>> is there a difference from the appeals court? >> yes, and it took me a few years to understand that. sometimes when you think you are functioning at a high-level and your pay attention just the details and not to the larger picture. i was a judge on the court of appeals, the ninth circuit, and i thought i was a very good appellate judge. i thought it would be another appellate assignment. wrong. this is a different institution with a different function. you must approach it in a different way. >> can you put up -- some words to those differences, please? >> the court of appeals, you can write just for the case that is

in front of you, so that you have room in the next case to make adjustments, to make qualifications. and to accommodate your colleagues who are also writing in the same area. hear, your function is to try to give guidance to the state supreme court's or the federal courts. you're not going to see this kind of case again for at least a few years. and you do not have the luxury of equivocating much. the other thing is that all the cases are hard. the only reason we take them, as some of my colleagues may tell you, is that other courts are in disagreement. most of the time. and that means that other judges and other actors in the legal system have come to

different conclusions. every case is that way. so it is a different function. >> you said that it took awhile to realize it. taught me through that process of first realizing you did not know as much as you thought and when you thought that you finally get this. >> it's quick to say that you get it now, the nature of light is that it is learned looking backwards and lived going forward. it would be pretentious to say that i know everything about this job now, because if you are not open and willing to learn about the institution and about yourself, then you should get a different job. but i guess my first realization came when i was given my first assignment. the first assignment to a junior justice is usually a simple case, and this was by our standards. and it was terribly difficult. i got into this and said maybe

this, maybe dad, and then i realized, this is a different job. and that began to sink again. also, the legal system -- and to some extent the press and the public -- is concentrating with great intensity on what you say. you can use different metaphors for the judicial system, different means and allegories to define what this court is. i like to think of us as teachers, to first teach ourselves and then teach others. and we're teaching what the law means. i was in one of my son's dormitory room a few years ago

in college, i was sitting there waiting, and i opened one of his books -- aristotle's aesthetics, and he gives it vice to playwrights. and he said, you can write about what was, what is, or what it ought to be. it reminded me of the judicial function. we why there -- we were right about what was -- what happened, what were the facts, a dispute among government officials or private business, what happened, what was. and then what is -- but we must also write about what ought to be. because that is how we teach. this court is really a teaching institution when it functions at its best. >> what you like best about the job? >> the best part about the job is that is that i have the opportunity to try in my own

way to teach young people particularly, but i hope all judges and lawyers and all citizens, and to teach myself constantly, that a lot and freedom and what it stands for, it only survives if you're conscious of what they mean to you, to america, to its heritage. look -- when we rebelled against the english, the world was amazed. american said we wanted freedom. the english said, freedom? the less people are the freest people you ever seen. they pay taxes when they want. what they talking about, freedom? we had to give them an answer.

we did not have a fax machine or e-mail. we have to give them an answer. our first answer was the declaration of independence. jefferson's beautiful preamble. explaining that we owed an explanation, an answer to mankind. some years later, 1776, that was -- and then in 1787, the constitution was drafted. that was our second answer. the result is that americans have a self image, a self- identification, a self- understanding about who they are by their legal documents. this is one of the few countries in the world that is that way. we come from many different backgrounds and religions and ethnicities. but we have this thing called the declaration of

independence, this document called the constitution, in common, and it defines as. the best part about this job is that you have a very small part in reminding yourself and reminding the legal system or the public that this is our heritage of freedom, and it is only maintained if you understand it. you do not take a dna test to see if you believe freedom. it is taught and it is learned. each generation has to learn if all over again what the constitution means. and great cases -- teaching cases are like the one that we wrote -- like the framers wrote in 1789, and it has real meaning today. we had a case some years ago, the flag-burning case. americans get infuriated when

you burn a flag. we love the flag. and then this court said, that is okay? you can burn it? it was because of the first amendment. that gave the constitution real meaning in our own lives and in our own time. that is when the constitution is most important for it is not an old dusty relic. it is yours. >> in your 21 years here, have there been any dark days? >> any dark days? well every day when you're not in the majority, you are in a dark day. judges were once lawyers, and we think of arguing the case, and not too many think that they are not on the right side. if you cannot convince your colleagues, did you think it is

a dark day, but the nature of the profession is that you go on to the next case. one of the things you learn when you are a judge is that you are not the only person in the room. objective, disinterested, detached, knowledgeable, unbiased, your other colleagues feel the same way. >> when we ask chief justice roberts about his role, he was very modest in his answer. as one who has lived under more than one chief justice, how significant the individual is on the culture of the supreme court? >> i will give you a two different parts of that. i knew a girl war and very well, a family friend, he was older knowledge under. and i knew chief justice burger and chief justice rehnquist and

that chief justice roberts. on the one hand, there is not much that a chief justice can do. there are eight associate justices, with a duty to uphold the constitution. he cannot fire them. he has to get along with them. we have traditions which will outlast any chief justice. so the chief justice comes to a court where there are these elements of stability and permanence and protection, and we have our tradition and our boath. on the other hand, the chief justice presides over our conference and a steer us through the mechanics of hearing the cases. by his personality and his warrant and decisiveness and his understanding of the wall and

the institution, he can do a great deal to set the tone. >> it will bear with us, we will be able to see various rooms and it would be interesting to hear your take on what happens in those rooms. we've heard about the process in the conference from some of the justices. if we were to have a camera in the conference why you were there, which we will never be able to do, what is it like? >> i think it was my colleague -- i am sure it was my colleague just as brighter who made an interesting comment wednesday. someone asked us, are you nervous before you go on the bench? answer -- no, not at all. i am not. i am looking for to it. you hear university professor say, it's hard to give the exam as taking it. do not believe it. the same thing with attorneys.

i was always nervous when i appeared in court as an attorney. not long ago, i was in sacramento and i was going to visit a judge in my heart started be because i remember the days. judging is relaxed and easy. you have to be careful that we are courteous to the attorneys and we are open-minded and that we do our job. that is a preface to your question, what happens in the conference room. justice prior gets nervous before he goes into conference, and said to hide. it is like being an attorney once again. you are arguing your case. i have eight colleagues who have studied very hard on the case, who may have some very strong views or tentative, depending on how they thought the case through. i have to give my point of view,

and hopefully persuade them. it can be an adrenaline rush, but this is a big day for us. recent times has as many -- we can have as many as six cases are four cases, and i have to beat professional and accurate and fair, and each of my colleagues feel the same way. so there is tension and excitement in the room, but we love it. the job is no good if you cannot argue. >> you mentioned the traditions of the court. it seems as though conference is one of those places where many of those traditions come to bear. will you talk about them? >> probably pretty well known. when we are discussing cases, we usually do 48-72 hours after the arguments -- you should know

this. before the case is heard. we have an unwritten rule of not talking about it with each other. sometimes that there is a technical problem, i might go to justice the leo and say there might be a technical problem in the case. but if we go into it, then we send a memo to everybody about what we have talked about because we do not want any clinics are the balls are little groups that lobby each other -- any cliques were little groups that lobby each other. when you are asking questions in court, you're telling your colleagues what you're thinking. a good attorney can tell that he or she is engaging with that conversation that the court is having with itself. that is the first time that we ever get an inkling of what are colleagues are thinking.

