excess in certain places in areas that would benefit the regime. all of those things are happening all the same time so i have very low confidence we are going to get it all. as i said am i glad we are getting our hands on some of the production? you bet and i think that's a good outcome but we shouldn't as i said close the book and think we have done everything we should do in the chemical weapons program. >> so i just want to say as moderator in a day when you get a sensible bipartisan discussion about the big foreign-policy issue and you end up -- it's a good day so i want to thank congressmcongressm an rogers and congressman engel for an excellent discussion. please join me in thanking them. it. [applause]

now or into view with senator joe manchin. he talks about his child in farmington west virginia his family's political history and his own political career. this is a half-hour. >> senator joe manchin them accredit west virginia you are a true west virginia native. >> absolutely through and through. >> were you born? >> i was born in fairmont close to my home of farmington where i grew up and spent my childhood up until i went to college. >> how many brothers and sisters? >> there are five of us but in our family my cousins there about 20 of us. we were raise really close

together a short distance and my grandparents were mama and papa papa -- it was a mayberry. >> what were your parents like and did you talk politics? >> politics was a big part of our lives but not something i desired to be in. i enjoyed being around it. they flamboyant and colorful politician the youngest how so delegate member back in 1948 i think -- 47 or 48. he was elected when he was 20 years old and had to be 21 to serve so he turned 21 so he was legal to serve. he was one of the famous civil rights way back before it was thought about. he was defeated on that issue. he didn't think there should be two sets of books one for black children and one for white

children. he thought they should all have the same and they defeated him on that in 1950. he served with robert hurd. i will never forget i had to be 10 years old working with my grandfather and the butcher store. i heard the most god-awful racket and i went back there and it was robert byrd and my grandfather discussing the bible , different parts of the bible and versions and what they meant and future meanings and my grandpa would stop and say i think you might want to meet this person. she is running for the united states senate and so that was many years ago as you can imagine but anyway the campaign changed her family because john kennedy in the west virginia battleground. we were catholic and knowing that was going to be a big part of this election, could he break

that barrier? i never thought there was a barrier. in my hometown everybody worked in the coalmines and my father and grandfather had a grocery store and furniture store. everyone made the same amount of money and i never knew -- there were no classes that i knew of or that i could recall and i thought religion was a problem because my methodist friends are baptist friends or whatever gospel friends, we were all the same. anyway that was the big thing. it got me interested. i will never forget one night we were watching the news or something and they were talking about if john kennedy got elected the pope would run the country. i said mom i don't think there are catholics that we know. with that being said that was -- but my uncle became a big part of the john kennedy entourage if you will and he and teddy were

really good friends. the president always wanted to teach teddy how to speak as well as he could. he said brother jimmy you are in charge to make sure he is as oratorical skills. it's in some of the books if you read the memoirs of john kennedy. he wanted teddy to imitate james to make him feel better but anyway that is what got me interested. i saw this young vivacious president which all i could remember was eisenhower before that and he was more of a grandfatherly figure. he liked to play golf. now i see this young person is the leader of our country that plays football and his athletic and sales and slams and really got me excited about that. i got a scholarship playing football at wtu. i went up there and met my wife and we were married that i got hurt playing ball. then my father's parents --

my grandparents the whole block burned down and we lost everything. the coal mine blew up in 1968 and this all happened within a short period of time. we had 58 miners and 78 miners got on up and more than 50 -- and my uncle john was one of the fatalities there. but you see i grew up with the coalfields and understanding the real challenges we had but also the opportunities it provided. my next-door neighbor growing up was michie dunbar -- harry dunbar and i had to be 1954 so i was seven years old. harry used to come and play ball right across the street. one night harry didn't come home and his wife -- i said hey marshall when it's becoming whom? the mind just blew up. he's going to be late tonight honey.

two or three days went by and she's probably trying to figure out how she's going to tell the 7-year-old boy he is not coming home. i recall that rate i really did. and then fast-forward to 1968, might uncle the same person was on the cutting machine and he got blown up. this is all part of who we are and fast-forward to when i become -- i got involved in how i got involved. it just kind of morphed into that. >> i want to come back to a couple of points. the 1960 campaign west virginia was a prominent honestly partisan state. did you see him campaign? did you work for him? >> no i was 13 years of age. i will never forget one day i'm in the basement. we lived in a garage apartment that i was in the basement on a

go-cart and my mom kept saying you want to go upstairs that i want you to meet someone. zero come him i'm all dirty and greasy. i want you to come up and meet them and it was the kennedy brothers bobby and teddy and all of them having spaghetti and mom was feeding all of them getting involved in all that excitement with this whole race. it got the whole state involved. it really did and it was a turning point not just for them but for us and my uncle jimmy became the state director for the farmers home administration under the kennedy administration but my dad -- our car was in the parade and john kennedy wrote in it in 1958 convertible chevrolet. a big impala and john kennedy wrote in that and my dad came home that night and told us about taking them around. uncle jimmy would travel with the president and that time senator kennedy and his brothers and they would share their stories with us. i was kind of involved once

removed if you will put but right in the heart of it to we were here and we were there. the president was just a regular person coming from a completely different culture if you will. >> the 15th anniversary of his assassination -- 50th anniversary of his assassination. do you remember where you were? >> i had just come off of lunch and we were going into english class. i was a junior in high school, just got my driver's license in august and i had just become 16. i just walked into class and our teacher walked in. mr. matthews was also one of our coaches on the football team and simon says the president has just been shot. the first reaction was oh come on quit kidding us. he said i'm not kidding. it's serious. the president has just been

assassinated and we all need to go home. immediately we all went home and my whole family my grandfather was there. my father and uncle jimmy who was working for the kennedys -- everybody was there. just out of the clear my grandfather says we have got to go to washington. you know me 16 just getting my license i volunteered to drive. we had a big old 58 cadillac and we all piled in. i had me and my uncle and jimmy and papa and my cousins. there were seven or eight of us in this car and we drove to washington. my sister was working in washington living in arlington so we got here and my grandfather says i've got to go to the casket. he stands in line all night long to pay homage to the president.

i remember as little kids if you ever see pictures on pennsylvania avenue kids hanging off of the trees that was probably us because we couldn't see. i remember when john john and they all came by in the casket and so many memories. every time i would visit my sister i would go to the grave to say a prayer. it was easy to drive through the cemetery and the president's grave is right there in the eternal flame was right there. i would say a prayer and go on. one day i'm going there and all of a sudden security was everywhere. i thought something happened but that was when they started -- it became more than the crowds and letting everybody walk in. there have to be in order to this business. that happened a few years after the assassination. >> from your your perspective did we change is the country after his assassination in? >> in my eyes we did.

i'm a 16-year-old junior in high school and i didn't feel as safe as i had before. for some reason -- i grew up in the most peaceful time in the country after world war ii. i was born in 47 selector that up until vietnam you know the korean war escaped. i was too young to realize what was going on there but it was a very easy and good time in america and then although sudden the whole world was shattered and we had that and within a few years we had martin luther king and the country was really not not -- it really wasn't as cohesive as farmington was. let's put it that way and it made us understand it was a different place out there. >> i want to ask about your parents and you mentioned the businesses they were in. >> my parents basically my father was italian and my grandparents came over from italy immigrated in the 1900 so my father is the best our name

was mancini. my mother is from czechoslovakia her parents -- they were both born so i'm second generation they were born here. both parents migrated to america both of them ended up in the coalfields six miles apart. both of them had little grocery stores, that both grandparents. grandpa gus and papa joe. my grandfather when he got out of the service in 46 started a furniture store beside the grocery store and farming him so we grew up in the retail business. i have always said in politics it's retail. this is retail politics in retail politics is simply knowing who your customer is in making sure they are satisfied. give them a product with a good value and great service because you live and die by the satisfaction of your customer. i took that same approach to government when i went into it.

