the difference between the senate and house bills. farnlers and families across the country deserve stability. as ranking member of the house subcommittee, i am verier in voice about the house bill. not only does it cut the snap to the tup of nearly $40 billion. it also only offers three years. the house bill ends the ability of states to three months of benefits within a three-year

period. for americans without a job. we all know snap benefits will automatically get recuduz. costing needy families as much as $300 per year, according to the cbo. snap is the first line of defense for the most numb verble among us. and helpsen sure millions of americans have access to food. @fact that the house even plo poedsd and padded the bill is beyond ne. we do not u tourn our barks on frarnlers seeking help with crop ever insurance. according to the environmental working group, taxpayers subsidize 62%. some subsidies can be as much as 100% of the cost of the most basic coverage lefrl. crop ininsurance is the own

support program not subject to some sort of means testing. le reduces the level with an adjusted gross income of over 7250 shl $750,000. the inclusion of central state university as an 1890 labd grant institution and the ability of schools to serve more fresh foots and vegetables. resolving this issue and others will not be an easy task. >> the gentle lady recognized from south dakota. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate all of my colleagues being here today. it's been years that we've been working on this farm bill.

i'm certainly thrilled to be at the table today. in south side 1d. >> they didn't have time to take shelter. it was 17 hours of rain followed by freezing rivers. they piled on top of each other and smothered. that's why we have livestock disaster programs. they have no safety net. and they are struggling today to stay in business. i talked with the owner of rain wow bible camp. he read me a letter that he got

from a little girl that comes to the camp every year. she's nine years old. and a part of what she wrote was i heard about all the animals that you lost and i'm very sad. i hope we can have camp next summer. a miracle is coming. i can feel it. i will be praying. well, folks, today, i think that this farm bill will be a part of that miracle. it may keep them in business and it may help this little girl go to camp election summer. she sent him 28.39 clars made up of mostly change and a few bills. that truly is what it is about. the livestock disaster provisions that i offered in the house bill would cover a porgsz of those losses and help some of

those ranchers get back on their feet. it's acountable to taxpayers, it gives some savings and also ensures that we have some conservation methods, as well. we need to make sure that it works for all producers, though. i'm kvt. wi need to make sure that we have a food stamp program that's responsible but helps those who need it. we should adopt the much-needed regulatory relief that we included in our house passed bill.

i also want to talk about the critical sub hitle. it applies some common sense that we face in our forests tloult the west. it's painfully obvious that when you look at our forests, they're turning into a tinderbox. it's an emergency situation and people's lives are at stake. we need to go in there and adretsz the issue. the approach in the house bill is reasonable. it's ness and will give us tools to manage our forests the way we've done years ago. i'm hopeful to find a solution that works effectively for a national forest. what we should strive foris that we'll work for our nation as a whole. we all have concerns with certain aspects of the bill. i'm sure it's not going to end town be exactly what we write on our own. i'm sure we can come together and bring a safety net of ag

klture to this country. i look forward to working with all of my colleagues and we're going to get this thing done. >> . >> thank you, mr. chairman, it's an an who to be part of this conference committee as well as a farmer representing california central valley. the largest ag state in the nation, 81,000 farms, 400 different commodities: california grows half the country's fruts, nuts and vegetables. we just want a fair shake. we want to have prioritization of research and development dollars. we want to have trade promotion programs that don't allow our different industries to be devastated. these are simple things that can with rectified within the farm bill that keeps not only california's ag economy

competitive, but kids are national ag economy competitive on the global market. and, as somebody who served in the state senate and was chair of the ag committee in the state senate, i believe in state's rights. states have the rights to develop their own ag laws. we must protect those rights and make sure its own agricultural protection laws are protected in section 11/3/12. the nutrition program is also an important piece. making sure that our kids have the heltiest lunch possible. making sure that the fruits they dpet are an important part -- it

should be based on nutrition for our kids. that's something i'm looking forward to seeing work on this bill as well. let's get people wac to work. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, chairman lucas. i'd like to take a quick moment to wish a belated happy birthday to our colleague, marcia bunch. the district i represent has part of lincoln's presidential suute. president lincoln did a lot. in fact, in the span of three

months, abraham lincoln signed into law to create the department of agriculture, the land grant university system and the homestead act. now, if our predecessors can do all of that in three months, we augu ought to be able to take october, november and december and pass this bill. crop insurance. i come to this table adds a staunch defender. earlier this year, just two floors above us, the secretary testified that crop ininsurance is working. this is a crucial risk management tool that requires our farmers to purchase a policy and experience a verifiable loss before collecting a dime. that's called having skin in the ganl. and it's far preferable than tens of billions of dollars woth of ad hoc disaster bills. we should be encouraging

participation in this program. and i support the house provisions that strengthen this vital safetiness. rig la toir relief. i introduced an amendment that gives our farmers a place at the table when epa is considering regulations that impact agriculture. this provision would also require an economic impact statement and trigger a review panel where farmer recommendations would be considered. this is an effort i work closely with chairman lucas and ranking-member peterson on. with respect to nutrition programs, the house and the stat have adpreeed that there are reforms we can make here. we are told that unemployment is going down. yet, we continue to have a record number of americans using snap. by addressing the loophole, which both havedone,

instituting stronger requirements, i think there's a lot here worth examining. on a separate track, dealing with the foot served at our schools, schools in my district want the flexibility to serve what their students will eat. finally, both chambers are recognizing the importance of reauthorizing university research programs. i represent an outstanding land grant institution in the university of illinois. i thank chairman lucas for supporting the colors on his tie today at this hearing. the research they're pursued through the agricultural and food research initiative within the national institute for food and ag is an important initiative i've supported. as one of the only freshmen on this conference committee, it's an honor to be at this table with a group of folks who want to get this bill done. i came here to work and ip hopefully we can continue the momentum of the bill and the veterans bills the house passed

this week. our farmers rule america and all of america are counting back. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the gem from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank you, ranking members, thank you so much for convening this conference committee on the 2013 farm bill. i'd also to convey my appreciation on each member around this table and the hard work that you have put in over the last several years. the agriculture industry forms the backbone of the stressful rural counties of florida second congressional district. your shared commitment to advancing sound, agriculture policy is greatly appreciated by my people. in particular, chairman lucas, i want to thank you for your friendship and leadership in the house. i've said to many people you deserve a purple heart for getting us to this point and i thank you for your patience and