and then we go to the conference 48 to 78 -- 72 hours later. this is the first time in which we give our tentative views on the case. when we are on the bench, that is the first time we are beginning to make up our mind. when we are in the conference room, we try to make up our mind tentatively. as we go round the table, it can be quite fascinating to see how this case comes out, and it is not when our lives, reversal or a firm, is the rationale that we use, what principle used to teach. if the case is close, 5-4, and you have prevailed with the majority, there are not high fives and backslaps. there is a moment quiet and

respect, maybe even sometimes awe at the process. we realize that one of us will have to write out a decision which teaches and gives reasons for what we do. the point of writing an opinion is to command some allegiance to the result. and we have no army, no budget -- we do not have press conferences and we do not give speeches this, saying how wonderful we were. we have to write something that shows that we are following the rules, that we are open and honest, and we give reasons for you to believe that what we did was right. >> do you take notes and conference? >> do i take notes? yes, i never speak from us but i take notes from what other people say.

>> because it might end up framing the argument to bring someone over to your side? >> you take notes because you might be assigned the case. you do not know who will be assigned the case until after the conference. you should have notes so that you can remember what your colleague said, because as i indicated, it is not what you do but how you do it. it is fascinating -- sometimes the case will be 9-0, different points of view on how to reach the result. that is part of the process. >> is the room well-designed for what happens there? >> yes, sure, a rectangular table, that is about it. i guess you could have a circular table -- the korean peace talks where they talked about the size and shape of the table? ours happens to be a rectangle

and it works out well. standard portrait. >> nothing in particular that foments great argument in the room. >> know, although when you get into the building, why is it that we have an elegant, astonishingly beautiful imposing, impressive structure? is it so we feel important? i think not. it is to remind us that we have an important function. to remind the public when it seized the building -- when it sees the building of the importance and centrality of the law. sometimes i teach a high school class and say, give me one word to describe this building.

kohl? warm? opulent? arrogant? inspiring? durable, stable -- choose an adjective. and the building is magnificent and not so that you can think about some adjectives. >> do you have one that did it that you would use? >> i would like to say timeless. it takes from the greeks, of course. there are a lot of greek architectural features to it. the shape of the windows, rectangles? no. they get smaller at the top in the bottom. they look like a rectangle, but we found out to our grief when we ordered windows. they measured the bottom and besides, but they did not

measure that tops. it is a quadrilateral structure. it is designed so that it looks durable, elegant, imposing, balanced, symmetrical from a distance. which is what it ought to look like. >> you mentioned before we started taping that there are steps that are of particular note to you. >> again, it is symbolic. we like to think of the law and the constitution in the great documents of freedom as something that you have to respect, and so that you should frequently be inspired and have elevated thoughts. i was one time meeting, when i first came on the court, one of the things that i learned, a prime minister from a foreign country who was also an attorney.

it was a nice day so i met him outside, i thought it would be a courtesy. we stood there looking at this beautiful building. above the steps on the pediment is "equal justice under law," and his when asked me where that comes from. and i do not know. and my mind was racing. it was not in the debt relation to the constitution. it had to be before 1937. and so i steered the conversation in a different direction so he would not ask me something that i did not know. and then i went to the files. "equal justice under law" was made up by the architect. it works within the pediment. it has become a very famous phrase. but a lot takes it from wherever it can get it. if we take inspiration from the architect, we will take it. equal justice may be redundant

-- but we need redundant seat. but the steps are wonderful. not too many years ago, maybe five years ago, in washington we dedicated a monument to world war ii. and the government flu world war ii veterans in from all the countries. they were walking around the city, and these people would be in their late 70's, 80's. i saw them walking in front the building, and two of the obvious veterans came from the midwest, they had farming community, and i ask them that they were here for the more. and they said that the government did something very nice for us. and i said, you did something wonderful for the nation. he said, charlie and i served together in the pacific as

marines. we found each other all the time. come on, charlie, that's the supreme court. we can make it up the steps. it is important for the justices and for the attorneys and the public to make sure that people always want to come up the steps. we're doing the job the right way. not a day goes by when we must not ask ourselves, are we doing this job the right way? the nature of a judge or a reporter, the nature of most human enterprise is to ask yourself in an introspective way, am i doing this the right way? and the law is designed for that in a way because we have to give reasons for what we do. we have to give reasons for what we do. and the first justification for that is that we have to convince ourselves. when i am writing an opinion, i

first have to convince myself. there is a lot of stuff that goes in the wastebasket. and then you have to convince others. so, again, this court reminds you of the fact you have this job to do. >> as a local citizen, i have always remark that the design and how suitable it seems to be for public expression of sentiment. the protests and affirmations they go on in front of the court. i am sure that is not the intent of the architect originally. but what you think about it being the sight of so many public protests stations and affirmations? >> that is very important. again, the law and the constitution -- the constitution is yours. it is yours. and it is yours to talk about, to explain, to express, to defend. that is why it is so important for young people in particular to know and understand that the

constitution -- the president takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution. you cannot preserve something you do not revere. you cannot protect something you have not learned. you cannot defend what you do not know. and as i have indicated, you must understand the traditions of freedom, its meaning, the purpose of liberty, so that you can handed down to the next generation. democracy does not have a permanent life expectancy. it has to be preserved from one generation to the next. >> can you ever hear the public on days when there are big marches? >> i see the demonstration sometimes when i am in the front of the building. i know that they are interested. >> no consciousness as you are

working on an opinion on what might be going on? >> other that you have to be clear and honest about your reasons and try to convince people that you are right. >> let's talk about the actual supreme court chamber itself. you have work to another court warrants and i am wondering what you think of this one, with its ornate red velvet drapes, and its texas of traditions from past centuries? >> as i have indicated, the principal purpose is to remind the judges and lawyers of the absolute importance, the essential duty that you have, to follow the mandates of your profession and the mandates of the law. when the iron curtain fell and we began seeing more russian judges they could not quite

believe that the white house did not give us a call and tell us how this case should come out. we said, no, that is not the way -- we have the separation of powers. and then they said, maybe so, but there is some cultural mechanism where we try to see and get a signal from somebody has to what to do. and it was quite a task, educating our foreign visitors on that expectation. when i took them in the courtroom, i said, the government sits at this table. the government argues its case just like everybody else. we have ruled that we do not talk to litigants or two attorneys. other than in open and public ways. that was a help to them, to know that, number one, the government is like every other litigant, and a half to argue before us. that helped teach the lesson.