i was 35 years old so i have been in business off and on or or -- i learned this and they really were the ones. my mother and father and my grandparents and aunts and uncles really is who i am. the thing that people don't know is that we corrupt in an area. we have tracks -- the railroad tracks from the coalmines and we had buffalo creek. all of us little kids living down between that and every time the train whistle blew my grandmother was afraid something would happen. we would jump the train and ride the train up to town. it just drove her crazy. the train provided the lead for the sinkers and artificial lines. the coal a lot of people heeded their house.

that is what we lived with but my grandmother was kind and compassionate.

i saw people who had nothing but they lived by the rules and he had to do something. popeye used to save no work, connote eat. i understood that very well. when i see people that are down and out i say do something and some people need a little bit of help. they got back up and made something of their life. i saw young girls in and farmington that got pregnant out of wedlock and they left their house because their parents threw them out. they would come to mama k. i would come home after school and i would see mama k having lunch with a mother who threw the daughter out and she got them back together and went back home. they had a baby the most productive kid in the world so i have seen it all. i am who i am because of where i'm from and the environment i grew up in the family and was from. >> you ran for governor once the primary.

why did you lose and what did you learn? >> i didn't do a good job. i didn't do a good enough job explaining who i was and what i thought the state could be and how we would change the state and it basically was polarizing. i grew up in a labor town and find uncles worked in the minds and everything like this that i just didn't project properly. when it was over i knew one thing. i never lost a race before that so my son was sitting with me and i will never forget. i said we have won a lot of races and honored to be serving people and have had a lot of confidence. tonight is not going to be our night. we are not going to win this. it's easy to win and i think that showed class. i have watched people walk out and blame everybody. there's only one person's name on the valid and that's yours and if you can't take the blame for whatever went wrong and i never blamed the soul for not voting for me. i blamed me for not selling the

ideas i had for the state. i lost that election and after that i thought -- i did all i could and i would go back and get back in business and to enjoy my private life with my wife and three children we started having grandchildren and we have eight now. with all of that i was really enjoying that and i got pulled back and read how did i get pulled back in? some of the people who defeated me in 96 said we think we made a mistake. we would like to work with you. i said fine. i want to work with you too and i probably made more mistakes than you. >> you senator manchin let me ask you about your uncle killed in 1968 in a mining accident. as governor he had two significant accidents at upper branch and seiko. what did you take away from your personal experience? >> we had seiko. three weeks later we had

aracoma. two miners there but the basically the same scenario and then upper big ranch where we lost so many wonderful miners. the only thing i knew when i got to seiko and i've said this before no one gives you a menu when you become governor. you rely on everything every experience you have ever had everything you have learned and you have relied on it. you really do deep and to your person and the thing i knew i remember a flashback to 68. i was 21 years of age and uncle john my mother's younger brother very close to us, can't and he borrowed my gun to go hunting right before he was killed in the mines. he slipped and fell and i had a brand-new 12-gauge shotgun. he put some scratches on it and uncle john felt so bad. i'm going to get that fixed.

uncle john don't worry about it. it's the same gun with the same scratches. anyway i remember everyone sitting at the company store waiting for some news in and the news didn't come. sometimes they would sit for a day and never heard a thing. i said to me that's really what is hurtful and cruel. i always thought if i was in a position to give relief to people that there are ways to do it and information was one. it don't be a whole lot of new things to tell you but i'm going to tell you something every couple of hours. i want you to know were doing everything we can and anything you have heard any questions you ask if i don't have any i will find out because i met the command center at sago and i want you to have the facts. i'm not going to talk to the press until i talk to the families. i knew i learned that basically from watching my mother and i and and agony they went through not knowing anything and then they heard the mine was going to be sealed basically entombing my

uncle and all that because it was so dangerous that i learned from that and i figured -- i knew one thing. families depend on that paycheck and if i could do anything as a governor i would sit down with the people who were the owners of the minds and say i'm going to ask you to do one thing. make sure they never miss a paycheck. make sure they don't miss a paycheck. if you want to compound the problems we have right now this family can't take care of itself through the most difficult times until we can get all of this straightened out. you've got to continue the paycheck as if nothing happened. i knew that was part of our way of life. people need that. they have to take care of their families and themselves so some of those things came about because of my experiences living in the coalfields and being around it. you could have never learned that. no one could have taught it to you and less you lived it.

>> is it safer today to be a minor? >> absolutely and we are getting safer. i've always said this. if you can't mind the safe don't mind it but do you know what? you have to empower the minors. you will never have enough inspectors. you can have all the laws and rules in the world but if you don't have a company -- if you don't have and i will use is one i know very well because they are big in my area break her up but is all energy has taken the approach that if one person sees an unsafe situation they can pull the plug and shut the mine down. you've heard other situations where for person tries to stop a shift they would be fired or threatened of losing their job. that is what we had to change. that's what has to be changed and i think it has. he kept the miners protected and i wanted them to let me know if they were in unsafe conditions are afraid of their job. we had to change that whole attitude and i think we have.

we are doing things by the law to make it safer. the bottom line is we have some of the best miners in the world. we really do. these are the salt of the earth. they are as patriotic as our veterans and i say that with all the respect for our veterans because most of our miners are veterans but they look at mining is what they are doing for this country and the energy they provide for this country. if it wasn't for the mines and the miners he wouldn't have the economy. we wouldn't have the country we have today. we wouldn't be the greatest economy in the world. they were able to give us affordable dependable energy and the thing i have a hard time with here in washington is fighting and making people understand that coal is still part of this mix. it's the largest part of our energy mix. work with me not against me. don't make it more difficult. help me find the technology that we can continue to clean up the environment. we have done more in the last two decades than ever in history and we can do even more but we

would like to think we have a partner and right now in west virginia if we think our government is working against us and i have to be honest with you i think they are too. i'm trying to keep every door open to work with them but i'm not going to sit back and they don't know what we do and how hard we do it and how much energy we provide for this country and the coal that makes some of the best colon the world comes out of west virginia. first aid is done heavy heavy lifting and we don't mind that. we will still do the heavy lifting but we want someone to recognize and appreciate it. >> based on all of that you have been in washingtwashingt on for a couple of years. is this the senate what you expected and is washington what you thought it would be? >> no, absolutely not. i guess i looked at it through the eyes of robert hurd and his reverence for this great institution and i would have thought when the chips were down

it was always country first state second in politics last. i see 100 good people in the senate. i really do. there's nobody i don't like. i like everybody and tried to get along with everybody but i do see i would question some motives and reasons and the purpose of your service. i go back to john kennedy and i keep thinking i watched this speech on television at 13 years old. ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. that means it's our country. we own it. the constitution says we the people so if we own it you have to take ownership and you have to take care of it like owning a car. you have to change the oil and routine maintenance and take care of it. now it seems like we have a country where people are saying that's not what your country did

did -- ask not what your country did to you but what you did to it. that's a long way in 50 years so i want to get back. we are still the greatest country on earth. all the problems we have the can fix at canonically. we can fix all of this but we have got to start putting our country first again. it's about this great country. if this country does well my state will do perfectly fine. i am here with that purpose and how i can serve retail government and how do i serve my customers to access the constituents and everyone in my great state of west virginia. >> what's next for you? >> well what is on my agenda? getting my finances in order. i will give you another thing. mike grandfather i came home at 10 or 11 years old and i said popeye just saw charlie and what of beautiful bersin charlie is. the nicest person you have ever met. he said charlie would give you

the shirt off his back. he said guess what? charlie doesn't have an extra shirt to give you. he didn't plan well enough. talking about bursting your bubble. if you're inclined to help you keep yourself strong not just mentally and not just that but financially. talk is cheap. if you want to help somebody pull out of little money and give it to them. i would say hey papa can i have $5? no problem. here's a shovel. go ahead and take care of the parking lot. he had it down to a science. i'm thinking financially i take the oath of office and i'm standing on the capitol steps in cold january of 2005 and my grandfather is in front of me. keep yourself strong financially. i knew we could be so i put all of my efforts.