hard work. i'm honored to participate in this process, both as a former member of the house ag committee and the only member of this conference committee from the state of florida, the second largest specialty crop producing state in america. this farm bill represents a critical step forward for our farmers, growers, and ranchers. i look forward to doing all that i can do to help restore the certainty that they deserve. the federal agriculture reform and risk management act of 2013 makes meaningful reforms to strengthen our rural communities. it provides greater risk management tools, sustains our working forests. includes market-based dairy policies, specialty crops tools, and vital regulatory reforms. all while streamlining federal agricultural programs for hard-working rural families. i'm also pleased the house-approved bill includes two provisions that i helped craft

and sustain the economies of our rural communities. the bye partisan rural communities act ensures that small rural areas have access to the technical assistance and training necessary to enhance local infrastructure, all at no additional cost to america's taxpayers. another provision that we fostered with sub committee chairman thompson would ensure that wood products qualify under the usda's bio-based marketing program. furthermore, the nutrition reform and work opportunity act of 2013 makes common-sense reforms to the supplemental nutrition assistance program, ensuring that the truly vulnerable families receive the report they need in more efficient and effective manner. by advancing the value and the blessing of work for healthy, able-bodied adults, this legislation follows the proven bye partisan path for success

laid out by the democratic president and republican congress during the welfare reform of the 1990s. i look forward to working constructively with colleagues from both chambers and both sides of the aisle on the farm bill conference report that empowers our agricultural stakeholders and families who are vulnerable and who need this bill. i appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this important process. and look forward to sustaining and strengthening agricultural production in america. mr. chairman, thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. >> thank you, chairman. madam chair, and ranking members. first, chairman, i asked unanimous consent that mr. royce, the chairman of the affairs committee who was unavoidably called away, have his opening statements submitted for the record. >> seeing no objection, so

ordered. >> thank you. hard-working people in my district and across the country work each and every day to provide food for those around the world. in return, they make a simple request to us in congress. certainty. i live in the middle of five farms, beef, dairy, hog, poultry, sheep and goat. and in addition to various crops and also my state of pennsylvania, agriculture is its number one industry. farmers want certainty for their crop prices, certainty from oppressive rules and regulations and certainty that lawmakers will not use them as tools for political gain. crop insurance, for example, gives farmers the certainty in the aftermath of a natural disaster, just as farmers in my district experienced last year with hurricane irene. last week i learned from from ano foods, a local family-owned

business back home, is being forced to lay off 18 employees because the slow economy was too much for the company to bear with the strain already felt from irene's aftermath. it's a staple of northeastern pennsylvania. they have been canning tomatoes, beans, and vegetables since 1921 and employ over 200 people. [ inaudible ] -- amongst the chaos. in addition to certainty for farmers, we must also do what it right. fiskally and fo allally and mor. eliminating waste, fraud and redundancies to save taxpayer dollars. it also means taking steps to further deter the negative

culture and effects of illegal animal fighting which can be done through a provision i worked with my colleague across the aisle. the animal fighting spectator probation act which i reintroduced would eliminate the ability for the organizers of the animal fights to pretend to be spectators in order to avoid prosecution under federal law. it would also make it a crime to knowingly take a minor to an illegal animal fight. i am pleased that both the house and the senate have included similar language in their versions of the farm bill. as a former prosecutor, i know the illegal drug and weapons deals that take place at animal fights and how they are often hot spots for other criminal activity such as prostitution. just last week, two men in miami-dade were murdered while participating in an illegal

cockfight. it is time we stand up against the cruelty of animal fighting and help protect the animals and the people harmed by these fights, by including the senate language against animal fighting in the final conference report. i thank you and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. for a couple of housekeeping elements, i would ask unanimous consent for the use of proxies on the part of the house during this conference. seeing no objections, so ordered. and note that i have in the remaining order the gentleman from new york, the gentleman from michigan, and the gentleman from texas. the gentleman from new york, mr. engel is recognized. >> thank you very much, chairman and chairman lucas and chairwoman saf now, ranking member peterson and cochran for calling this conference meeting. i also would like to thank leeta pelosi for naming he as a conferree. i know members have worked hard on these bills and i feel

privileged to be a part of this process. as all of you know, the affairs committee has jurisdiction over title 3 of the bills before us which include food aid and export measures. i'll focus most of my remarks on food aid reform, but i want to mention that flork is the third largest dairy state and i am the only new yorker on this conference. i also wanted to address several other areas of concern to the bills that directly affect my congressional district and the state of new york, specifically, i strongly oppose the cuts to snap when so many americans are still recovering from the effects of the worst recession in generations. i urge my colleagues to reject the cuts in the house bill, which would disproportionately impact the ability of elderly, children, and those less fortunate to feed themselves. i hope we can work these issues in a way that doesn't hurt people who are in desperate need of help. i would urge the committee to include strong conservation and animal welfare provision in the final conference report. i believe the conference should

maintain our current sugar policy which will help protect american jobs. as the ranking member of the house affairs committee, i'm frequently reminded that our system for delivering food aid abroad is an outdated vestige of the 1950s. chairman royce agrees with me. it takes far too long to get food aid to starving people, wastes tens of millions of taxpayers dollars and harms agriculture markets in the countries we're trying to help. we need to find a better way to distribute aid. the provision in title 3 of the senate bill are modest, common-sense reforms that will help the u.s. save more lives with our overseas food assistance while ending inefficient practices that waste u.s. taxpayer dollars. while i support all of the food aid reforms, included in the senate bill, i'm particularly supportive of section 3008, which would increase flexibility in choosing between cash-based resources or commodities.

thereby reducing the reliance on the wasteful practice of montiesation. specifically this provision would allow our food aid programs to include up to 20% cash funding which would allow the use toies the most appropriate tools to respond to emergencies, including local and regional procurement, cash transfers, vouchers and agricultural commodities. i would note the 20% cash flexibility provision in the senate bill is now within the 45% language included in the amendment chairman royce and i offered to the house foreign bill on this subject which received unprecedented support from our colleagues and almost a majority. as we face food insecurity crisis in syria, somalia, and the drc, u.s. aid is charged with the task of deciding who won't get the food aid they need because they've maxed out their ability to purchase food locally. the bottom line is these artificial restrictions on our ability to respond to

humanitarian emergencies must be reforms to make the program flexible and efficient. i thank the chairs and my colleagues, representative ed race and tom marino for their effort in the affairs committee and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, congressman lever. >> thank you so much. in looking about, i so admire with everybody else, the tenacity of especially the four of you. tenacity is an understatement. senator staff gnaw and cohen peterson, i have talked often about how long this has taken. and i think this provides a rare, to date, rare bipartisan opportunity. the provisions within our domain on upland, cotton and sugar

program, we leave to your good judgement. as long as you maintain the necessary provisions that we're obliged to under our international responsibilities. so if i might, i just want to take a minute to speak more personally. our family owns some agriculturalacreage. there's some apple trees that are always filled with worms. we have a raspberry patch that went bad and picked a few asparagus that they call in this agricultural area, as spear grass. so i'm not an expert, to put it mildly. i do want to say something, though, personally about snap.