>> one of the observations about this court that had just struck me. you have attorneys who have one shot at it at their entire legal career. it is -- you -- they have come from a bar where you regularly see the same lawyers. what is the quality of argument here as compared to the ninth circuit? >> is good. i think we sometimes do a disservice to the profession by complaining too much about the oral arguments. it is good. i have made arguments to judges. i have made up my mind that i always was going to be courteous to the attorney and understand the stress that he is under or she is under.

sometimes we ask a question just to help the attorney make the appoint the attorney ought to make. -- to make the point the attorney ought to make. >> we were in the press room earlier today which is quite a scene on a day like this. the number of reporters that has spent much of their professional career here -- what is your relationship with the long-term reporters covering the court? >> i did not see them on a regular basis other than in the court. occasionally there will be a retirement party in which we meet each other. we have each a professional obligation of keeping a certain distance and a certain amount of independence. we never complain about what they write, even though they sometimes are wrong on the backs. >> but you do read it, obviously. >> yes, but i do not rush to do it.

i am upset sometimes when i see an editorial and it's obvious they had not read the opinion. they did not understand the reason -- the reason that we write, and you just read an editorial were they made up their mind without reading what we wrote is quite silly. but by and large, the people who cover ross, they know our traditions and our schedule, and they do a very good job of reporting. with this observation -- the news cycle, the interest, the attention span being what it is, they have 24 or 48 hours to make the point. well, we write for a different time dimension. it is not just a result, it is with the principle is. -- it is what the principle is.

the press does a very good job of reporting what we do. it is a little more difficult, for reasons i explained, to report why we did it. i can understand a problem because they have the news cycle. they have a tough job. >> we talked about the importance of stressing -- >> if i could interrupt -- and we do have a commentary and law reviews. every law school in the country has a law review. this law review is dedicated to explaining, criticizing, analyzing the opinion of the courts, particularly this corporate so do not think that it is just the institutional press that does this. we have law students who spend months working with their law professors analyzing our cases, often criticizing them in print, in the law reviews, and we look to that. >> if you had a grant shall be

deemed un said they wanted to be a lawyer, would you encourage them? >> absolutely. i miss being a lawyer after some years on the bench. i would be very happy practicing law. i loved it. >> what is it about a the law? >> you have an obligation to defend something basic to the american identity, to the american ideal, to freedom as we know it. >> fresh out of law school? >> yes, you are playing a little part in that. you can have a case about a misdemeanor or felony, you can be a little caught in the wheel, but the idea that the government cannot arrest your client without cause, convict your client without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is so

impressive. and, you know, half the world does not have freedom because it cannot or because it does not want it. and the jury is out. as to whether the rest of the world will choose freedom. and we have to make that case. and frankly, it is not being made. i am sure -- i am not sure that we're not picking up a lot of ground. >> what do you mean by that? >> there are 6 billion people on this earth of humankind. over half of them have to live outside the law. they see the law as an obstacle, not an instrument of progress. they see the law as a threat, not a promise. they seek the law as something to avoid. they do not understand it. i gave a speech not too long ago

talking about sosa nielsen -- sultanates and solzynitsyn, the great soviet writer. he criticized the west for being obsessed with a lot. -- with the law. i was astounded with this man that i thought understood the principles of freedom, the unyielding, indomitable human spirit to rise above tierney, to criticize the law? and it occurred to me that he thinks of the law is something cold, something as a threat. we did not. for us, block is liberating. and that is -- a lot is liberating. --the law is liberating. and that is something that we have to teach.

>> you can choose whether or not you can be a public figure, to give commencement speeches or to teach or do interviews such as this. you have chosen this to some degree. why is that? >> i think it is our obligation to do our very best to make sure that the institution is understood, to make sure that people know what is that state -- what is at stake when we say that we want freedom for the rest of the world and that freedom is the only way to recognize the dignity of man and woman. this is something that we cannot talk about too much. americans are busy going to baseball games and working and raising their family. they do not think about bill all night and day. -- they do not think about the

law night and day. but i am so impressed when i go around the country how much people do know about the court system in the respect that they have poured three that is one reason that we have a jury system, all other subject. >> as we close, you're about to leave for summer. why you are gone, there will be hearings for the new justice for the supreme court. did you have seen others come and go during her 21 years here. how much does the court changed when a new justice to rise? is there a cultural shift? what do you do to get a new member at a committed -- and new member acclimated? >> is a new court. when i was trying jury cases, if a juror had to be replaced because of being ill, it was a different dynamic. it was a different jury. and it is the same way here. it will be a very different court. and it is stressful for us

because we so admire our colleagues, we wanted to always be the same. but i have great admiration for the system. the system works. after the appointment in the confirmation process is finished, the system will bring us up very good justice. and it gives us the opportunity to look at ourselves to make sure that we are doing it the right way, so that the new justice will be able to take some instruction from our example, if we are doing it the right way, and i am sure our new justice can always at this the question, what are you doing this for? and we have to think about whether or not we should continue to do it. >> justice kennedy, thank you so much for your observations on the court. >> thank you for your work. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> we will continue with our supreme court interviews in a moment. visit our web site to get information about a nine justices, read about the history of the court, and learn about the construction of the supreme court building. you can also purchase hard documentary on the court. it is that c-span.org. next, a conversation with samuel alito who joined the supreme court in 2006. in this 30 minute interview, he talks about the role of the court in his day-to-day duties. justice alito was nominated to the court by president bush. >> justice samuel alito, can you remember the first day that you came to this court? >> i will never forget it. i watch the votes in the senate over in the old executive office building, right in the middle of the court term. because the former chief justice rehnquist had died during the

fall, creating a vacancy. this was on january 31, 2006. i watched the vote over in the old executive office building. and i immediately was brought over here to the court and sworn in by the chief justice, and they showed me to my office, and i think that very day i received a very difficult application for a stay of execution in a capital case. i was blown right into the heart of the court's work. >> what happens when you get something like that? do you have to operate on your run in as -- on your own in that case? >> i was operating entirely on my own there. i did not even got my staff yet. i did what i had been doing for 15 years as a court of appeals judge. i studied the case and came to my conclusion about what i thought we should do in that particular instance. >> thursday and lord, what goes

on there? -- first day and full woorward,t goes on there? >> it is what happens -- i was plunged right into the work. i immediately got the breeds in the cases that were coming up for argument, and i started reading those briefs. i had the benefit of having the assistance of two justice o'connor's law clerks who stayed over and were familiar with the internal operating procedures. but it was baptism by fire. >> does anyone give you a briefing on what you can expect and what you can and cannot do in the customs? >> a little bit about the customs. i don't remember any formal training. it was learned as you go.