i had a very big mandate. i used every bit of capital and i've said they are two things you don't waste in politics. don't waste a mandate and you don't waste a crisis. you have to make something good out of it and i had a great mandated now is determined to fix the finances of our state. i think we did do that. i think i with my administration with the great support of legislators come to friends of mine that we worked hard. we went through to the recession better than any state in the nation would have the top three states in the nation. never cut back on education are laid in a teachers offer cut back on any of our programs for children are seniors. we expanded programs because we had herself financially strong. i come here my number one goal is to fix the finances, fix the finances. racing debts don't fix debts. sooner or later someone has got to fix the dead and that's why i'm here and hope to achieve.

i'm working very hard across the aisle talking to everybody. is there a way we can move forward in fix our debt? i became and graced -- and grossed in the bowles-simpson approach. one of the first things i saw when i got here, bipartisan and stayed bipartisan and we couldn't get a vote. we were three votes short i think they were 18 people. they needed 14 and they got 11 votes. they had five republicans and six democrats. when was the last time we had six and five the could agree on the financial direction for our country and couldn't get a vote on the floor? >> let me conclude on a couple of personal notes. your wife is here in west virginia. >> my wife is president of the state board of education west virginia. she is there most of the time. she gets up maybe a week a month and i try to go on weekends.

we meet in tucker county or i will go to charleston or go to fairmont where home is and my son is there. i have two daughters in pennsylvania so an hour and a half. we tries a family to get together as much as possible but it's difficult. i never thought i'd be this old homesick. >> but do your kids think about their dads profession? >> we have a lot of conversations. my kids are very independent and they enjoy it. we have great conversations. >> do you debate a lot of? >> we talk a lot and the girls in my family are very strong and very opinionated if you will and very strong-willed and all successful in their own rights as mothers and career people. they have all been well and my son to math. we have some good conversations on social issues and fiscal issues and it's quite a dinner

party. >> is there another office you would like to hold? >> i haven't thought of that. i keep thinking i have so much more work to do to figure this out. i felt good and very comfortable being governor. i was ready and prepared and i thought it was ready and prepared. i watched senator byrd and how do you get through this toxic atmosphere? vets for our state and our country and not for ourselves. i'm a proud west virginia democrat and a very proud american and extremely proud of of -- so with all that being said i want to put improper content. hopefully i can than some of my colleagues to do the same. >> senator joe manchin thank you very much. we appreciate it very at now her

second american profile interview. congressman kathy mcmorris rodgers the state represented as the house republicans conference chair. this is 35 minutes. >> representatives cathy mcmorris rodgers you are the highest-ranking women. do you have a voice with speaker boehner and leader cantor and others in the gop leadership? >> yes. i think it's an important voice that i bring to that leadership table and daily am sitting down with the speaker and majority leader eric cantor are with kevin mccarthy as we are strategizstrategizing on what's happening on any given day as well as with the face a few months down the road. i'm the second woman to hold this position for the republicans. deborah pryce was conference chair earlier but i am proud of the fact that we have for women

now that around the leadership table for the republicans and it is just a different perspective, different priorities at times. and i do believe that i am heard and that my input is valued as they present it around that table. >> why politics? why did you decide to first run for the statehouse in washington and then congress? >> i'm one of those kids when i was in high school i wasn't sure what i wanted to do what i wanted to major in and my dad had always had an interest in politics. he ran for office when he was in his 20s. he ran for county commissioner and boss but he had always dabbled in politics and i had grown up at least watching campaigns from afar but out of college i got involved in a friend's campaign for the

statehouse in kettle falls washington and i was -- that was my entry into politics and what i learned was that first evolved this was somebody that i could really believe in and get excited about supporting and then when he won the race and offered me a job it was a way in which i could really make a difference for my community and the people that we were representing in olympia at that time and i found a lot of fulfillment in that the purpose in being a part of something that was bigger than me so i wasn't expecting to run for office. i really imagined myself more behind-the-scenes but soon after that our state senator retired and by boss was appointed to fill the seat in the senate and he encouraged me to consider the appointment for the statehouse. i kind of got in the back door

but it was a great opportunity for me and i mustered up all the courage that i had and said i'm going to go for this. once i got the appointment i committed to being the best representative that could be for the people of northeastern washington's. >> born in salem oregon. when did your family moved to washington state? >> we moved to washington state when i was a junior in high school. both sides of my family has deep roots in the pacific northwest. they came out to the northwest on the oregon trail and my mom's family was in the timber industry and my dad's family has always been in agriculture and so i have grown up involved in agriculture. my family owned an orchard and fruit stand in kettle falls washington where we raised cherries peaches and apricots and it was where i really learned a good work ethic and i

had the experience alongside my brother as well as my parents in building up business and the success of the business. it was a great experience for me and i'm grateful to my parents. my dad has a high school education and my mom had a scholarship to go to oregon state but dropped out as a freshman when her dad passed away. she was determined that her kids were going to graduate from college and i'm grateful for the sacrifice of my parents made so that i could go to college and my brother to go to college and had an opportunity for better life. >> are they still alive? >> they are. they have sold our orchard and they actually divorced. they are both in spokane. my mom is remarried and we often reminisce. neither of us ever imagined that one day cathy would be serving

in congress. it's been an amazing course of events that has led me to this experience but it also reinforces that the american dream is alive and in america you can do anything you want and i have lived that. when i was going to college for as long as i can remember my parents had me saving my money so i could go to school when i had 4-h animals and sold them at the fair. you save those dollars and you can go to college one day cathy. working my way through school and i worked at mcdonald's and called bill in the drive-thru and i worked. i always had housekeeping duty when i was in school which is not anyone's favorite but that is what i did for three and a half years when i was in college and worked a variety of other jobs so i could go to school. i have seen in my own life what a difference that made and the opportunities that i had.

i sense won out in got my mba from the university of washington took out student loans to do that. some of the student loans we have been debating here in congress recently. i'm still paying off those student loans but i'm grateful that this is a country where no matter who you are and no matter where you come from you can come here and pursue your dreams work hard and really see what you can do with your life treats the i've been following your twitter account and and of me have been tweeting pictures including one in a mcdonald's uniform. how will for you? >> that was actually when i was in college. it was a summer job that i had at that point and the mcdonald's and call bill washington. so that would be probably 1986 my freshman year of college. >> the "national journal" says you're one of the top 10 republicans to follow on twitter. how often do you tweet? >> my goal is at least for me to

do it once a day. the combined effort between my staff and myself so sometimes they are tweeting and sometimes i'm tweeting but i find it is really an official from me just to see through the course of the day i can easily check my twitter on my blackberry and get a sense as to what the hot topics are and what's on people's minds or what their reaction is to what's going on in congress. i have enjoyed the social media and the ability to have a real-time conversation with people that i represent as well as others that are plugged into what's going on on capitol hill. >> let me ask you about your district. before hamm speaker of the house, probably. >> i am here just to be the best representative that i can be for the people of eastern washington and i think john boehner is doing a great job as speaker and

he has my support. i didn't run for congress thinking that i would ever be in leadership and i'm here because my colleagues encouraged me to run for leadership. people back home will remember the tom foley was speaker and they will hear that i'm in leadership they will ask that question but my focus is just really to be the best representative that i can be for the people that i represent. >> sometime down the road if the opportunity arises would you be interested? >> you know it's really hard for me to say. it's always a balancing act. i'm a mom to a mom too and taking into consideration the demands of having two kids and a third on the way as well as my responsibilities here on capitol hill -- those are all decisions that we have to make and give it time

and decide what's best for you and your family. >> you are the first woman in congress to have a baby twice and expecting a third. your son cole with down syndrome. what is that taught you over years? >> oh i was single and i was elected to congress and for me the best thing that has happened to me since i was elected to congress is meeting brian rogers in getting married in becoming a wife and then imam and her oldest cole was born with down syndrome. it isn't what you expect and it isn't what you dream but i sit here today and i'm a better person because of coal and what he has taught me. i'm a better legislator. he has given me a whole new passion for what i do here on capitol hill. >> house so? >> well when you first get the news it is some of the most difficult news that you receive

as a parent. but i look back on it now and i was immediately welcomed by the disabilities community. people all across this country who have been through similar experiences and first of all just reached out and said it's going to be okay. that meant everything to us at that point and having different people contact me but i quickly just decided you know what? we are first of all we are going to do everything we can to maximize his development. we want to see what he can be. you learn everything you can about down syndrome or whatever disability it may be and then i quickly became grateful for so many who had walked this path before me and the opportunities and the resources available today.