there are 48,000 people in our district who rely on nutrition assistance. when i have talked to teachers and these are in suburban school districts. in many cases they have a jar in their classroom filled with food because children come to school hungry. one of the large food banks is in the district i represent. and 17% of the population, they serve face food insecurity. 70% of them do not utilize snap. so there is a severe nutrition challenge to millions of families in this country.

as you all know, the average amount available is 450 a day. that's the average. and with some other colleagues in the house, i took the challenge and lived on the $4.50 a day for a week. and i just urge that everybody put themselves in the shoes of these families. and i finish with this, i remember going to a pantry in a parish that i represent and talking to the families there, and these are families in need. thank you for hearing me. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes, i believe, for the concluding comments, the gentleman from texas, mr. eli. >> thank you. you'll be happy to know i've cut

it real short. [ laughter ] good afternoon. i appreciate the leadership that chairman lucas and ranking member peterson have shown throughout this process. i look forward to working with chairwoman staff gnaw, ranking member cochran and all the other members of this committee to produce a sensitive and comprehensive farm bill. i represent a district that includes about 140 miles of the south texas gulf coast and virtually all of the keen ranch except for the part that's in florida. my district has significant cotton, sugar, citrus, grain, and live stock interests. on the house side, we approached the farm bill with an understanding that each of these commodities have their own particular variables and took an approach that addressed those differences. farmsers who are currently planting, need the certainty of a reauthorized farm bill so they can plan accordingly. we must come to a reasonable agreement on title 4 cuts upon my district has one of the

highest number of snap recipients in the nation. mostly elderly young and we cannot allow a chopping block approach to snap to deprive people of very basic human sustenance. i look forward to working with everyone in getting a farm bill reauthorized for the next five years. >> gentleman yields back. conferrees have before them copies of house bill hr 2642 and the senate amendment. the legal language comparisons and the section by section comparisons. does the -- as we're about to conclude our business today, does the chairwoman have any concluding comments? >> well, mr. chairman, i just want to thank you again and thank all of our members. i think we're off to a great start. it's very clear to me that everyone wants to work together and get this done, and so we will. so i look forward to continuing and completing this process.

>> chairman recognizes himself. i think the chairwoman is exactly right. we've come a long way down a very difficult path. we still have challenges to overcome. but we can, and we will. and with that, this meeting of the conference committee is adjourned, subject to the call of the chair. [ background chatter ]

>> we have the oral arguments. we have those archived and then when our opinions come out, those of course are available online as well. so it's from soup to nuts, start to finish, we are totally transparent with our cases. the second argument that property by members of the

supreme court is the public is won't understand what they're watching. they won't understand the process. to me that someone an elitist view of our operation as judges and justices. without cameras the united states supreme court is missing out on a huge opportunity to foster greater public understanding of our judicial branch. let's help the public understand instead of keep them in the dark about the operation of the highest appellate court in the jurisdiction. our public is charged with the responsibility of electing public officials, charged with responsibility for following the law, charged with the responsibility of being good citizens, and yet we hide from them the operation of our highest branch, one -- the highest court or judicial branch and that does not comport with their civic responsibilities.

americans deserve the opportunity to witness our government in action and not be forced to use the filter of media in order to access their government. transparency is another -- and i get the strong impression that the justices don't want to personally be that transparent, that recognizable, have that kind of celebrity may be attached to their persona and what they do. and i say that the american public has the right to know who their justices are and be able to recognize their justices just as they do their city counsel members, their mayors, their governors, they are united states senators, their congress people and their state legislators as well as their governors. we are all public servants, first and foremost with your chief justice of the united states supreme court, chief justice of the ohio supreme

court, or a member of our legislative branch or executive branch. we are in place. we're holding these on their positions for no reason other than to serve the public. we are an institution that serves the public and we should be transparent to the public and i feel very, very strongly about doing that. i think the more transparency our government has, the greater the opportunity we have for understanding and hopefully accommodation and acceptance. because we are a diverse nation. there are no two ways about that. recent washington activity has emphasized that. the decisions that come from the supreme court our dealing with cases and topics that are so polarizing that if we continue to have this veil of secrecy about how the judiciary does their job and the exposure of the actual underpinnings of

these decisions, i think that it does not bode well for the level of confidence that our public should have in the workings of our branch, our judicial branch of government. i am very much in favor of having cameras, and i think that the arguments are much more heavily weighted in the direction of putting cameras in the courtroom, having exposure and accessibility than continuing the 19th century mode of how we dispense justice in this country. thank you. >> neal. >> i think i will situate my remarks in between tony and judge starr's. tony's list of grievances about the court, and judge stars claim fedecamaras and more coverage is the right way to go. let me just say this is my first time a bearing on a panel with

judge starr since i left the solicitor general's office. it was a real privilege because when i was there i learned just how great a job he did. maybe the public should learn more about that. but in any event, let me start by saying i think the supreme court, there is something really majestic to celebrate about this. every time i go in there to argue a case or watch a case i feel like it's a temple of truth and you are saying nine of our smartest people, top lawyers, top jurists arguing with one another in a recent, powerful way. and it is truly awe-inspiring to watch. that's true not just in the oral arguments but in the written decisions as well which, of course, are more transparent than the other branches. whenever they make a decision they are writing down the reasons for it, arguing with one another via medley down to the point of footnote 42, one opinion responding to footnote