it may have been because it was hectic right in the middle of the term. >> we have heard often in our discussions that the jr. justices has special privileges and responsibilities in the conference. can you explain how that work? >> i don't think the junior justice has any special privileges. but there are two duties. the first and less onerous is opening the door in the conference room. there are no staff members present and occasionally someone will knock on the door. it is the job of the junior justice to get up and answer the door. and usually is somebody's classes or a memo or something like that. and then the other duty is to keep the official vote of grants of cert or decisions to hold a case. when we have a conference, we will go through a long list of cases and we will vote on whether we're going to take the case or deny it or do something else. it is the junior justice's

responsibility, says there are no staff present, to keep the official vote. >> and what about the way that the judges begin conference? it is seniority. is it an advantage or disadvantage. >> i think it is a disadvantage to the junior justice. by the time he or she speaks, everyone else has spoken. and voted. when i was the junior, which has been up to now, by the time they got to me, i was either irrelevant or i was very important, depending on how the vote had come out. >> you mentioned that you had a couple of clark's to serve for cars -- serve four other justices. i notice that you are a clerk for the third circuit court. and you served on the third circuit. what is that experience like? and i eventually want to talk to about picking your own quirks. >> it is an advantage to have

clark on this court that you serve on, to know the internal operating rules and practices of the court. in any court, there are things that go on internally. some important, some not so important. people on the outside, even practitioners who argued cases before the court, may not be familiar with them. it is an advantage in that sense. one night clerk on the third circuit, some of the judges who had been -- when i clerked on the third circuit, some of the judges who had been there were still serving when i was a judge. i sat with the judge for whom i clerked shortly after right sat on the -- >> i found 20 clerks that you have had so far. you have had four attorneys. and nine of the 20 that you have had clerked for you before on

third circuit. explain how that works and what does that advantage to you? >> they were absolutely known quantities to me. i think i have a very good relationship with my clerks. we work closely together and those are people who had done a great job for me. i knew exactly how they would perform as clerks. that was a big advantage. i am pretty much running out of former clerks now, but they have served me very well. >> what did they do and how important are they to justice? >> they are very important. they do two main things. they help me decide how i am going to vote and they help me prepare to make the decision, and then they help in the process of drafting opinions. those of the two main things. now they do not make the decision for me and they do not decide the substance of what goes into the opinion that i

write. but they provide a lot of help with research. hear that it is especially important, they give me the opportunity to discuss the cases and the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments that are made before going into oral argument and even before voting and conference. >> is it true that when you just a thought -- when you interviewed justice white about becoming his court, that you talk mostly about football? >> that is apocryphal. >> what was that interview like? >> i do not remember too many of the details. he was very gracious and i don't think he said anything about football. i think i saw a football in his chambers. but he was very gracious and substantive when he asked me about the things that i had done. things of that nature.

>> how do you pick your course? what are your criteria? >> i look for people they can do that two things that i mentioned, help me and allies difficult cases and difficult legal issues and help me in the process of writing the opinion. it is not easy for me to identify the people who are best able to help me with those two duties. here we have -- and this was true as well on the court of appeals -- an enormous number of tremendously qualified applicants. it is hard to go wrong and i feel very disappointed every year that i have to decline the applications of so many people who i am sure would do a fantastic job. >> in the middle of this project, the documentary on the supreme court building, you're getting a new colleague. you will not be jr. any longer. how would you it buys justice

sotomayor about being in the justice? >> i have spoken to are a little bit. we will talk more about these two big junior justice duties before she actually has to take them on. i remember when justice breyer, who had been the junior justice for almost a record length of time, i think 11 years before i started, he took me aside and he sort of briefed me. but it took him awhile to adjust to not being the junior justice. and i remember very distinctly at the first conference, there was a knock at the door. and i was processing is. someone is knocking at the door. it is my job to get up and answer the door. and before i could even start to get out of the chair, just as briar was at his chair and headed for the door. and the chief justice had to say, steve, sit down, that is not your job anymore. i have not been in that role quite as long. but add that i will fill the

same way. >> what about the supposed practice of a new justice writing his or her first opinion after it has been a unanimous decision on a particular case? >> i think that is something that the court has tried to do -- they did that with me. my first opinion was at an opinion in which we were unanimous. and i think it is a good practice. i remember when i sent it around and i got back approvals from everybody, with a few changes, somebody said, don't think it will be this easy all the time in the future. and that certainly has proven to be the case. but i distinctly remember drafting that opinion. before i came in, i had been a court of appeals judge for 15 years. i had written many opinions and i thought i had done my best on all those. but when i drafted that first opinion, realizing where i was

now, i went back over it and over it and over it. i never have revised an opinion as many times as i did before i sent that out. >> how much you remember writing yourself and how much did that clark's of that first opinion? >> they always do a draft for me. most of the time, what finally emerges is not very similar to what i get are originally from the clark, but it is a good starting point. i am a very fussy editor, and kind of a bus seat writer. i like to say things in that particular way. >> who taught you how to write? >> mostly my father. he was a former english teacher among other things. i remember when i had a paper for school, i would write in and then we would sit down and painstakingly go over it, word for word, sentence by sentence,

and he would suggest better ways of saying things. and any writing ability i have was mostly the result of that laborious process. i think writing well is very difficult. it takes a lot of intensive, one-on-one instruction. and i had that opportunity with him. >> is there one our two rules that you have when writing? >> there are roles. how like very clear organization. that is probably the most important thing. i like everything to go in its place and in the proper place. and the old rules about writing topic sentences for each paragraph, don't put anything and that is superfluous, don't put anything and that is unclear. my father said if you have

problems saying it, if you are probably having a thick -- a problem with the thought. the thought is clear, then you can translated into understandable prose. i do think that that is mostly true. >> he suggested that things got tougher after that first opinion that you wrote. can you explain what changed after you got into votes that may not have been unanimous? >> when it is not unanimous, then obviously you have to be ready to respond to the dissent. the dissents here are very rigorous. they do not pull punches. i think it ultimately improves the quality of the majority opinion, but it is something that you have to anticipate. and then there is always a problem if the court is not entirely of one mind, not just on the result but on the reasoning. there is a problem if you are

drafting a majority opinion or writing something that will get five votes, six votes, 7 votes, whatever that number is. there may be certain things that you cannot say, certain things that you have to put in a particular way. you have to think about not just what you would like to say if you are writing it just for yourself. but what the majority as a group wants to say. >> did i read correctly that you argued before the court 12 times? the boilers that is correct. >> what is the difference between standing before the court in arguing for whoever and then being on the other side of the bench? >> it is a lot easier to ask questions than to answer them. that is the biggest difference. when you are a judge or justice, you can anticipate what you are going to say. what you are interested in asking about. when you argue a case, it is hard sometimes to anticipate, as

much as you may try to end debate, what the justices or judges would be interested in. >> i have never asked this question, but i read the transcript of the argument a unanimous decision that you wrote the opinion on. i was trying to track when justices jumped in and ask questions. and for a long time, it was a new justice all the way. years day -- is there rule among your colleagues that everybody gets a chance to ask a question before the next one starts? >> no, there is no rule like that. i learned that it is a lot harder to get in a question on the bench than it is on the bench of three. it'd been my practice to try to wait for the end of all lawyers paragraph before interrupting with the question. here i learned that if you do that, or even in the hyde case, if you went into the end of the sentence, you never get a question and. you have to interrupt to make

your voice heard. >> what would you tell a lawyer if they came to you, and i know that they cannot, and asked for advice on arguing before the court? >> the most important things are the things that everybody knows but tends to forget. the best advocates understand exactly where they want to go. and i think they have in mind alternative routes to get there. they can anticipate and evaluate based on the questions whether route to a is going to work, and it is not, they will be open to talking about b, route c, route d. less experienced advocates do not pick up the signals that

