school, californias blessed with a rich and diverse system. Its many elements serve a vast diversity of talents and interest. Affordability and timely completion is their imperative, and as ive said before,ll not make the students of california the default financiers of our colleges and universities. [applause] to me our goal, everyone has to do their part. The state, the students and the professors. Each separate institution cannot be all things to all people, but the system in its breadth and diversity, through real Cooperation Among its segments, can well provide what california needs and desires. Along with education, health and Human Services constitute a major part of what State Government does, and in the past few years we have made massive commitments in this area, which will require increasing levels of spending, the full extent of which is not yet known. For example, two years ago california embraced the Affordable Care act. Dramatically increasing its Health Insurance coverage under the medical program. There is a more than 50 increaseful providing the security of Health Coverage to so many californians is the right thing to do, but it isnt free. Although the federal government will temporarily foot much of the bill, new state costs now and more so in the future will run into the billions. I dont know another major state responsibility is our system of crime and punishment. And here, too ill refer to my fathers 1959 address. He worried then about californias dangerously overcrowded prisons. He talk about identifying those prisoners who should never be released to prey again on an innocent public. But he also said we should also determine whether some prisoners are now kept confined after punishment has served its purpose. We face these same questions today. What purposes should punishment serve . And for how long should a person be confined to jail or prison for few days few years, or for life . And in response to a large increase in crimes beginning in the 1970s the legislature, and the people through ballot initiatives, dramatically lengthened sentences and added a host of new crimes and penalty assessments. Today californias legal code contain more than 5,000 separate criminal provisions, and over 400 penalty enhancements. An arcane and complex mix that only the most exquisitely trained specialist can fathom, and funding has grown proportionally. Through the 70s we had 12 prisons holing fewer than 30,000 prisoners and correction spending was only three percent of the budget. Our system then grew to a peak of 34 prince with an inmate population of 173,000. Eating up more than 10 of our budget dollars. Four years ago the United States Supreme Court held that our prisons were unconstitutionally overcrowded and imposed strict capacity limits, far below the number of inmates that were then being held. Clearly our system of crime and punishment had to be changed, and through the courts, the legislature, and the voters themselves a number of farreaching reforms have been enacted. The biggest reform is our Realignment Program which places tens of thousands of lower level offenders under county supervision. More recently, a federal threejudge panel ordered further measures to reduce prison overcrowding and the voters through proposition 36, and proposition 47 modified our criminal laws to reduce the scope of the two strikes law and change certain felonies into misdemeanors. All these changes attempt to find less expensive more compassionate, and more effective ways to deal with crime. This is work that is as profoundly important as it is difficult. Yet, we must never cease our efforts to assure libertynd justice for all. The task is complicated by our diversity and our divisions, and, yes by shocking disparities. Since time immemorial human kind has known envy and violence. Thats why Public Safety and respect for law are both fundamental to a free society. As we oversee these important changes to education, health care and Public Safety, we must lose not lose sight of our longterm liability. We have to face honestly the enormous and evergrowing burden of the many commitments we have already made. Among these are the costs of pensions and Retiree Health care, the new obligations under the Affordable Care act, the growing government costs of dealing with our aging population, bond indebted inside and deferred maintenance on roads and infrastructure. These specific liabilities reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. My plan has been to take them on one at a time. We have now taken steps to dial with the unfendded teachers pensions and those of public employees. For the next effort, i intend to ask our state employees to help start free funding prefunding our Retiree Health care obligations which are rising rapidly. [applause] we must also deal with longstanding infrastructure changes. Were finally grappling with longterm sustainability of our water supply through the recently passed proposition one and our California Water action plan. Equally important is having the roads, highways and bridges, in good enough shape to get people and commerce to where they need to go. Its estimated the state has accumulated 59 billion in needed upkeep and maintenance, each year we fall further and further behind. And we must do something about it. So im calling on republicans and democrats alike to come together and tackle the challenge. We came together on water when many said it was impossible. We came together unanimous newsily to create a solid rainy day fund. We can do it again and fine a way to fund and main highways and roads. [applause] finally either california nor indeed the world can ignore the growing assault