19 and the other. so you have already a sense of transparency in the supreme court that you don't actually have any other branches. i remember my last days in the justice department, the campaign cases had down in the chief justice began his opinion striking down the arizona campaign finance scheme. and then justice kagan, writing her first big, major dissent as a justice, giving her powerful answer to the chiefs terrific opinion, and this back and forth among them was just so wonderful to watch. and i share that sentiment of the pill but i wish that more americans could see it. it's a pity that americans don't get to see it. particularly in an era when the other branches don't work quite as well. we vetted shut down in congress for 16 days. we have very little of the reasons the liberation that we see in the supreme court happening in congress, at least

visibly. and boy, they have something really to teach us. it is surprising that congress' approval ratings since 2005 have never gone above 40% supreme court's approval ratings by contrast have never gone below 40%. so that leads some to think, well, the solution is let's order the supreme court have cameras in the courtroom. i guess i would issue a cautionary note about that. i at least can't presume to tell the justices what to do. i take it that they believe that their situation is different than the state's supreme court experience, either because of the kind of cases that come before them or frankly just their own personalities. and for that reason they have raised some concerns and the concerns i don't think are just about the grandstanding of the litigants variety, i think they generally are concerned that some of them will play to the

crowd instead of trying to further the temple for truth. that may be an idiosyncratic decisions just about the current people on the court and the current personalities, and everyone is saying look, we are really worried about this. the system is working pretty well, maybe we shouldn't change it. the one thing i can tell you i know something about is litigating before the court. i stood up and gave my 18th argument last week. i tell you, it's a pretty nerve-racking experience. i remember when i did my first argument, which was a very big one, and the court announced they were going to have audio released right after the argument, literally as the argument concluded, i was arguing my case against the solicitor general went on 35 cases, it was my first, i was worried that my friends, my enemies, everyone would listen to that and every stumble and it would be played on jon stewart and this and that. [laughter] you know, that is something to worry about. it's true even for experienced advocates that you get nervous

when you're up there. the idea you're going to have televised every foible and fumble i do think is going to impact things. does that mean we shouldn't have cameras? i don't think so. if i could wave my wand and convince them to do so, the unbelievable cause from a civic education perspective, benefits, are there. they are tremendous. they are undeniable. but with these nine they might come to a different conclusion. semi-final thing to say is the good news here is i do think this is generational, and i think it is inevitable fedecamaras will be in the supreme court. that is my generation, we're used to having cameras all the time. the default is we're being recorded. we are using phones that have cameras and cameras everywhere taking pictures of us, and with the rise of google glass, we will always be on camera. so the supreme court will look extremely idiosyncratic to be the one place in which it's a camera freeze him.

so i shut the chief justice's view that the court should give up with the times. i think that's and bravely going to happen and it's a question of the person i was on the court and who is comfortable and who is not. >> having watched you argue on the supreme court i don't think you have to worry about her foibles being broadcast on television. i can't remember any. this is one place where the court has backtracked, or to use judge starr term, our request have read -- begin with historic cases in 2000 s. of the presidential election between george bush and al gore, the court did start to release audio recordings of the oral arguments within an hour or so after the argument ended. in the terms that followed the court continued to do something similar with the audio releasing it with a high profile cases of the term and putting it up shortly after the arguments were over that same day. within two years ago there was a change. you've heard a little but let me

go into more detail. the court to stop doing that and it said from then on it would not put itself in a position of deciding which were high profile cases, which were enough to merit the treatment. so it would post the audit of each week's argument on the court website on friday, which allow the court to say that it was actually increasing public access to the court at the same time as tony pointed out it drains them of any news about the. it is kept that policy with just a few exceptions. one was the arguments over obamacare and the other was the voting rights act. that should give you some idea how the current justices feel about allowing television coverage. it's quite clear it's not going to happen anytime soon even though there is a pilot project on civil trials in the federal district courts. they're not going to change the audio policy either even though many of the federal appellate courts now regularly post the audio of their argument sessions. for example, in washington you can go on the court of appeals

website and the district of columbia and you can hear the oral argument audio from that week's cases. some of the current justices have said they were that soundbites of oral arguments would be taken out of context and could be misleading. and other justices have said that if the supreme court accepts cameras, then that will force the lower courts to accept them. others have said they are wary about any changes at all in the institution because they simply don't know how cameras would affect the supreme court's function. you talk about a possible generational shift. we watched with interest justice sotomayor talk about this issue during her confirmation hearing, and she sounded very favorably inclined. she said she had volunteered as a judge to allow cameras into courtrooms for pilot projects, and she said the experiences were positive. she suggested if she were confirmed she might express that

view to our colleagues in their internal discussions in this subject came up. she appears to change her mind. [laughter] there is little doubt that allowing public access to oral arguments what i think deepen understanding of the court and i say the same thing during several cases each turn. if this argument is passing i wish people could see for themselves and there's no doubt that c-span -- hello, c-span -- were televised the argument in their entirety. it would be available on the internet and other cable networks would show if not the whole thing, extended excerpts. just a scosh is the most outspoken about tv coverage. he says if it was allowed most people would never watch the entire one hour argument and would instead relied on what he called snippets on the evening news. as a snippet meister myself, i can tell you that's undoubtedly true. but it's hard to see how that is a reason to keep cameras out of the court. after all, reports on the oral arguments that appeared the next

morning in the newspaper by robert barnes of the "washington post" or richard wolffe from "usa today," they are just going to snippets, too. that is quotations -- that's the print equivalent of a snippet. their newspapers and the ap sell them, run the entire transcript of an oral argument. thank you very much, thank you. [laughter] the video clips that would be broadcast on the news programs would actually be more vivid. that is to say, more faithful to the original of what was said in the court. so perhaps that's what justice scalia objects but it does seem to me and on argument against cameras to say that the snippets on tape would be more truly representative of what happened during the oral argument and that's why we shouldn't allow them. we have long grown accustomed to what justice clear call to snippets. the video vocabulary if you will. they started appearing a century ago in the movie newsreels and we've seen them for decades in television coverage of

presidential speeches and news conferences and congressional debates. viewers understand what a snippet is just as they understand what a quotation is in the newspaper. justice breyer talked about television coverage earlier this year when he was testifying before a house committee on the course budget, and that this was very illuminating. he said he has become convinced that it might influence not the lawyers from grandstanding, but the way members of the court, including himself, might conduct themselves during oral argument. so permit me to quote a snippet of what he said in his testimony. is what he said. quote, it'll come to me and say, be careful, you think it won't affect your question. they say, the first time you see on prime time television somebody taking a picture of you and using it in a way that you think is completely unfair and mrs. reported in order to caricature what you're trying to

do, because they don't believe inside i think you're coming from, the next day you watch more carefully what you say. that's what's worrying me. so i used to think that the main reason the justices would oppose tv coverage was as you implied, chief justice, that they didn't want to be hassled in the line at starbucks. and now i think, i'm quite serious about this, that they fear being made fun of by jon stewart on "the daily show." >> well, i agree with everything that was said but i'm a realist incrementalist. so let me propose a high-tech solution. how about radio? and how about radio starting with the decisions that they read from the bench which can't possibly involve an element of grandstanding since the judges -- justices have prepared what they're going to say in advance. it would also enable people to sit in the opposite cannot have your trench up to the supreme