they weren't available that long ago if you think about early intervention early education compound all of the commitment that we have made through the individuals with disabilities act for education so now children with disabilities are in the classroom k-12. i is apparent, i'm so grateful for those who have fought so that now coal will have more opportunities and is a member of congress it makes me think that it's my turn. it's my turn to carry that baton and to continue to work for more opportunities. we have made tremendous progress but there is more to be done whether it's the transition to adulthood and employment or individual living, independent living.

there is more that needs to be done in that area. they estimate between 70 to 80% of those with disabilities are unemployed. many of them have a lot to offer and would like to be employed. i have been working a lot on addressing those barriers to employment working with senator harkin and that's another thing. he opened up doors for me and relationships -- relationships that i would have never had otherwise across the hide -- i'll house and senate. when he was born eunice kennedy shriver calls and she says now you need to get coal into best buddies in special olympics once he gets old enough and need to come over and just have a couple of tea with teddy one of these days so we can sit down and talk about all these issues. i would have never had the opportunities to build these relationships or to understand these issues the way that i do

if it hadn't been for coal. >> has a mom were you nervous when you are pregnant the a second time. >> oatka, sure. you give a lot of thought to what might happen but yet the odds -- you look at the odds based on your age first of all and i was told that because we had had one child with down syndrome which is it duplicate 21st chromosome also known as tryson may 21. it's the most common chromosome abnormality but there are a lot of different chromosome as moralities, that i would have a 1% greater risk and my husband and i gave it a lot of thought but ultimately concluded that we were -- we didn't want to look back one day and say okay we wish we would have gone ahead and try to have more children because we

both -- we both love being parents and we want that in our lives and so we decided that we were going to go ahead knowing the risk and have a second and now we are -- grace blossom was born in 2010. she is doing really well and we have number three expected this year. it's a tremendous blessing in our lives. cole and grace get along great. i can already see where coal is having a very positive impact on grace and she is having a very positive effect on him so it's good. >> we are here in washington d.c.. your wash -- district is in washington state. you're a mother or a wife and a representative so how do you juggle it all? >> well there are a whole team

of people i often say that make it possible. i might be out front but first of all the tremendous support of my husband. he is retired from the navy. had never been married to, never been made bad. was dreaming of that still happening in his life and now he didn't necessarily imagine living in washington d.c. and being mr. mom but he is embracing this at this time in our lives and i couldn't ask for more support from brian. >> how did you meet him? >> i met him at a campaign barbecue. it was the summer after i was elected to congress. his sister worked on my campaign and she invited him to this campaign barbecue to introduce her to another volunteer's daughters and at the end of the evening he said i think i would like to make cathy. so that was how we met and then

we just started corresponding. our first date was that the naval academy. he is a naval academy grad and he invited me for a tour of the naval academy. i was that on the armed services committee and he thought i should see the academy and go to a football game. it's been just a great special blessing that whole relationship but it's having the sport of my family and their extended family. my mom and brian's family and his parents and sisters and brother all in spokane. they offer a lot of support for us when we are home and a great team. i have a great staff and the thousands of supporters that i have. it's a whole bunch of people that make it possible for me to do this. now i contend that this job and the balancing challenges that i

face on any given day are not that different than millions of other working moms. mine might be more high-profile and people may see me on camera but day in and day out the challenges of getting the kids ready for school or helping with their homework and the stresses of wanting to be a good mom and a good wife but then also the demands of the job -- sometimes you handle it better than other days and i think that's normal. so i am grateful for the opportunities that i've been been given and the bin given in the peoplehood made it possible for me to do what i'm doing here on capitol hill as well as the tremendous blessing of being a mom to these great kids. >> how often do you get to the district can maximize the flight time between here in washington state? >> that flight time, that's my time.

the rest of the hours of the week quite often others have zipped through those hours so if really come to enjoy the flight. it's a seven or eight hour trip from washington d.c. to spokane. there is no direct flight so i have to fly someplace and then get to spokane but it's quiet time and it's time for me to do some reading and catch up on some books that i want to write or just have some time to myself. so i enjoy that time. i get home -- it varies during the course of the year but i would say at least two or three times a month we have at least once a month a district work period where we can go home for an entire week and i just hit it.

i maximize those days and get around the district. i have a large district competition counties so it takes a while to get around to the districts but we are making it work. at the beginning brian would travel back and forthwith me and he and then after cole was born we tried having them in spokane. i was going back and forth every weekend which -- it was a long trip to make every week and i found that i was tired and still had limited time with the family. i find that it's working better to have the family based here in washington d.c. where i can go home some evenings at least in the with them and we have our time together in the mornings and some weekends and then fit to travel around that. when i do go home to the district and i'm not trying to

spend time with family and getting around the district. we are making it work and i think every family come to every member of congress has to decide how best to organize that. >> let me ask you some policy issues because you have been the leader of the republican party and you made a comment recently that the party doesn't need to be more moderate or -- but more modern. how so? >> i don't believe that the republican party needs to change what it stands for the principles and values that we believe in us republicans. that has been long-standing but i do think the republicans have to do a better job of connect incorporated our policy positions with how people live in the 21st century and also using 21st century communication tools. the days of issuing it press

release or raising lots of money and going on tv to do television ads, that isn't connecting as much. we talked a little bit earlier about social media and the 2008 election when president obama was able to create this network of 12, 13 million people in america? that was a real wake-up call to me. we have seen where technology has revolutionized so many areas of our lives. it's also revolutionizing the way that the members of congress and representatives connect with people the people that they represent and republicans need to embrace these tools that we have for communication. when i first ran for leadership i was focused on bringing the republicans into the 21st century as it related to social media and when i was first

elected 30% of our members that were on twitter or facebook -- this was 2008 after the 2008 election and today we have 95% and members that still were using pagers rather than converting to their blackberries or smartphones. they have made that transition. the members that have been here for many many years recognizing that we needed to change. i remember jerry lewis who was a congressman out of los angeles area said -- he described it as the difference between when we went from radio to television. that's the same kind of communication transition that's going on today where people get their news and they interact both personally and professionally and their communication is very different. it's digital so we have to be

using those tools. after the election, i concluded that it wasn't about the republicans needing to moderate but we do need to modernize. part of it is on the communications side of it. that is where my focus is on the leadership team. i am in charge of the communication strategy for the republicans in the house so a lot of our work has been on taking our message to every corner and engaging people from every walk of life every demographic group. we started organizing meetups for example where republicans on capitol hill sit down with millennials from around the country talking to them about issues on their mind and listen and have a dialogue with them. we have done that with vietnamese-americans korean-americans hispanics. we have another one coming up with indian americans but it's to build relationships into as republicans talking to people

from all different backgrounds as to what's on their minds and hear from them. and i think that was one of the takeaways from the election. a lot of people didn't think that the republicans cared about them. that is pretty fundamental so we have been doing more of that and then using digital tools to take our message to every corner and really highlighting the talent in our conference. we are younger than the democrats on average in the house. we are five years on average older than the democrats and their leadership is younger than the democrats. most people think the republicans that we are the party of the old rich white guys when in reality you look at who the young people are and are publicans have women and we have hispanics. we need to present a broader

base and really demonstrate to people in this country that republicans represent them and there are republicans in office that represent them. part of it is on the communications side. the other part is on these issues in particular where we just need to do a better job of making sure that when we are talking about like balancing the budget in 10 years. that is a goal that we have and we are challenging our friends on the other side of the aisle in the senate and administration to join us in the effort to balance the budget in 10 years but take it to the next step. it is now -- why is that important to seniors? ways that important to recent college grads and why is that important a hard-working american families? in my mind that is when i say that is part of modernizing.