on the very systems of nature on which human beings and other forms of life depend. Edward o. Wilson, one of the worlds preeminent biologists and naturalist offered this sobering thought. Surely one omoral precept we can agree on is to stop destroying our birthplace. The only Home Community will ever have. The evidence for climate warming with industrial pollution as the principle cause is now overwhelming. Always evident upon even casual inspection is the rapid disappearance of tropical forests and grasslands and other habitates where most of the diversity of life exists. With these global changes, he went on to say we are needlessly turning the gold we have inherited from our forebearers into straw, and for that we will be despised by our descendents. California has the most farreaching environmental laws of any state. And the most integrated policy to deal with Climate Change of any political jurisdiction in the wellhemisphere. Under laws of that you have en, ad were on track to meet our 2020 goal of a third of our electricity from renewable sources. We lead the nation in efficiency cleaner cars and energy storage. Recently, both the secretary general of the unite nations and the president of the world bank, made clear that properly pricing carbon is a key strategy. Californias cap and trade system is doing just that, and showing how the market itself can generate the innovations we need. Beyond this, californias forging agreements with other states and nations so that we do not stand alone in advancing these climate objectives. These efforts impressive though they are are not enough. United nations plame on Climate Change backed up by the vast majority of the world scientists have set an aim beneficiaries goal of limiting warming to two degrees celsius by the year 2050 through drastic reductions of greenhouse gasses. We have any chance of all of cheat achieving that california, as it has done in many areas, must show the way. We must demonstrate that reducing carbon is compatible with an abundant economy and human wellbeing so far we have been able to do that. In fact, were will on our way to meeting our ab32 goal of reducing Carbon Pollution and limiting the emissions of heattrapping gasses through 431 million tonsly 2020. Now its time to establish our next set of can objectives for 230 and beyond toward that end i propose three Ambitious Goals to be accomplished win the next 15 years. First, increase from one third to 50 our electricity derived from row knewable sources. [applause] two. And even more difficult reduce todays Petroleum Use in cars and trucks by up to 50 . Three, double the efficient of existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner. We must also reduce the relefthandless release of methane, black carbon and other pollutants and we must manage farm and rainlands, forests and wetland so they can store carbon, all of this in is a very tall order and means we continue to transform our electrical grid our transportation system, and even our communities. I envision a wide range of initiatives, more distributed power, expanded rooftop solar, microgrids and energy imimbalance market, battery storage, full integration of information technology, and electrical distribution, and millions of electric and lowcarbon vehicles. How we achieve these goals and at what pace what pace, will take great thought and imagination, mixed with pragmatic caution. It will require enormous Innovation Research and insvelte, and will need active collaboration at every stage our Science Scientists engineers, onterror newspapers, and officials at all levels. Taking significant amounts of carbon out oft our economy without harm is exactly the sort of challenge at which california excels. This is exciting, bold and absolutely necessary if we are do have any chance of stopping potentially catastrophic changes to our climate system. [applause] california since the beginning has undertaken big tasks entertained big ideas, but fitting a state of dreamers builders and immigrants we have not hesitated to attempt what some have called impossible or foolish. In the last 40 years yes, ever since in 1769 marched along the kings highway california has met adversity with faith and courage. We have had setbacks and failures, but always in the end, the indomitable spirit of california has triumphed through good times and bad california has been blessed with a dinism and historic trajectory that carries each generation forward. Whether these explorers came from gold or for god came they did, and the rest is history. The founding of the missions, the devastation of the native people, the discovery of gold, the coming of the 49ers the transcontinental railroad, the founding of great universities the planting and harvesting of our vast fields Oil Production movies, the aircraft industry the first freeways, the state water project, aero space, silicon valley, and endless new companies and nobel prize winners. [applause] this is california and we are its sons and daughter. Yes, california feeds on change and great undertakes, about the path of wisdom counsels us to ground ourselves and nurture carefully all that we have started. We must stand on rock, not stand so when the storms come our house stands. We are at a crossroads with big and important new programs now launched and the budget carefully balanced the challenge is to build for the future not steal from it. To live within our means and keep california ever golden and creative. As our forebearers have shown and as our descendents would expect. Thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] this sunday on q a author dick lehr talks about the film the birth of the nation its