court when the decisions are coming down. if it doesn't come down today, tomorrow or the next day. they already have audio, instantaneous audio. it goes into the supreme court lawyers let's recall have to do is hook it up to either the internet or a radio station and there we've all got it. and then having tried that, they could go on to your every oral argument on the same way. second, let me talk about recusal. let me make a suggestion. not that the congress passed laws requiring statement of reasons, although i would support that, i suggest something rather simple. i suggest what we used to call at camp in the boy scouts a buddy system. and when someone has suggested that a justice recuse him or herself, that you have a partner. pete and i would be together, and you would agree with me that every time somebody suggested you have a recusal, you would be

recuse. you come talk to me before you tell anybody what your answer is, and i promise to the the same to you. it would be better if you were ideologically on other sites so there would be no strategy about, oh, please step off the skate so we get a tight. and i think that the justices did that, it would be a lot more appealing that this was not an individual decision, that was somehow collectively made and the idea of talking to someone you respect and have to work with everyday i think we have quite a leading influence on issue of recusal. third point i want to make is a different point than has been made before. on a different subject. i have been very troubled in the last couple of months about all this talk about justice ginsburg stepping aside, and she should do this for the good of the country. and that all of the people who think that maybe the democrats

won't control the presidency and, therefore, to keep the majority or keep the votes the way they are, she should step aside. i think what justice ginsburg does is our own business, and i wouldn't purport to tell her what to do or what not to do. i think it's quite unseemly we're having this discussion. but the reason we're having this discussion is that justices have life tenure. they could stay as long as they want, and we know that the practice is one with very few exceptions on strategic retirement. several years ago i was privileged to be one of the co-authors of the book by roger crampton and paul carrington which talked about and set up a system for tracking term limits for supreme court justices enacted by statute under which they would have 18 year terms, staggered two-year terms, so that every president would get to appointees and there would be no strategic retirement.

the justices would become senior justices. they would be paid in full. and by the way, if there were any recusal, there probably won't be very many, you would have a supreme court justice ready to sit in and step in for them. thank you. >> may i say one thing about the opinion down announce the. when the court has the decision, whoever wrote the majority opinion summarizes the decision to we've asked why can we get the audio of that lex because as you all know, it usually good and sometimes quite vivid, quite a live, pretty juicy. what we've been told, i'm struggling here to describe how we've been told, i'll simply say by authoritative members of the court -- [laughter] is that it ain't going to happen for this reason. what they say is when the decision, a published opinion of the court, they have seen that. i go back and forth. they all know what it's going to say. but if there's -- the other five

justices don't really know how the writer of the majority opinion is going to summarize it. sometimes members of the court have told us as they sit and listethereand listen to the annt being summarized they say to themselves, wait a minute, that's not what i signed on the. 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 sort of massage that an agreed with all and it would come to get things. so just a little further insight. >> just to be clear. you don't have to trudge up the supreme court every day to find out where the case has been decided and particularly in the modern era of scotusblog, literally the written opinion comes on the moment that is being handed down, and so -- >> except for the health care case when it was about an hour and a half later. sorry. didn't mean to interrupt spent

but in general, that's how it happens. >> all right. allen mentioned the recusal issue, and i wanted to get your experience, chief justice o'connor, in ohio and maybe, trained to, if you had some thoughts on -- ken, get some thoughts on recusal using the buddy system for announcing reasons or not announcing reasons for recusal. >> i was interested in what you said about the buddy system. that's the first time i've heard that being mentioned as a potential way to deal with it, or an idea. in ohio we on the supreme court if asked to recuse can decide, each justice for themselves, whether or not they will recuse and just put a written statement on the docket i recuse or after consideration i decided not to recuse from this case, and that's all there is to it.

there is no explanation or reason given one way or the other. there's a movement afoot with the aba to the model rule for recusal of the judiciary, and it's a work in progress. the conferences of chief justices of which i am a member is involved in the process of examining what a model rule would look like. i'm on the subcommittee. actually, i'm chairing the subcommittee, to take a look at that, and that is a work in progress. what was put out originally by the aba, there were two proposals, two resolutions and neither one was acceptable to the conference of chief justices. so we are working on that as we speak. i think that it's important to realize that we have 50 different jurisdictions a state court judiciaries in this country. and i am -- each state operates

a little bit differently for their judiciary. obviously some judges and justices are elected, some are appointed. they are appointed for different terms. some have retention elections. sunup appointments until age 70. if you're a judge in vermont you don't have to get off the bench until 90. so there's a different variety, and i'm always hesitant with a one size fits all type of a rule, and that's a we are examining with the conference of chief justices in conjunction with people who are not justices, members from the academic community as well as the lower courts trying to decide what would be the ideal model rule to put up there to preserve the individuality and be very realistic with the very systems that are in place for the employment of the judiciary in all 50 states. >> i would echo a theme that has

run throughout the conversation thus far, and that is these overarching values of transparency and democratic society and accountability, and with respect to recusals. there are two frequent reasons for justices stepping aside. one i think is truly unavoidable, and that is the prior service. so justice kagan has, in my judgment, a program stepped aside when a matter was before her office, the office of the solicitor general. there might come a point when there is seeming attenuation, but let's leave those kinds of exceptions to the rule of side, but something extraordinary is lost when a justice or more than one justice, but typically it's one, refuses himself or herself, and that is the ability of the court as a corporate function, it is designed to operate as odd-numbered court, nine

justices, that every member of the court should be participating in every case. the extreme case by the what occurred when justice tom clark resigned from the court so that his son ramsey clark would not have to, so he would not have to face the issue when his son was become the attorney general of the united states. a noble act entirely but it demonstrates -- the second is one that i really do think that the justices should wrestle with and embark on a course of conduct that eliminates this entirely. and that is recusal because of financial interest. if one is going to become a justice of the supreme court, i think there's a deal. it's an implicit deal. part of the bargain is you will so order your financial affairs so you can conduct yourself as a justice, so you can do your duty. now, i realize there may come times and there's been talk