it is really talking about issues in terms that people in 2013 can relate to and they are around their kitchen table in their homes as to what our priorities are and and what our vision is for this country and those aspirational goals we have for every american. >> as an institution is congress working? is the house working the way you expected to be? >> oh there is room for improvement. this is -- i think people recognize this is a difficult time for the country. we have difficult issues that we face. when you look at congress from an outsiders perspective you know you think while it's pretty simple. the houses up to -- supposed to pass a bill in the senate is supposed to pass a bill and then you go to the conference committee and sorted out and put it on the

president's desk. in reality you just see that isn't the way that it's been working most recently. it's too much of congress right now is based upon crisis management where we just go from one crisis to another. >> how do you fix that? how do you change it? >> that is where i've really appreciated speaker boehner and the leadership that he has brought in the house. when he became speaker one of his goals was to restore the institution itself and return to what he called regular order but it is to restore how the institution is supposed to operate and he was a committee chairman so he understood the important role that committees have in this process. ..

you need to come up with with the votes are over. having said that, you have to figure out how to get to 218 that's where the leadership, i think what i see right now -- in the house it's up to us to figure out, okay, how to we find or find that sweet spot or the

218 mens that are willing support a particular bill to move it forward? that has to be in conjunction with leadership and the committee chair. >> you've been in the minority now you're in the majority. why is there such gridlock? are the two parties not talking to each other? >> well, i think for the republicans in the majority right now, we have we believe this is a critical time economically for the country, we've got get people back to work. the fact we have the lowest work force participation rate since 1978 is unacceptable. we are on the wrong path, that we need to stand firm on some policies that are going get the economy growing. that's where you hear us talking about the importance of tax reform, the importance of balancing a budget in ten years, the importance of spending reform, spending reductions

before just raising the debt ceiling, and yet, there's resistance, in fact, on the other side of the aisle you have president obama saying raise the debt ceiling with no conditions. just a clean vote to raise the debt ceiling. the reasons we find ourselves in gridlock is because that's never going to happen. that's never going to be acceptable to the republicans just raise the debt ceiling without their being some conditions attached to that. even president obama when he was senator, u.s. senator said of it irresponsible for us to continue just to add to these -- the deficit. add to the debt, have the record deficits that we needed to take action, and yet it's a lot easier to talk about what needs to be done versus actually doing the hard work of getting it

done. and the reason that we find ourselves where we are right now because these are politically difficult decisions that we have to make. it means that we're not going to be able to just continue the current past that america has been spending way beyond it means for many, many years, but we reached the point where we can't just continue this path that is impacting our economy. it impacts our military and our readiness. it impacts our children and the country they're going tone hernt whether america is going to be strong. so i think the reason it is difficult right now. these are difficult decisions we have to make, but it's also --

reducing spending at the program level. it needs to happen for in order for america to be strong moving forward. there's, you know, the tug of war right now between what politically popular versus what what really needs to happen. >> let me follow up on a couple of quick item. it's part of the original capital the office here? >> yes, this wall right here used to be the part of the outside wall of the original capital. when they expanded the capitol in the mid 1850 and '60s it was added on when they added on the house wing and the senate wing. it's pretty special and have a great view of the mall looking west to washington state. the bio said you have a passion

for history. if you could talk to somebody in american history, who would it be? >> oh, my. right now i think it would be george washington. i've so admired him and talk about important leadership that he brought at the dpiflt time for this country. he was someone that was highly regarded, steady as you go, type of a hand. and actually put in a position that he didn't necessarily seek but people said we need you and we need your leadership at this time. and to hear some of, you know, those were difficult decision they were making. they didn't always agree, very passionate debates sometimes with your friends and sometime with others that were pulling in a different direction. i think there's some parallels

there. and i would love sit down and talk with george washington. and to hear him just share both what they were facing when they were founding this country, then, boy, any perspective today would be especially helpful. >> would he recognize congress the way it is today? >> i hope so. in some ways i don't think our founding fathers ever imagined that the legislative branch would be necessarily as weak as i see it right now. they set it up so the legislative branch would be the most powerful branch within the three branches of government. but the struggle between the branches of government, between the executive branch and the judicial branch and the legislative branch and their foresight to know you want to have the balance of power. you don't want to just have one person in charge. you want to separate power and have checks and --

balances. i think it was so wise and served an important role. on behalf of the people that we represent the legislative branch needs to stand up to the executive branch on judicial branch at times. >> two final times. do you have chance to read? >> it kind of depends. >> what are you reading now? >> well, i've been picked up peggy's noon man's book about the time in the white house and ronald reagan. i'm enjoying -- rereading. and then, well, that and my baby name book. we're trying to come up with baby names right now. >> no decision yet? >> no. >> final question, what is next for you? any desire to seek higher officer. some have said you might run for

president. leadership in the house and the u.s. senate? >> we'll see. i am honored to be representing the people of eastern washington here in congress, i don't have any plan to be running for any of the other offices. i am honored to be here. i'm committed to working hard and being the best representative i can be for people of eastern washington. and working with my colleagues around the leadership table to provide important leadership for the republicans in the house right now. hopefully providing some vision and some clarity as to where we want to take the country moving forward. >> representative cathy mc morris rogers. thank you for your time. >> thank you. on the next "washington journal," our time cofounder and

president talk about the reaction to the government shut down. you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events. a discussion about openness at the u.s. supreme court and how technology could be used to grant wider access to the

court's proceedings. former u.s.ly or its general and nbc news correspondent pete williams took part in a discussion hosted by the -- in washington, d.c. this is an hour and a half. ready to go? good morning i'm bruce brown, the executive director of the reporters' committee for freedom of the press. here to welcome you today to today's program on technology and transparency at the supreme court. now in the 40 some odd years since the reporters' committee literally was housed in a desk drawer in the prez room at the supreme court, it has grown to one of the country's leading media law advocacy group. a lot has happened to us. we've had a gala on the set of saturday night live in new york

city, we've hosted barbecue on rooftops, one had one of our founding members store a copy -- full copy of the pentagon papers in his freezer. [laughter] to evade justice department curiousty about it. we've had our briefs cited in u.s. supreme court opinion. we've had our name mentioned in oral argument at l supreme court. we have gone on road trips around the country to teach seminars on free press and free speech. we have never had a panel at the national press club. we're fixing that today with our first ever panel on supreme court technology and transparency, and we have a -- as they say on studio 8h, we

have a great show for you on technology and transparency at the supreme court. we have judges and we have journalists and we have academics and supreme court litigators. as our moderator, and musical guest, we have long time veteran supreme court reporter tony moro and former head of the steering committee of the reporter's committee. i'm here to welcome you and thank you for coming. and join us in the new chapter in our programming at the reporters' committee, and without further ado i will turn it over. [applause] >> thank you, bruce. my name is tony mor row, on

behalf of the reporters' committee i want to welcome you to our discussion. i want to thank bruce browne and deb especially among others for making it happen. in addition to being on the steering committee for the reporters' committee for close to 230 30 years. i've been covering the supreme court for 33 years. it's a subject near and dear to my heart. here is what is special about the discussion this morning. for years, or decades, if you raise the issue of access in relation to the supreme court, there was only one thing to talk about. the court's persistent refusal to allow broadcast coverage of the proceedings. that issue is still with us, unfortunately, but it will be front and center in our discussion this morning, for sure. but with the growth of the digital age and unstoppable momentum toward transparency from all institutions all the time, camera in the court is no

longer the only thing to talk about. we'll try to address some today. there's a audio of oral arguments. which in courts is streamed live. not at the supreme court. the release of the supreme court argument is delayed until they are no longer at use. the announcement of decisions of the court are further delayed. it was only this week that the oah project, not the court itself, was able to post online the opinion announcement from a term that ended last june. it if there was live access to the announcement of the affordable care act decisions the year before, cnn and fox and others would not have gotten it wrong in the first place from the report from the court. there are recusal which happen more than you think. that justices bow out.