depiction of the slaves after the civil war and advocates trotter. Part two of the movie, after the war, reconstruction is really the heart of the protest in the sense that this is where the blacks were just appalled by the portrayal or freed slaves. This is a scene showing what happens when you give former slaves the right to vote, the right to be elected, the right to govern. Its a scene in the South Carolina legislature where their first and primary order of business is to pass a bill allowing for interracial marriage because again in griffins hands, black men are solely interested in pursuing and having white wmen. Author dick lehr on the story behind the birth of a nation on cspans q a. National organization for women president , terry oneill talks about the socioeconomic relationship between the minimum wage and reproductive rights. She spoke at the annual meeting of the association of american law schools in washington dc for about an hour. I want to welcome you all. To the 2015aals annual Meeting Program of the section on socioeconomics. This is the socioeconomics luncheon, welcome you all here. I have a few obligatory announcements, few discretionary announcements announcements and then it will be my pleasure to introduce our speaker. A cle attendance signup sheet is located at the rear of the room. If you sign the sheet the als will verify your attendance at this program for cle purposes please refer to the shineup sheet for more details. The als also wantsou to know we value your feedback, please take a moment to complete a session evaluation form that you were handed when you walked into the room and please leave it with the student proctor at the doors. So those are the obligatory announcements. A few discretionary announcements. This is the 20th year of the aals section on socioeconomics. Its Founding Forum in 1996. We are dedicated to a set of principles, that time 120 law and 50 member schools of the als signed it, and our dear guest speaker, terry oneill, now president of n. O. W. , was Founding Member of that so she has a long and venable history in that mission. I can describe socioeconomics in a couple of sentences. The first news is good news for economists. And that is you cannot do important Public Policy without Economic Analysis. The second principle is good news to some economiesis and that is, but you cannot do Economic Analysis without drawing upon all disciplines necessary giving them the same dignity you give to economics in performing your analysis. With this two principles if widely accepted, i think causes such as those nobly championed by the National Organization for women would be much more readily achievable and we are are dedicated to that. There is a fledgling Organization Called the society of sore youre economists you. Can get that by going to the society of the associatesow economists. Org. Membership is free so i know can afford it and, everybody is welcome. Now, for our beloved luncheon speaker, terry oneill. She was elected the president of the National Organization for women in 2009. And was reelected in 2013. She overseas n. O. W. s ambitious multiagenda program, including reproductive rights and justice, Economic Justice, ending violence against women ending racism and homophobia, and guaranteeing womens equality under the u. S. Constitution. What a noble set of goals. Before this, she was an academic teaching both at the university at Tulane University and before that the california University California at davis. She is a respected expert in Corporate Law corporate social responsibility, also taught feminist legal theory and International Womens rights. As i mentioned before she is a Founding Member of the als section on socioeconomics. Her title, which is socioeconomics and feminism, what do reproductive rights have to do with what does excuse me what does the minimum wage have to do with economic rights . And in a way her title is generic. One could say socioeconomics and blank, fill in the blank, Environmental Justice Economic Justice, you could almost and then what does but rather than see it in the general form, lets hear terry speak particularly about what the minimum wage has to do with economic rights. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you so much. Its a pleasure be to back among academics. Its been a while. I guess i left tulane in 2001 so it has been quite some time. So the title of my talk actually is, what dose the men wage have to do with reproductive rights and it sounds a little as if it shouldnt have that much to do one with the other, but as robert said, my organization the National Organization for women, has six core issues right . That we address. And so they are reproductive rights and justice for all women, ending race ending homophobia ending violence against Women Economic justice for all women and getting women into the constitution at last. The reason that n. O. W. Has these six issues at the core of its agenda is because we do view those issues as deeply enter twined and interrelated. Right . And i think its really intuitively easy to see how all of those issues Economic Justice and reproductive rights and violence against women and racism and holmophobe ya, how they interrelate. Itch you think about is this way, in politics who are the candidates that we think would probably be opposed to samesex marriage opposed to womens access to Reproductive Health care opposed to serious funding of the violence against women act. What you find is its the same crowd. Over and over again. That are more or less in opposition. So they get the interrelationship of all of these issues, and so its very important we understand how theyre interrelated