about one justice because of a death in the family, and inheritance, i realize it may be a process but i would hope that the justices would move to a system since they are not subject to the code of judicial conduct, there's no authority over the supreme court of the united states. so really self-regulation or, heaven forbid, congress getting into the situation and saying, look, we contemplate that you're going to decide every one of these cases and less you have an atlantic taken, tom clark type issue. so what do you going to do whether this is a confirmation or a bunch of conversations but that's an instrumentalist question. the goal should be no justice should step aside because of financial interest. he or she should divest themselves as proper as possible of what ever that interest might be that would prevent him or her from doing his job. >> two points on the. congress of years ago passed a

law that enables all judges to divest themselves without adverse tax consequences, which was a law that had been appointed since about 1982 the people coming to the executive branch. it applies to the judiciary, and the number of the justices and judges have done that. they have to roll over their investment in testing into a conflict free account, tax-free transaction. so that excuse which may have motivated some people. i agree 100%. there is a separate problem about what to do about children who are practicing law, and i think the justices have come to understand about that and they have a policy on. i think everybody comfortable because in part there are so many of them that have so many different relatives around that it seems to work tolerably well. >> that seems all too to me but congress also passed another law in 1974 which made it, which illuminated the old rule which was e more to reduce you had to

have a substantial financial interest. now it's even one share forces are recusal. that seems to me to be problematic. yes, it would be wonderful if the justices could divest. i agree with judge starr entirely about that but i think congress also bears some responsibility for this. there's a real cost not in just terms of what judge starr talks that went justice lines up refusing to have a full complement hearing the case but it's also the fact that these recusals go on. big, sophisticated law firms and entities will fight to try to get one justice for another refused, or strategize from the front, figure out the child's law firm or something like that. this is extremely unseemly. it's very problematic, and i think congress could change some of the rules and eliminate some of them. >> that statute applies to justices by the way. section 455. it's not -- whatever the

judicial conference can do, the statute does not apply but they get the final word on it. >> before it opened up to general questions i wanted just to ask each of you to answer one or two quick questions. neal, you talked about the majesty of the court and, judge starr, you talked about the uniqueness i think of the supreme court. and the justices when asked about these issues often put it in terms of sort of a supreme court exceptionalism, that the court is uniquely apolitical, unelected, it's unlike any other court and unlike any other branch or level of government. and the justices say we have this unique court and we don't want to mess it up. i guess what i want to ask you is whether that's irrelevant,

the uniqueness of the supreme court is relevant in this regard in terms of whether they should be able to exempt themselves from the rules that apply to other courts? >> i do should i get the supreme court is exceptional. for the reasons i said, let me give you a vivid example. my first supreme court was the guantánamo case. i was her present someone alleging to be osama bin laden's driver and very high stakes and we won that case fight back-to remake the are coming out on the steps, the decision was 200 pages long but i hadn't had time to read it but i came up on the steps and they said would be penny. this is what the decision means. this man accused of being the worst of the worst can bring his lawsuit against the highest men in the country and the most powerful man and went to in and in many other countries the would've been shot.

and more importantly to me, his lawyer would've been shot last night but that's what the supreme court is about, the ability to do something like that against rob lee popular sentiment and so much else. i do think we should be really careful when we start imposing solutions on the. i agree that with certain personalities it makes sense to have cameras in there, but if they are reluctant, they themselves feel that it's going to compromise their ability to ask questions as justice breyer said, i think that's something we have to take seriously. >> i would like to respond to the uniqueness of the supreme court but what you just said is applicable to every judge in this country. every judge, every court of law in this country is an exceptional experience for our citizens to be able to go into a court, plead your case and rely on the rule of law. our adopting an acceptance of the rule of law makes our judicial branch of government exceptional from the lowest

court up to the very highest court. there are rules and regulations and expectations of the public that apply to everybody's experience with the courts. so although i understand the magnificence and to grant your and the scope and the consequences of the decisions that are handed down by the u.s. supreme court, that same exceptionalism and magnificence is present in every, it should be present in every courtroom in this country. and our ability to access the court is what is so vitally important. and viewing the courts in operation is axis by our citizens to the courts. and i know access is usually spoken in terms of a party being able to access the courts for redress. i understand that, but i take the view of access to be so much broader. >> i would accept the premise

about the majesty -- the majesty of the court, the majesty of the law more generally. the supreme court, as i wrote in my little book a long time ago, in terms of a constitutional democracy, it is -- neal use the term in his first comments, awe-inspiring. i completely agree with that. but the conclusion that, therefore, should not be greater transparency, i don't think follows at all from the premise. and i think the right question is, any constant -- in a constitutional democracy, what is in the public interest? that's the focus, and it seems to me that the kinds of concerns that have been lifted up, including pete williams wonderful observations that it really is snippet phobia that has people concerned, or a jon stewart a parent, i think the

reasonable response to that is grow an extra layer of skin. [laughter] you have life tenure and you are a public figure. and you have the blessing of your compensation can't be reduced, all the independence of the judiciary. you have a life appointment, you can serve and tell you reach an age of 92. if you live that long. no one is going to force you to step down. now, you are giving something. how about your serving the public interest? many of you and i don't mean to be pejorative here, choose to write books. when you write books you choose to go on a book tour. some of your are on some of the leading shows on television. you must do that as part of the

public education process. so you have already, as it were, crossed that bridge of insularity that flows from the exceptions and the majesty. but with all due respect, you are not the oracle at delphi telling us what the gods mean. you are a very privileged person with this extraordinary exceptional opportunity. and now can have a conversation while it's in the public interest as opposed to your own concerns about the maple down to it the isn't snippet phobia, personal embarrassment. i don't think that's particularly way response to all the schoolchildren who will be denied the opportunity their entire lifetime of seeing the supreme court of the united states in action. final thing i'll say is the court, and he used to be a lively area of debate, looks to international law or

international expense. i think everybody on the court, all nine with its okay to look at what the supreme court of canada has done. the jury is in. it works. it's worked for 20 years. all these concerns are really quite ephemeral and not well founded the welcome that candidate. perhaps they're more civil intended to impress that so. let's go to the mother country. think of parliament. they are not so simple in the house of commons and yet been a new supreme court of united kingdom does have cameras in the courtroom. it is a new experience but thus far the courts, it works just fine in the mother country. so those international expense is confirm with the chief justice said, the expense of all 50 state supreme court but at the end of the day the argument i think for exceptionalism, what i think is very strong, does not carry with it the conclusion that therefore there should not be cameras or greater