they almost never explain to the public why they do or don't step aside. there are financial disclosure forms which are posted online for many public officials but not at the supreme court. the justice forms are available at the administrative office of the u.s. courts on paper for a fee and only after the justices have been told who is asking for them. there's the court's website, which is prompt with decisions and is widely used but could be so much more assessable than educational. as are the wns of other lower courts and supreme courts around the world. and it does not make available the text of the petitions filed with the court or most other filings except for briefs on the merits. there is no pacer for the supreme court. a press pool follow the president whenever he goes and the public is alerted whenever the spt ill. for supreme court justices news about with the about and the health is very hit and miss and

dependent on how much or how little they want to release. in the related area of ethics and accountability, other public officials are held to explicit standards. not the supreme court. the public is left in the dark about the decisions justice make or don't make about the perceived conflict of interest or otherth cam -- ethicals concerns. i could go on. the issues seem to be popping up more and more these days in relation to the supreme court. let's get to the discussion. we have a terrific panel. i'll introduce each one briefly. first, kenneth star for whom there could be many hon risk. president, president of yale university. general as in former solicitor general and judge. and author of the classic "first

among equal; the supreme court in american life "in this town, judge is probably the one that sticks. that's what i'll call him. next we have chief justice maureen o'connor of the ohio supreme court. we are glad to have her with us. she's a native of d.c. and has been on the court for the ohio court for ten years serving as chief justice since 2010. her court is an innovator in term of access and technology and you can even get the audio and oral argument on itunes. next, neil is the leader of the appellate practice and former acting solicitor general of the united states. just last week he argued the first of the likely five cases before the supreme court this term. which will bring him to the total of 22 cases argued in his career. next is pete williams of nbc news who has been covering the supreme court and justice department for 20 years. i think that's right?

as other networks have cut back on the coverage, pete is a television correspondent we see most often on the supreme court. when a major decision comes down, or a mass shooting strikes, pete is the one to turn for calm and accurate coverage. finally, we have allen, the learner family associate dean for public interest and pub -- he's the former head of public citizens litigation group he argued 20 cases before the supreme court. and relevant to today's discussion, alan is the lawyer who in 2004 had the tenth annual marty to -- to recuse an n a case involving vice president cheney scheeg ya's partner in a duck hunting trip. he refused to recuse himself and issued a scathing memo in the process. i want to mention that we're very much encourage questions

from the audience. we're going do that in written form. there are pens and cards on your seats. so please keep in mind as the discussion goes on. write down questions and i'll receive them and when the time is right, i'll ask as many as i can. with that, judge starr? >> thank you. i'm -- hold the event at the national press lob. i'm going to be auto biographical for a moment. i'm in favor of greater transparency in the supreme court. so that's the organizing principle and the application of that principle, but i would like to speak to is i am, and have been for a couple of decades in favor of cameras in the court.

i was trained as a young pup -- seeking to reform change the court's spread your -- procedure in a number of ways. he loved to share with the law clerk as he came in he was in favor of technology. so much so we he became chief justice there should be a photocopier in the court. [laughter] that was a great reform because law clerks will say, yes, we had to do what are called flimsy to prepare certain memos at the time. for all of the justices and especially will the ifp. you use carbon paper. was that 1869?

no, it was 1969. it was a bit of changing mained duelings and procedure. there was not much discussion about camera in the court. it was aanymore call to the great tradition of the court. my epiphany when i was privileged to argue unsuccessfully the second flag bushing case. in litigation we have two categories, victory and developments. [laughter] this was a very significant development. the constitutionality of the flag protection act since 1989. i did my best but one vote short. we weren't surprised at that. at the conclusion of that argument, i said hello to one of the columnist who is kind of a figure.

james j kill patrick. and he indicated he was going writing. he didn't come to the court but now show up. and the opinion piece that he wrote was richmond times syndicated column nist. every american should have seen that argument. it's not that i was so good i clearly wasn't. my worthy opponent bill was brilliant. he was absolutely great, great appellate lawyer. but it was not the advocates. it was the entire process especially the justices ebb gaugement through their questions sometimes reflections. voted in favor of the government in in case. the flag was unique. that's when i changed my mind affiliate -- after i read the column.

every american should have seen the argument. i knew how poignant at the time it was. especially when "the greatest generation" was with us and john paul stevens was part the generation. how could you not protect the federal flag of the united states? and so i have been a proponent for a long time and at the same time sensitive to the tradition. it's part of the greatness. traditions can be very good and very sound. there should be a reason for departing from traditions. it's very murky. there's a powerful reason to change and to reform. that is what justice sandra day o'connor calls even though she opposes camera the court. i greatly respect the view but i profoundly disagree. in connection with to her effort what she calls the collapse of civic education in the united.

i'm thank of the that baylor university has been -- engaged with the community in local school system and to so forth. the point i'm making is here thoughtful justices who are concerned and that apock lip pick term is hers. think of how wonderful it would be for those school children who maybe get in to the argument with those 250 or 300 seats people court in different ways. you would think we would know exactly how many seats there are for the public. there are more than 400 seat for the public. on the trip to washington, d.c., that's one of the things to -- so you to got supreme court when the board is sitting. let watch the supreme court in action. and they're unable to do this. the principle response -- i'm nearly through. the principle response, as i understand it other than this is

the way we have done it, this is the tradition and so forth. at the end of the day the 21st century is not a particularly persuasive argument. what is behind now the reason for carrying on the tradition. and the most common -- there are a number. there are five or six. i'm going lift up one. the concern that the chief justice i have a greatest respect said the concern of grand standing. i think that the response to that is experience is great teacher. it was holmes who said wisely that the life of the law is experience and not logic. certainly that's true in procedure. what is the experience and what we now know and what we hear from the chief justice about ohio's experience, if you start cron ling i have not done it. it has been done. the experiences of those courts that do have cameras in the court -- i'm only talking about appellate court. right now let's talk about the highest court in the jurisdiction. that's all i'm talking about.

i'm not talking about o.j. simpson. let's leave it aside. that's a huge different set of issues. we're talking about the highest court now in the land. in the 20 years of the canadian supreme court has had oral arguments. there's been one issue of grand stranding. that happens more in the united states supreme court, i would think, than one ere twenty years. leave it aside. in the colloquy with justice gins burg how did you hajtdz that? we told the law to sit down. you can maintain the quorum in the court. i think advocates will tell you -- the advocates who are here said

you don't win any point by being a grand stander. and the justice -- there's granding that goes on. i have arguments in supreme courts where there are cameras. they are utterly unon obtrusive. and you are, in fact, when i argued controversially the same-sex marriage case in the california supreme court i'm arguing the case. there's bedlam outside. but there is it's pointed to where the camera is. it's the briefing of counsel. that two and a half argument on the california supreme court, there was absolutely no -- there were no histrionic. there's nothing other than the government working in a very effective way.