they get from the questions, less skillful advocates prepare much more rigid in their approach and i think that they lose opportunities by noì(lc@&c+ that. >> what has been your cents after 16 years on the circuit court and you have been here about three years, 3.5 years, what is your sense of oral argument's importance? have you ever changed your mind in oral argument? >> certainly. sometimes on the bottom line, that will change. we do an awful lot of preparation before we go in the oral argument. i will have read hundreds of pages of briefs and opinions and other opinions before the oral argument begins. i have thought about the case pretty thoroughly. but here particularly, i find it helpful, because every case they get here, even the ones that end up being 9-0, and all cases in

which there are a good argument on both sides. there are good arguments on both sides and you have skillful lawyers, and we really do have a very high level of advocacy here. i find it a very helpful last step in the decisionmaking process. it tends to crystalize things for me. >> as you watch an attorney in front of you, is there any way to describe what you as a justice like and dislike in the way that they perform? the approach that they take, but volume they use, all those little things that people practice. >> yes, there is a big difference between arguing a case at the appellate courts and arguing the case to a jury. we do not get many lawyers here who think they are arguing to juries. but sometimes on the court of appeals, we would get that.

every court has its own style. i think it is a mistake for any advocate to argue before a court without having seen arguments there if they have not before. because the style is different, what is expected is different. >> in your lead up to being a member of the supreme court, you did everything from working for the solicitor general, working in the circuit court judge, u.s. attorney, assistant u.s. attorney, down the list. we the editor of the law review at yale? >> i was one of the editors, yes. douglas was prepared you must for the job? >> i think that they all helped me. working on the solicitor general's office was most directly related to it. it was a tremendous experience for me. >> explain what the solicitor general does. >> he handles all of the u.s.

government's litigation in the supreme court. he must also authorize any appeal taken by the government in any of the lower courts or any requests. why was there, i had the opportunity to brief many cases here and argue 12, as you mentioned. it was a tremendous learning experience for me. >> another "i saw of years that ended up in the princeton your book -- the prince in your book -- you hope to warm a seat on the supreme court. >> i did write that but it was really a joke. it was like my ambition was to be a quarterback at the super bowl, or winning pitcher in the world series. it was a dream that i never thought i would come close to realizing. >> when did you first know that you had a chance to being on the court? >> i knew that i was a

possibility. i would not permit a good chance. when i was first called down for an interview with the white house, and that was in 2001. after that point, i am sure that they were interviewing many other people. but at least i was among that group. >> how long was it from the first interview until it was made public? >> it was a long time because they interviewed me in 2001 in anticipation of the possibility of any resignation, which did not take place. then i was not interviewed again until 2005. >> it that hard on you, knowing that they are interested? >> yes, in a way it is. i told myself that it was very unlikely that it would happen and that i loved my job on the

court of appeals. and so i should continue to do my best they're coming into that with the expectation that is that where i would serve out my career, and it's something took off, that would be great. i did not want to put myself in the position of thinking that it would happen and feeling disappointed if it did not. .

the difference in the docket. our docket is entirely, almost entirely discretionary. we choose all of our cases. there are a few that a party has a right to appeal. on the court of appeals, it's exactly the opposite, almost all the cases are parties have a right to take to the court of appeals. very few are chosen. it takes a while to get used to that. every single year is a learning process. i have now been a judge i think for 19 years and i think i have learned something every year and i hope i will continue. >> what's the major difference between being a circuit court judge and supreme court justice? >> biggest thing is the difference in the docket, the number of cases, the nature of cases. on the court of appeals, you have a huge number of cases. we had a little under 300 a

year per judge. on some courts of appeals they are up to around 500. but the cases here are much harder. court of appeals, they are often kind of messy. many issues, here, generally one narrowly focused legal issue. but here, they're all difficult issues as i mentioned. that's why we take them. >> now since you have been on the court, has your relationship with people outside that you knew changed? and what do they think you're doing here? >> i don't think it's changed too much. obviously, i don't see my old court of appeals colleagues the way used to and moved from new jersey to the washington area. other than that, i don't think my relationship with people that i knew before has changed. a lot of people are very

knowledgeable about what we do, although i think people who are on the outside who are very knowledgeable don't appreciate some sort of as pebts of this job. >> what role does this institution play in the overall american society? >> the simple answer and accurate answer is the answer that i saw on the website for the -- where they have sample questions that are given to people who are taking the naturalization test and said what is the role of the supreme court and they had a nice short answer, which is to interpret and apply the constitution and laws of the united states and that's it. now it's -- in truth, it's not simple. it's not a mechanical process. no computer could take over what we do, but that is what we do. we have a constitution and the laws and i think they men

something, they don't necessarily mean something i want them to mean in every instance. i think the people of the united states trust us to interpret and apply those laws fairly and even handedly and objectively and that's the great responsibility that we have. >> and what about this building? how does it feel in your life? in other words, what do you think of it? >> it's a great building. we are indebted to chief justice taft who arranged -- he had been president and became chief justice and was the moving force in constructing a separate building for the supreme court. it's very impressive and it's impressive to visitors, lawyers who argue here, people who come to hear the arguments and it's impressive to me. i experienced the building in

really two ways. most of the time it's the place where i'm going to work, so i drive to work, i drive into the garage and it's like the other places where i have worked, usually coming in in the morning. when i go home at night, the building is vacant and it's dark and i walk through the great hall on my way to the elevator and i look around at the pillars and it really -- the building impresses upon me the importance of the work that we're doing. as many times as i have walked through that hall, it never creases to have that impression. >> what about this job is not what you expected it to be? it's a much more public job than my old job on the court of appeals and i don't think i had

thought about that. we're not like politicians. we're not out in public andñr confering with constituents the way they do, but still, there's a lot more public attention focused on what we do than in my previous position. >> often, you read about the court and it's portrayed as right versus left, conservative versus liberal, republican versus democrat. what dotion it feel like inside? >> republican versus democrat, no. and many of the cases do not break down the so-called conservative-liberal lines. i think the public and the media tend to understandably focus very heavily on most controversial cases, but those are just one part of our docket

. and most of our cases don't involve interpretation of the constitution and most of them don't involve hot-button issues and there are plenty of instances in which the court has divided the makeup of the majority and the dissent and not what anybody expected if they thought along the lines you mentioned. >> do you have a pet peeve how this institution is portrayed by outsiders? >> it would be what i just mentioned. it's understandable but i think people don't appreciate what we do. and unfortunately, i think a lot of people think that we are deciding what the rule should be in cases. i talk to a lot of school groups, high school kids,

college kids, some elementary school kids, they usually think of questions before they come in and very often, particularly high school kids, will ask me what do you think about this or what do you think about that, all the most controversial issues, as if that's what i'm doing. there's a confusion in the minds of a lot people between what we do and what the elected branches of the government do. >> justice, thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> all this week, get a rare glimpse into america's highest court through on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices. >> once we hear the oral argument we go to the conference room that week and sit around the table and we talk about it. no one else is in the room and then we vote. >> wednesday, our interviews with associate justices steven

breyer and clarence thomas. and get your own copy of our original documentary on the supreme coirt on dvd part of c-span's american icons include ink programs on the white house and capitol one of the many programs available at c-span.org/store. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> up next on c-span, a look of the role the lobbying profession has on public policy. after that, a conversation on education diss parties in the u.s. a hearing on advertising on the internet known as behavioral advertising. >> there's less than a month left to enter the student cam contest. $50,000 in prizes for middle

and high school students. top prize, $5,000. create a video on one of our country's greatest strengths and must incorporate c-span programming and show varying points of view. winning entries will be shown on c-span. don't wait another minute. go to studentcam.org. >> now a discussion on the lobbying profession in washington. this is part of a lecture series hosted by public affairs and advocacy institute. it's about an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning.