transparency. >> i'd like to add the point of cases better by the state courts, 95% of the cases that are filed in the country are dealt in the state courts, fibers in federal courts and then you minimize that number by the number that assured by the us to bring court. and if it works in 95% of the of the cases to have cameras, certainly the supreme court level, but also at varying levels and in both the trial court and the appellate court, 95% of the cases, i think those numbers alone, those experiences alone offer legitimate justification. i would never presume to believe that congress should order the supreme court to do this. i'm not advocating that one branch of government orders another branch of government to make this kind of monumental cultural change. i am not advocating for that. i think we need to realize the supreme court itself has evolved

from its original conception, and evolve in both the number and gender come in so many other progressive steps that it's taken. this is just one more progressive step. >> by the way, justice o'connor commented that when she thought that moment when three women came through the curtain and took their places on the supreme court, it was such a moving and magnificent moment. well, wouldn't it be wonderful for us all to be able to see that? or the moving, it was extraordinary when john paul stevens stepping aside, the outpouring of affection and admiration for a great man, lots of obviously disagreements jurisprudential and constitution but enormous affection for the

man and for his remarkable service to our country on the supreme court. we didn't get to see that either. that's a shame. at least a ceremonial part and maybe that's an incremental -- allen, if you're in incrementalist, let's at least have some of the ceremonies broadcast. broadcast. >> one portion of justice kagan's swearing in was broadcast speakers but it wasn't in the court. it was in a conference room. >> right. they don't want to breach the wall. but anyway, chief justice o'connor, you just said that congress should be telling the supreme court what to do on this, and one of the questions from the audience is, how can congress help move towards more transparency in the supreme court? the other panelists think that congress can play a role or should play a role, or -- spent

i suppose -- there's two questions, the separation of powers question and the enforcement question. separation of powers, it was a situation not so long ago where president who after all are exceptional because there's only one of them took the view that their papers were their own papers, and that even though the taxpayers have paid for them, they pay for the president so while he was in office and office support staff, that they belonged to the president. congress stepped in as a result of richard nixon's impeachment and said no, those going forward are not personal private papers of the president. they are the papers of the people. and they can be made public. that could be viewed as an infringement. it was tried to be called an infringement for separation of powers, congress telling the president what he could ge do. the supreme court said no, that's not right. you can do that. there's some minor problems at

the edges. and so i don't think that there is a separation of power constitutional problem with the court saying as it said in the recusal statute that it applies to the justices. the enforcement problem is a little harder because if the justices don't want to put the cameras in there unless the president is going to send troops in their, put the cameras in there and having the cameras roll, that they would be there. but who knows what the response would be? i would hope it doesn't come to that but it seems hard to believe all of these arguments here are extremely persuasive, and the life of the law may be experienced by the logic is all on the side of having cameras in the courtroom. it's hard to imagine what people of the american people would look like today on this question but it's hard to imagine almost anybody supporting. i remember when justice scalia

was sworn in. he said, my question is can i go to the home depot, to buy some tools without everybody knowing who i am? well, of course he goes on television and all sorts of public appearances. justice breyer goes on television. and so the notion that most of the justices are in anyway not known to the public, if the public is paying any attention, is really not the case anymore. and besides, that's the problem, they can focus the cameras as they do in some state courts on the advocate and not show anything but the back of the heads of the justices. i remember the first time our argued a case that have cameras, i couldn't even find the camera. it was someplace off to the side. if i was going to grandstand, that would've been a bad time to do it. >> oath legally and practically i think the idea of congress mandating cameras or something like that is a nonstarter but it's not going to happen, and it

would never be enforced. so the real question is what can we do short of that and i think two things can be done. what is congress can pass resolutions that urge the court to do this. and can share their experience in sales being televised with the justices and what they think, and they could have hearings to try to bring all of this information and all that. and in senate confirmation should they can really start to push your answers about what their views would be which i think would be a helpful development. with respect, the other thing that commitment is frankly this. this is a wonderful example of trying to get to the heart of the issue and educating first the public and then hopefully the court about the fact that the objections don't seem to be as strong as they think they are. ultimately, they are the ones who will have to decide this based on the idiosyncratic personalities and interaction among them all, and very hard

questions will arise, one if they want them and what if one doesn't? to the isolate the college? how should they go about making decisions? a pretty hard set of questions. >> there was a great concept called marriage. i think congress does have a role in managing -- nudging. effect we have this transition from i think i can persuade my vote justices to embrace two, i'm no longer in favor, if that is a fair characterization as certain was the position, but when you have my home state's senior senator, john cornyn, teaming up with the illinois senior senator, dick durbin, and sing this needs to happen, when you have individual representatives coming forward to themselves or in the judiciary, congressman ted poe from houston who was a judge, and a very well-known judge in

houston and texas, now in the house of representatives, has said this needs to happen. it is i think a matter of focus and leadership, and congress can nudge. i would respectfully disagree, heavens, while the heavens fall if congress passed a law. i don't think that needs to happen. it's sort of inconsistent with the coding but is not a violation of the separation of powers and if it's the law i think the supreme court of the united states would obey the law. richard nixon of a the law, and if it's the law of the united states, the idea that you got to sink in the marshalls or whomever -- not the marshalls. the response to the judiciary, article iii branch. but send in the appropriate folks to affect this is i think, as chief justice marshall said in marbury v. madison, too extravagant seriously to be maintained. the court will obey the law. but hopefully through nudging,

gentle nudging and focusing on what is in the public interest, what do we need in light of the collapse of civic education in the united states, in light of transparency and accountability, why don't you do it yourselves? >> okay. there's been a couple of questions about the notion of -- this is again involve the congress but whether the congress should adopt -- require the supreme court to adopt a code of conduct. spent should the supreme court justices be subject to such a code? >> we don't have that distinction in the state court to our state court judges are subject to the same sort of condit as the lower court judges. so i'm not sure what the

rationale would be, except that -- and just let me also say that some of the complaints that have been leveled against our judges on many levels, but particularly in the court, have been politically motivated. we are a state of elected members of the judiciary, so we are in a much pricier place i think having subjected ourselves to the display process in the code of judicial conduct and rules that govern the judiciary. it may very well be that the political ramifications argued in support of the nine members of the supreme court not being subject because of the misuse of those codes or rules on occasion, or the potential for that to happen.