and so when you look at what the state supreme court experience included in my native state of texas where i'm privileged to be back, the state of texas -- the texas supreme court would be characteristickize by a lot of folks around the country. certainly texas is quote a conservative court. but the chief justice wallace jefferson rodely, unanimously with his colleagues said it is time for us move in the 21st century. there's live telecasting. i spoke with a justice just yesterday the costs are modest

to none and the benefits are lee gone and powerful. it's time for that that -- tradition to come to an end. >> chief justice roberts has said oral argument thes are not for education. they are for us. meaning the justices. >> i guess that would be his response. >> it should be close to the public. >> right. i've had 10 years of experience in the courtroom at the highest level of supreme court in ohio. i have to concur that grand standing is nonexistence as a response to having camera in the courtroom. they are so unobtrusive i think the litigant and the public that enters to our courtroom don't even realize that they are being

filmed. i have to say we have more than 200 seats in our courtroom for the public to come in and be able to observe. they don't need a ticket. just, you know, come in at times we've had standing room only. at times we've had overflow rooms that because of technology we have been able to accommodate those that show up and want to listen to one of our oral arguments or more. and do so with ease at very little inconvenience to anyone involved. and i understand as judge starr mentioned. there's a difference of opinion on whether or not there should be cameras in the courtroom. but i have to say it i have seen cameras in the courtroom for the united states supreme court. i respectfully disagree with their posture and position on this. why is this important? one of the reasons important because the public cares. the public wants to see cameras. they want to see what is happening in our courtrooms as they want to see what the

transparency will provide with every branch of our government. that's extremely critical. you know, the public receives information now in a they is totally transformed and morphed in to instay contain use communication. that's a good thing, i believe, in many, many respects. the downside of that, you know, can be dealt with. there's no downside to having that exposure to the oral arguments conducted. in fact, all 50 state supreme court allow for cameras in the courtroom. there are certain restrictions in about 14 states with regard to access to the trial courts and there's a distinction in some -- access in civil cases and access in criminal cases. but again, that is a state-by-state determination to be made by the judiciary and overall what we're addressing here is the access to the united

states supreme court. think back in the last year we've had monumental cases of tremendous public import being decided by the united states supreme court. we had the affordable care act. how many people in this country will be impacted by that decision? we then fast forward to march this year impact the quality of life for so many of our citizens. yet what are we able to view with regards to those arguments? the one in march, the only thing we can massive hulgd outside the supreme court waiting in line if they were fortunate enough to be able to secure a ticket to be one of the several hundred people that can go in. instead of seeing lawyering, you know, interaction with the justice and one another to pull

back the curtain so to speak and allow the american public to see a branch of government in operation deciding cases that will significantly impact the lives of our citizen and the future of our children in this country. and i think that alone is a reason to have that sort of exposure. you know, what is the flip side? what kind of exposure do we have the united states supreme court? we have no disrespect to the reporters and in the room -- but we have individuals filtering the information and often times they themselves have not been in the courtroom to observe what happened. the timeliness of the information, you know, is also -- i should say the staleness of the information is also important if get to the public. to me as a lawyer and a justice and a citizens of this country,

that's unacceptable access to a very important branch of our government. as i said, public expectations about how they require or acquire knowledge and understand the world has undergone a radical morph sis. we need to keep up with the times. all institutions especially government. there's about three reasons i'm going talk about briefly. one has been addressed. ha is the grand standing. as i said in the ten years we broadcast live our oral arguments in ohio and many significant cases in the courtroom we've never had -- well,ly say there's one instance where an attorney acknowledged they were on camera and turned around and said for the benefit of the audience, i would like to start by saying -- then our chief justice at the time said the only audience you should be concerned with is the seven members in front of you. and that put a quick tend that.

that was the only instance i can think of in our ten plus years of having oral arguments live. we had the benefit of having those arguments archived so they can be teaching tools. they are teaching tools for both the law school and litigants who will come before the court and want to learn how to improve their skills. it is an absolutely wonderful opportunity to do that. we have a process in the court, our court in ohio, where we archive the oral arguments but we also have all the brief online. so that the underpinning of the case, if you will, are assessable to the public when the opinions come out. they are available online as well. it's start to finish, you can -- we're totally transparent with our cases.

the our argue system the public won't understand. that's an elitist view, in my opinion. without camera the united supreme court is missing out on a huge opportunity to foster greater understanding of the judicial branch. let's help the public understand instead of keep them in the dark about the operations of the highest appellate court in the jurisdiction. our public is, you know, charged with the responsibility of electing public officials. charactered with the responsibility of following the law. charged with the responsibility of being good citizen. yet we hide from them the operation of our highest branch court in the judicial branch. it doesn't comport with the civic responsibility.

americans deserve the opportunity to witness the government in action and not be forced, as i said to the filter of need ya in order access their government. transparency is another -- get the strong impression that justices don't want to personally be that assistance parent sincerity that recognizable. that have that kind of celebrity maybe attached to their persona and what they do. and i say that the american public has a right to know who their justs are and be able to recognizes their justice as they do their city council members, their mayors, their governors, the united states senators, their congress people, and the state legislators as well as the governors. we are all public servants. first and foremost. whether you are chief justice of the supreme supreme court, chief

justice of the ohio supreme court or a member of the legislative or executive branch. we are in place. we are holding these honored positions for no reason other than to serve the public. we are institutions that are serving the public. we should be transparent to the public. i feel strongly about doing that. i think that the more transparency our government has. the greater the opportunity we have for sunsing and hopefully accommodation and acceptance. with are a diverse nation. recent washington activity emphasized that. the decisions that come from the supreme court are dealing with cases and topics that a are so polarizing. if we continue to have the israeli of secrecy about how the judiciary does their job, and the exposure of actual

underpinnings of these decisions, i think that it does not bode well for the level of confidence our public should have in the working for our judicial branch of government. i'm very much in favor of having cameras. i think the arguments are more heavily weighted in the direction of putting cameras in the courtroom. having exposure and seability than continuing the 19th century mode of how we dispense just nice this country. thank you. >> i think i'm going situate my remarks in between tony and the judge. let me say it's my first time

appearing on a panel with judge starr since i was at the -- i learned how great a job you did. and maybe the public should learn more about that too. in any event. let me start by saying the supreme court. there's something majestic to celebrate about it. every time i argue a case or watch a case, i felt like it's a temple of truth. you are seeing nine of our smartest people top lawyers, top jurors arguing with one not a reasoned, powerful way. it is truly awe inspiring to watch. it's true not just in the oral argument but the decisions as well when which are more transparent than the other branches. whenever they make decision. they write down the republican. they argue with one another veemently on footnote 42

responding to footnote 19 in the other. you already have already a sense of transparency in the supreme court that you don't actually have in the other branches. i remember my last day at the justice department is the day the arizona campaign finance case was being handed down. the chief justice -- striking down the arizona campaign finance scheme. justin kagen writing the major dissent as a justive. giving the powerful answer to the chief terrific opinion. this back and forth among them was just so wonderful to watch. particularly in anker ya the branches don't work quite as well. we a shut down in congress for 16 days.

have never gone above 40%. the supreme court's approval rating by contrast have never gone below 40%. that lead some to think the solutionlet order the supreme court to have camera in the courtroom. i can't people to tell the justices what to do. i take it they believe their situation is different than the state supreme court. either because the cases that come before them or frankly their own personalities. for that reason they raise some concern. not some of the grand standing of the litigant. i think they are concerned that some of them will play to the

crowd instead of trying to further that temple for friewt. may be an id owe sin karattic -- on the current personality and everyone saying look we're worried about this. the system is working pretty well. one thing i can tell you i know something about is litigating before the court. and, you know, i stood up in the 18th argument last week. i tell you it's a nerve wracking experience. i remember when i did my first argument which was a big one and the court anuanced they'll have audio released right after the argument right as it concluded i was arguing my case against the solicitor general i had done 35 cases. it was the first. i was worried all my friends, my enemies, everyone is going listen to it and, you know, it will be played on john stewart and this and that. that is something to worry about. it's true even for experience

advocate. you get nervous when you're up there. the idea you have televised every fumble i think is going impact it. does that mean we shouldn't have camera? i don't think so if i could wave my withstand and convince them to do so the unbelievable cost from the benefit from civic education perspective are there. they're tremendous. undenial. with these nine they might come a different conclusion. my final thing to say is the good news is here i think the generational and i think that it is an inevidentble that cameras will be in the supreme court. that is my generation. we used to have cameras all the time. we use phones that have cameras and cameras everywhere taking picture and the rise of google glass. we'll always be on camera.