american university that trains people in advocacy and lobbying. i'm pleased to introduce a colleague of mine who has been an professor here at the american university and been working here for 27 years and a senior specialist and there are only about 20 of them left in the congressional research service in american national government. and he's been there since the 1960's, but most importantly, he is really a world class scholar when it comes to understanding congress and congressional procedures. he has the best book on congressional procedures and the policy process. but he also is a co-author and it's in its 12th edition at this point, "congress and its members," the most widely

adopted basic book on congress. walter will be talking about the legislative process and lobbying and how each stage, lobbyists need to know what's going on so they can be very effective. walter, welcome. >> thank you for that kind of introduction and glad to be back. i assume classes for the spring semester and be back on classes then. with that kind of introduction, jim mentioned, only book out there on congressional procedure. but anyway, whatever -- thank you. people like jim, anybody who introduces someone, you know, they always have to make a statement about the person they are introducing otherwise, why are they there? we have a lot of story tellers on the hill. majority whip simpson,

republican from wyoming and he tells a story that applies to all lawmakers and have to go back to states and speak before distinguished audiences like that and introduce highlights all that simpson has done for the great state of wyoming. and all he has done for the united states of america and lists the achievements. does president stop, all that he has done to promote world peace. at the end of the statement, he finally says well, now for the latest dope from washington, here's senator simpson. i'll give you my intellectual spin and we have roughly an hour or so and king henry viii said to his wives, i won't keep you long. i want to make a few general observations about the lobbying business and then i'll do what

jim suggested and walk through the stages of a law making process and indicate where a lobbyist might be able to enter and try to influence the policy process and decisions that congress makes. any time you have a question, comment, story, joke, just yell out. i guess you have to raise your hand on c-span. i will be glad to take it there or else wait until the end and then you can ask questions, whatever you prefer. some general observations. number one, i guess this, i will make three or four of these kinds of points. we are all well represented in this institution in this country. right in this room, we are well represented because everything in it is probably represented by some group or organization located often right here in washington, d.c. i better be careful, you can be

sure the electronics industry is well represented. some of you are drinking coffee, the cups, all of that stuff. we are represented tremendously well, the table, the chairs, the air we're breathing. from birth to death, we are well represented by all kinds of organizations and i would suggest if you want to get a good sense of what moves washington, d.c. at times i could recommend reading the contusion and look in the telephone directory, whether it is fairfax county or maryland, you will see all kinds of associations and you wonder what it is that they do, but they all represent someone, because this is a representative democracy and what lobbyists do is to give voice and say to the people they represent or industries or businesses or whatever it may be. so well represented. another point i would make as

part of that is probably the third largest business or industry in washington, d.c. besides government and tourism. there are lots and lots of people who are affiliated with the lobbying community broadly. go to the clerk of the house website or secretary of the senate and he will probably identify those who are registered lobbyists. but even there, i'm not sure what the exact count is 15,000, 20,000, sometimes i hear up to 30,000. now there is a movement for deregistration. but there is far more people involved in the lobbying community than those who are officially registered. your professor, jim thurber, the head of the center right next door, he counted over 260,000 people affiliated here in the washington, d.c. area a

there are probably hundreds more that aren't able to be counted that engage in grassroots lobbying across the country. those people engaged in the influence business. you have internet providers, all kinds of policy and media specialists. all the folks in this town who are associated with some kind of lobbying enterprise, when you look at it broadly. there may be a second point i'll make now is distinct, i hope, and that is our system is conducive to lobbying. some of you have probably read many times mad ison's federalist number 10. and he himself along with the other authors of the federalist papers. they were lobbyists using the

newspapers to try to encourage the rat filing convention in new york state to approve the new constitution drafted by the framers. look at alex detocqueville when he visited the united states. one of the famous phrases he articulated is that america is a nation of joiners. i would bet everybody in this room probably belongs to more organizations, maybe not directly active in trying to direct policy objectives but you belong to a group, soccer team, simpsons like to join groups, many of them. and then the constitution itself. can't forget that, which the right to petition, redress of

grievances, right of association and free speech, all of this stuff combined is conducive to the formation of groups. we have numerous chiefages in society that help to trigger special organizations, urban versus rural interests, pro-immigration, anti-immigration, go down the list. there are all kinds of groups based around these differences of issues. what is a special interest? that's a good interest. look in the mirror. look in the mirror. all of us are special interests. you are college students. you can be sure there is lobbying on your behalf. you want more student loans at cheaper interest rates. i'm a so-called political scientist along with jim and what happened just recently about a couple months ago, you are probably familiar with

senator coburn, republican senator from oklahoma and offered an amendment during an appropriation bill that said wait a minute, all these research grants that are being provided to political scientists across the country, national endowment of hue man yits or -- many of these grants are worthless. we have better use for this kind of money. what happened? immediately we have an association, the american political scientists association -- real force. they get mobilized a get political scientists writing into their favorite lawmaker that this is not a good idea. so again, lots of special interests. we, all of us, among them. another point i guess i would make is that we're part of this program for two weeks, i

believe. and when we go home and talk to your mother, father, friends, colleagues or whatever, tell them, hey, lobbying is an honorable profession. it does have over a period of time, a corrupt at times, sordid, illegal kinds of experiences right from the beginning. some periods more prominent than others. during the guilded age, late 1800's, early 1900's, you had the senator from standard oil and senator from u.s. steel. you move it up into the contemporary period, you do have problems no question about it. you know jack abramoff and he got involved in bribing lawmakers. as a prominent lobbyist, one

bad apple spoils the barrel. but nonetheless, it is a tremendous or honorable profession and don't hesitate to go into it. to do a good job, you have to have certain skills and talents, internal and external. internally, if you are going to try to move the congress, which is an obstacle course, you have to have knowledge about the policies and you have to be a policy wonk and call in experts to testify if you aren't the right person to do it. you have to have a pretty good sense of strategy and tactics to try to move your idea through the process or stop something you don't like, you know, to block it. you have to know the actors involved. the way you have to persuade or influence, let's say a senator like bernie sanders from vermont is different than lobbying senator hatch from the

state of utah. you have to know the differences. and that's one of your jobs. and you have to know about what procedures might be used in terms of moving something. externally, you probably have to come up with a good communication strategy in order to try to win support, how do you move public opinion and move grassroots support in order to move your idea and stop a bad idea from going through the process. couple of other points and i'll stop on this and see if you have any questions and that is theories of lobbying. this is a little more academic. scholars and others have always been worried about this issue of when does the prime interest might sort of overwhelm the public interest, this sort of conflict. they try to get a better grip from the theoretical perspective just what are