>> another question about, chief justice o'connor, in particular but generally, are there administrative burdens or issues of maintaining the public electronic access to what the court does? do you have security concerns about some of the access that is given on your website? and i know security has been raised by u.s. supreme court justices, as well as a concern, but, and i don't know if the issue of cost or administrative burdens has really been an issue for the supreme court. what has been your experience? >> i don't believe the cost would be -- the hardware and the software and the subsequent maintenance would be prohibited at all. certainly is not within the ohio

supreme court and with a very sophisticated system. now, when you say security, i'm wondering if they mean hacking in some way that would change the very content of our opinions. and i have to tell you that that wouldn't happen. we are very secure and access and all of those sordid details. the other security aspect would be what was alluded to with justice scalia worrying that he can go to the local hardware store. in other words, are you a recognizable face in your community or across the country. and is that, in some way that you should be concerned about that, but concerns about security to with anybody who is a public servant, a public figure. there's ways that those are dealt with. i know even now the justices on the united states supreme court as well as federal members of the judiciary have pretty extensive security operations with regards to their outlook

appearances, which is not what the experience is with state court judges and certainly members of the supreme court of the various states. so technologically i'm not worried about security breaches, and i'm certainly not worried about the cost that would be attended to do it. they would need to reinvent the wheel. there's some excellent technology both hardware and software in place to have this happen. personal security, you know, when you're out and about, i don't know that it would be any more of an issue than it is now. based on their putting themselves out in the public eye through interviews and book tours and everything else that probably wouldn't, you know, get much more attention. >> there's a question about the

public perception of the court. neal, i think you said that the polls show that the courts approve ready never goes below 40%. but it seems like there have been some polls where there's been a decline in public approval. do you think that the greater access would help or hurt the public approval rating of the court? there seems to be a feeling it's almost like familiarity breeds contempt, that the more the public sees of the court, unless they will like it. >> that's always struck me as a horrible argument against the cameras. the idea that if the public sees what's going on, that they're not going to like it, so, therefore, we shouldn't allow them to see if, strikes me as if they're not going to like it, that's the reason efficiency.

i'm not sure that's right at the end of the day. i do think that if i could, if i were able to talk to the justices, i would say i actually think the legitimacy should do a. you've got a great story to tell, something that everyone should see. i can understand from their perspective they think things are working pretty well, and all they can do is the steward of this great institution, i think there's a feeling among them that they could only mess it up. they think it's our duty to try to explain to them why that's not so, bringing all the medical evidence to be mustered, but it's not an easy sell. >> i think every advocate who appears before the court at least more than once would say that the cord works beautifully, the process is a very impressive process, and speed is certainly while the decision is pending

mac. >> i don't have anything up there, so i can speak on the basis of 36 arguments and being up there for almost countless others. the court works brilliantly, and the process is a very serious process. it has its moments of humor and lightness of touch and so forth. you don't get the sense that the justices are taking themselves with undue seriousness. the advocates aren't unctuous. it is a very serious process, one that henry friendly described as one that fits best of respectful equality to professionals to their professional work. you are not sitting there reading green eggs and ham. [laughter] >> tony, i guess the poll question is, if the question is do you think the supreme court is doing a good job, you are likely getting an answer, depend on whether you agree with their

opinion but if you ask them on a series about the work and other conscientious and doing their best to give me if you disagree with them, i think you'd get a much higher approval rating. again, as with most both the equation is more important anticancer. >> one of the things i think we all under appreciate this the unanimity exists on the court and the fast part of this work are almost 50% of each case is unanimous that if you take a super majority, you move it up but it really is the 20-25, 5 high-performance decisions and the kind of questions with by people on this bill that would divide people in the audience. so it's not surprising, people with good will we have different views, different interpretation of the first amendment. so unfortunately the cost now is, it is all legal and it's not. it is not at all. it is deeply philosophical to be sure. lenses through which the

justices go about their work but they are professionals who, in the majority of the time, agreed, they agree on the process the and may not agree on methodologies, and they are very open and transparent about that. they write books about that. but the work of the court as a court is so deeply misunderstood by the american people that i happen to think the cameras at least will be a beneficial step forward. >> i would like to add one point to that, that you are right that if there is a characterization of the court in terms of political characterization and when the public disagrees with an opinion it doesn't go past and they don't look to the discipline that is utilized in order to get to that, or the arguments that were even advanced. that's what i think the media comes in. stop characterizing the supreme court justices as republican or

democrat, and stop doing that with other members of the judiciary. spin we don't. we call them liberals and conservatives. [laughter] >> that's okay. but i think when you attach a political label to a justice or a judge which happens so often in the state courts, for a while we would be all republicans allow supreme court. now in the last couple years we've had a democrat so that has been unfortunate for the journalists your bot i really think it's not a responsible way to identify members of the judiciary by attacking -- attaching a political label to them. it does a disservice and adds to the disservice. >> much of my practice is riveting business before the corporate would abide by the american public should be there by the business community, general counsel, you have the liberal justices against us and

the conservative is for us. most of the business cases are unanimous and if the business community could see oral arguments i think it would really change the dynamic. >> just one quick question for pete and maybe for me, too. should there be a supreme court press pool when the justices travel? >> when they take their exciting trip to teach a class on the erisa law at overland? absolutely. [laughter] everyone would eat that up. you should be required to go. the quote unquote press pool thing i guess the analogy is president of for a long time in our nation's history presidents went out and had dinner and did fundraisers around town, and no one was there. that all changed when is said reagan was shot, another is a regular press pool that travels with the president where ever he

goes around town, around the nation, around the world. to have a pool cover all of the nine justices, rented they don't all travel at the same time, i just can't imagine that it would be logistically that much of something people want to do, but secondly i don't know how much of it would produce major deals that would be that useful. i would say simply no. >> i will take the trips to italy. [laughter] but with that, we must end. if this program serves as a nudging tool, that's great. it's been a great discussion. thank you very much. [applause]

>> a couple of flight events to tell you about this one. this in homeland security committee examines the shooting at the washington navy yard. that's on c-span at 10 a.m. eastern. on c-span3 at 10:15 a.m. the senate foreign relations committee looks at the situation in syria. >> this painting was originally painted as my grandmother's official white house portrait. in the 1960s, lady bird johnson went looking for portraits of first ladies to hang in the white house. she thought that was important. she looked high and low, and she could not find my grandmother's official portrait. so she called my grandmother and she said, mr. and, you know where the painting is? my grandmother suggest, it's on

my wall. mrs. johnson said, you really shouldn't have that. it belongs in the white house. and my grandmother said no, that's my painting but it's on my wall and that's where it's going to stay. i think mrs. johnson tried a couple more times but eventually she gave out. >> -- gave up. ..