so, you know, i share the chief justice's view that the court should keep up with the times. i think that is invariably going happen. t a question of the permit on the court and who is comfortable and who is not. >> having watched you argue in the supreme court, i don't you have to worry about your fumble. i can't remember any. >> in the area of broadcast coverage, this is one place the court has actually backtracked. the court did start to release audio recordings within an hour or so after it ended. in the term to followed the court continued to do something release it for the high profile case of the term and putting it out shortly after the arguments. over that same data. two years ago there was a

change. you've heard a little -- receipt me go to a little more details. the court stopped doing that. from then on it would not put itself in the position. deciding which were enough and post the audio of each week's argument on friday which allowed the court to say it was increasing public access to the court at the same time as tony pointed out, it drained them of any news value. it has kept that policy with a few exceptions. one was the argument over obamacare and the last over the voting rights act. that ought to give you some idea how the current justice feel about allowing television coverage. it's not going happen any time soon even though there's a trial policy. many of the courts now regularly

post the audio of their argument sessions. here in washington you can go on the court aof appeal website for the district of columbia and hear the oral argument audio from the week's cases. some have said they worry about sound byte of oral argument would be taken out of context and could be misleading. others have said that if the supreme court accept camera it will force the lower courts to accepting them too. others have said they're weary about any changes at all in the institution because they simply don't know how they affect the supreme court's functioning. you talk about a possible generational shift. we watched with interest justice society sotomayor talk about if. she volunteered as judge to allow camera in her courtroom and experience were positive.

she might express the view to her colleagues and the internal discussions if the subject came up. she appears to have change her mind. there's little doubt allowing public access would deepen understanding of the court. i say the same thing. there's no doubt that c-span could televise the arguments in their entire tie. they would be available on the internet and the other cable networks would obviously show if not the whole thing extended excerpts. justice scheeg ya is the most outspoken. he said if it was allowed most people would never watch the entire one-hour argument and instead rely on what he calls snippets on the evening news. i can tell you that is undoubtly true. but it's hard to see it's a reason to keep them out of the court.

after all report on oral argument that appeared the next morning. they are going have snippets too. it's quotation. that's the i equivalent lent of a snippet. the newspapers and the ap sell seldom run the entire transcript of an oral argument. thank you very much. thank you. [laughter] the slid owe clip broadcast on the news program would be more vivid that is to say more faithful toot original of what was said in the court. perhaps that why they object. we've long grown accustom to what they call snippet. the video vocabulary, if you will. they started appearing a century

ago. we have seen them for decades in television coverage of presidential speeches and news conference and congressional debate. viewers understand what a snippet is just as they understand what a quotation is in a newspaper. justice breyer talked about it earlier this year. ly said that he has become convinced it might influence not the lawyers from grabbed standing by the way member of the court including myself might conduct themselves during oral argument.

what you're trying to do because they don't believe in the side they think you're coming from. the next day you'll watch a lot more carefully what you say. that is what is worrying me. i used to think the main reason they oppose it was implied chief justice they didn't want to be hassle in the line of starbucks. now i think they fear being made fun of by john stewart on the daily show. >> well, i agree with everything that has been said, but i'll an realist. how about radio? how about radio starting with a decision they read from the bench which can't possibly involve an element of grand standing since they prepared what they're going say in advance. it would also enable people to city in their offices and not

have to trudge to the supreme court when the decisions are coming down. if not today tomorrow or the next day. they already have audio it goes to the lawyer's lounge. they have to hook it up either the internet or a radio stays. there we've got it. then having tried that they could hear it the same way. second, let me talk about recusal. let me name a suggestion not they pass law requiring at the same times of reasons although i would support that. i suggest rather something simple. i suggest what we used to call at camp a buddy system. when somebody has suggested they recuse. you have a parter in. feet and i would be together. years old agree with me that

every time suggests you have a rei cue sal you talk to me before you tell anybody what your answer is and i promise to do the same to you. it would be better if you were on other sides there would be no strategy about step off the case so we request a 4-4 tie. i think if the justice did that. there was more feeling it was not an individual decision. it was clengtively made and the idea of talking to someone you respect and have to work with every day, i think would a lev eting influence on the issue of i are cue on a different subject, i have been very troubled in the last couple of months about the talk of justice ginsburg stepping aside and doing it for the good of the country. and all of the people who think that maybe the democrats won't

control the presidency; therefore, keep to majority or keep the votes the way they are. i think her own business and proport to tell her what to do or not to do. i think it's quite unseemingly we're having the discussion. the reason we're having the discussion justices have leaf tenure. they can stay as long as they want. we know that the practices is one with few exeengs of strategic technology. can set up a system for having term limit for supreme court justices and enacted by statute under which they would have 18-year term staggered two-year term so every president would get two appointee and there would be no strategic

retirements. the justices would become senior justices, they would be paid in full and, by the way, you would have a supreme court justice ready to sit in and step in for them. >> thanks. for those who haven't been in the the court. when the court has a decision whoever wrote the majority opinion summarizes it. we asked why can't we get the audio of that? as you know, if you have heard it, it's usually pretty good. and sometimes quite vivid alive, pretty juicy. and what we've been told i'm struggling here to describe how we've been told. by authorityive member of the court is -- [laughter] it ain't going happen for this reason. what they say is when there's a discussion published opinion of the court they've seen that.

they go back and forth. they know what it's going to say. it it there's a 6-3 decision the other five justices don't really know how the writer of the majority opinion is going summarize it. sometimes members the court sit there and listen they say to themselves, wait a minute, that's not what i signed on to. [laughter] so what we've been told is that's not going to happen simply because it would require too much comedy on the court for them to missage that and agree to it and, you know, complicate thicks. a little further insight. >> just to be clear. you don't have to trudge up to the supreme court every day to find out whether the case has been decided and particularly in the modern era literally the written opinion comes on the moment it's being handed down. so, you know, -- except the health care case an hour and a half later, i think.

[laughter] >> in general, that's how it happens. >> all right. alan mentioned the recusal issue. i wanted to get your experience chief justice o'connor in ohio, maybe if you had some thought on recusal and either the buddy system or announcing reasons or not announcing reasons for recusal. >> i was interested in what you said about the buddy system. it's the first time heard it be mentioned as a potential way to deal with it or an idea. in ohio, on the supreme court asked to recuse stands aside -- each justice for themselves whether or not they will recuse, and just put a written statement on the docket i recuse or after, you know, consideration, i have

decided not to recuse from the case. that's all there is to it. there's no explanation or reason given one way or the other. there's a movement having a model rule for recusal of the judiciary and there it's a work in progress the conference of chief justice, which i'm a member is involved in a process of examining take a look at that. it's a work in progress. what was put out originally by the aba two proposal, two resolutions. neither was acceptable to the conference of chief justices. so we are working on that. we have 50 different

jurisdictions in this country. and i am each state operates a little bit differently for the judiciary. obviously some justices are elected. some are appointed. they are appointed for different terms. some are have retention elections. some have appointment until age 70. you don't have to get off the bench until 90 in vermont. so there's a dpircht variety. i'm he tasht with the one-size-fit-all type of a role. that's what we're examining in conjunction with some people who are not justices. members from the academic community as well as lower courts trying to decide what would be the dial model rule to put out there to preserve the individuality and be realistic with the various system in place for the employment of the judiciary in all 50 states.

.. >>