lobbyists engaged in. we have so far three prominent different kinds of theories. one is called the exchange theory and this is the idea that lobbyists are able to provide many things but certainly two big things that all lawmakers want and that is money and votes. and they are often able to deliver both of those ingredients that are necessary for lawmakers to perhaps win re re-election and stay in office, money and votes. the idea here is that you get access this way and you are able to perhaps encourage lawmakers to vote a certain way. well, this is a crude measurement. be very careful about cause and effect here, cause and effect in terms of vote buying or maybe renting a vote for a limited period because if i was

a make believe member and i'm from the state of oklahoma oak or louisiana or texas, you can be sure that i would make believe i'm going around with my cup and say to the oil and gas industry, hey, please fill it up. i have been very helpful. and they'll fill it up. and then the annualists will come along and look at my voting record and what will they say, boy, he votes right down the line for the oil and gas industry, bought and paid for by the oil and gas industry. well, how about we take the reverse example, same example but the reversus case, i don't accept a dime or penny from the oil and gas industry, but you look at my voting record and what do i do, i vote right down the line for the oil and gas industry because this is a representative government. and if most of my workers,

employees and industry are in that area, oil and gas, if i don't vote to help them rkts they ought to elect somebody else. be careful about the quick analysis. the other one is persuasion and all these overlap. and what you are trying to do here is provide information and high quality analysis, sort of pitched a certain way to try to change the policy prempses or choices of members to persuade them, if you will, to vote for x over y or block exmp over why. so persuasion model if you will. and the one that seems to be i think most political scientists subscribe to and call it lobbying as subsidy, that lawmakers and their staff are very busy and limited time and resources and what lobbyists do

is work with lawmakers that support their point of view. so they reinforce the position of their allies by helping them out. they serve and provide them about whatever help. substantive knowledge. political intelligence, procedural advice, all of this together, all right? now, the last point on this phase are the types of lobbyists that exist in washington, d.c. and this is rough. i'm not sure you will find it in any textbooks. but if you look at all the lobbying groups around, here's how you might want to think about it. one would be, you have all kinds of we call them individual lobbying shops, like google, ford, chrysler, gm.

they have their shops on k sthreet headed by someone by vice president of public affairs and if we are talking about the automobile industry, it is a two-way process. that the job of this vice president and the folks who work with him, it's to communicate detroit's views to lawmakers and at the same time, the people here, they communicate with what's going on on the hill to those folks in detroit. two-way process each dependent on the other. second kind of lobbying group, organization or entity would be the associations that i already mentioned. in terms of the telephone directory. big ones we all know, afl-cio, chamber of commerce, national association of manufacturers, american medical association, the american political

scientists association. all of those and more. and if you are a small businessman or woman, you probably belong to the national independent federation of small business. i forget the exact title, but that's roughly it. what happens then? maybe you are running a small hardware store or barber shop, four, five employees and whatever the do's may be for you in that racket. what do you get? maybe some lit tur explaining what is happening on the hill and maybe they'll send you some information owe a convention in las vegas. and then we have a lot of boutique lobbying shops around and a lot of former members,

former hill staffers who have specialized knowledge or interest in a certain area so they form their own small shop with a limited number of employees. if i was a former staff director of the house transportation and infrastructure committee, maybe i would decide i want to go out and start my boutique lobbying shop. what am i go go to do, i worked with that chair and we're pals you can be sure lots of other transportation modes, they want to hire me because i have easy access to the committee chair who had jurisdiction over their areas that are of vital importance to them. so you have boutique shops. law firms are another one. we have lots and lots of lawyers who are engaged in lobbying and probably many of

them never seen the independence of a court. their job is to work on behalf of their clients to try to get stuff done or stop bad stuff from happening. and we also have in town sort of large public relations firms -- well, whatever. another big one. sorry. c-span, what is it? fleishman, hillard. these are one-stop shopping. if you want campaign fundraising help. if you want bills introduced, they can help you on that. amendments, help you on that.

coalition building, they can help you. one-stop shopping. that's what i want to say by way of introductory comments. so if anybody has any questions, right now, stories, jokes, by all means. >> you mentioned that we're all well represented. would you say we are equally represented? >> no, not equally represented. a lot of people who are not engaged in the policy process at all and there are certainly those folks who are better educated if you will, money, more attentive what's going on, and more likely to have their voice heard louder in the halls and those people we call them in the needy category, less well off and have different issues in mind. i suppose if you are fairly

wealthy and all of you are going to fall in this category, you are going to think about issues, transportation, war and peace, clean air, global warming or if you are just struggling, you brought other issues, how am i go go to put food on the table and keep my job. i mean you have lawmakers who represent them, but but it's not equal representation. this is an imperfect system, imperfect system. and so that's just the reality of life. now you want to go to the stuff on lawmakers. you could almost argue that the history of law making is the history of lobbying. right from the beginning when we had the new constitution, you had lobbying going on

there. the anti-saloon league, civil rights movement, women's movement, consumer moft, environment movement, now anti-war movement. we have had always had it and always will have it. i want to run through some of the major points where they can jump in. i'll start at the beginning. somebody has an idea, somebody is an advocating an idea and a lot of them lobby the lobbyists to goat ideas or agenda. a two-way process in many respects. but in terms of one of the first things you think about in terms of a bill or idea, if you

will, is what are you going to call it. we have a cannottage industry about coming up with clever titles because as many of you are aware, most of the bills that are introduced in congress are dead as soon as they're introduced. there are 10,000 introduced and out of that, roughly 10,000, about 400 or so become public law. very few make it through. if we are keen about getting the idea through, the obstacle course called the legislative process, maybe we can come up with an attractive title. maybe track support from the private interest groups. so people spend a lot of time thinking about titles. and i want to pitch this in a bigger moment. you of u.s.a. patriot act.

safe banking act. freedom of information act and again, maybe that will attract some support. reverse strategy applies. if you don't like an idea, you pitch a not so nice title. the idea of framing is very important at this moment in terms of how you move public opinion and how you may move interest groups as well. and so what i'm driving at is is words as political weapons, words as political weapons. they shape our thoughts in terms of -- we can penetrate our public consciousness with certain words, then we're almost there. if you frame the debate, you may be able to frame the outcome. what happens in this touven between congress and the white house the democrats and

republicans, that goes across the country if not sometimes around the world as well is who can shape the message in a way that really resonates with a large number of people. so this idea of words as political weapons is very important. and all of us are subject to this kind of, if you will, to put it contrastly, manipulation. and i'm going to give you a little test. and professor thurber is here so he will be taking names so you better get this one right, all right? that's a little joke. many people in this room and around the country no longer call the estate tax that nor do they call it the inheritance tax. what do they call it? the death tax.

all been spun. the death tax. both parties have their consultants, if you will, who meet in focus groups, with small groups of folks and try to sole is responses to their ideas and sure enough, one of them mention d death tax and the group got all fired up. can't be. taking money from my heirs. so what happens? that consultant realizes this is a winner. this is a winner. so the message goes on high. the republicans start speaking about only the death tax, death tax, death tax over and over and over again. one of the ways is to get to the public is through repetition. both parties do all the time.

and the interest group are skilled in this business of coming up with the right frame or message. during the debate on health, wife heard government takeover. that resonates with folks. socialized medicine is another explosive term in terms of its connotations or on cap and trade to deal with global warming. all that is is a light switch tax. every time you turn on the light, your bill will go up. this technique is applied to titles and something that has been picked up by the white house and become more sophisticated. in terms of marketing, i don't know how many -- you have all gone to restaurants many times. i i know cake provides great food, too. it may be on the menu.

something that would be called chilean sea bass. anyone ordered that? you don't want to say. if the correct title for that fish was on the menu, the prockets are that you might not want to order it. orange raufy. but the official title is slime fish and that's not ap advertising or executive fish. department of agriculture tur said last than a year and indicated that hunger is gone in america. with people who have pains in their stock imare suffering from not longer. it is low food security. that's their problem. again, framing is very important, this whole idea of message sending and you can be

sure that some of the debate that occurs on the floor of the house and senate are done by people who are called message groups. there will be drafts produced by the republican national committee, democrats national committee, so again, here's what our speart stands for and why you ought to vote for us. already, so that's the title. another thing, it doesn't work all the time but sometimes it might, when you drop a bill, introduce a bill in the house, there is a box next to the speaker's desk, there's a hopper and they assign a number to it in the order in which it's dropped into the hopper. sometimes the bill numbers might be of some use in terms of attracting attention. so you have had bills that have been introduced during the

income tax season, something we all want to pay because we all benefit from taxes. that's a message that's hard to frame but if people sat down and thought about it, taxes serve a worth while process. anyway, what happens, we have a s. 1040 or if you want to deal with glasses in the social security, s. 2020. want to make d.c. the 51st state, you could have h.j. r.e.s. 51. sometimes it gives you better play. people spend a lot of time on as well in addition to the titles is actually drafting the bill. scores of interest groups around town draft bills and

draft amendments to those bills as well. and what you're trying to do in terms of the drafting process is to influence its reference to a committee that is likely to act on it rather than one that may not act on it. and how do you know this information. you know it as a lawmaker or some of your staff who have done private consult fations and know it from the assistance provided by youral jice who are making -- allies about what members are going to be helpful and which are not and which chairman are going to back it, at least hold a hearing and which might not. what you try to do is come up with the correct words, phrases in the legislation that you're drafting so it will go to the committee that you think is going to act on it positively. there are certain people who are engaged in this enterprise

and have a big role. one of those is the legislative counsel in the house and senate and guy who heads the office in the house side when he testified, made some kind of a comment that i briefly recollect that more and more he sees drafts of bills brought to him by lawmakers or staff people that have been drafted by outside groups. so they are trying to have a bigger voice in terms of the structure in the bill itself. the house parallel men toorian, they do the referral of the administration and this is a cut and dry process but there are a.m. big yits. farm bill will go to the ag committee. military bill to armed services, banking bill to financial services committee. there are ambiguities or overlaps, hoe how do you take

advantage. perhaps guidance and assistance might be of some value. let me use the example of alcohol, alcoholism. based on how you want to draft this, you can get it before a committee that you think will act on it rather than will not. based on the thrust fft legislation. and it depends on how you as a member view the issue of alcoholism. if you view it as a worker-related problem, because too many employees are coming to work you know, under the weather so to speak or use worker-related language in your legislation so it goes to the committee that issues labor issues, in the house of representatives. if you believe that it's a advertising issue and maybe you

want to address and use commercial language in the legislation so it goes to the committee that deals with committee advertising, if you view it as a health insurance, you have it in health language and go to the health committee. this can be crital at times to the face of legislation. that's more ven i can sigh about the drafting and referral process. i will give you one other process about action or inaction on legislation. i'm reminded of some of you may remember the name of senator domenici who retired at the end of the last congress and there was a book written about this. when he was a freshman senator, he came in and he had the idea or somebody gave him the idea, i'm not sure which, that the people who use the nation's

waterways, the barge operators in the united states, they don't contribute to the federal treasury for the construction and maintenance of these waterways and they ought to be like all the other transportation modes. so that was the idea. and this goes back a ways. the person who headed the finance committee was a man by the name of russell long of louisiana, because domenici's idea initially was one of the ways you extract money is what? you tax them. the issue here was, in louisiana, big river, large number of barge operators, right? so the high probability would be that the finance chair would not be so sympathetic to do men chi's proposal. so what -- domenici's proposal. when you mention the word tax,

they will send it to the senate finance or house ways and means. what domenici said to the bearge operators. we aren't going to tax you but impose on you an inland waterway charge. when the parallel men tarn read that, i'm going to send this to the environment and public works committee and the chairman of that committee sent it down to water resources cement. with domenici is the ranking republican, give it a boost to the law making process. things became more process because the parallel men tarn shifted it to the senate congress. one bill and that goes to the drafting issue as to how you want to address the problem. that's about drafting and

referral. maybe the last one i'll mention and move on is co-sponsorship. and again teas your choice. you're the author of the legislation. if you want to reach out to your colleagues, you can do that. you can enlist help from lobbyists who support your point of view and you have different chases, if you will. you want to demonstrate fairly broad support for your idea. one of the things you might want to do in the house is get at least 218 plus one to sign on to your idea. that may encourage the committee chair to hold a hearing or 51 in the united states senate. is that the objective? or perhaps what you want to do is target it. maybe you have a sense of where your bill's going to go and if you get the chair of that committee and other committee members to sign on, well, hey,

maybe that will encourage activity on this legislation or maybe you want the lions and the lambs to join together. the late senator ted kennedy once said if senator strom thurmon ever co-response -- response order a bill, it's one whose time has come or one of them hasn't read a bill. it can be helpful for people lining up or may per said people not to sign up as well. works both ways. that's a little about that. in terms of committees. the structure and maybe the assignment process and policy making and we'll move onto the floor.

>> this is house. every second of debate time is limited. in terms of the committee system, in terms of structure. if you wanted to design a committee system in the house or the senate, you have different ways or avenues to do that. and these have been debated on the hill for a long time. one of the ways you might want to do it is say hey, we need greater house-senate parallelism. we have that to a degree. so you have correspondence between the two or organize a committee system based on function. we have that to a degree as well, transportation committee, health committee, commerce committee. maybe that's what we want to do. or maybe you want to have a committee system that is parallel and corresponds to the executive branch. you create the department of

homeland security and what happens? we have in the house, a committee on homeland security and also in the senate, homeland security and governmental affairs. or there are special interests play a role in the creation of these kinds of committees, in their creation or continuation. jim and i worked on a number of reform panels and i will give you the example that sometimes committee reformers say that maybe a certain committee ought to be merged. we don't want to abolish, but merge committees on the theory that you put related functions together that this will promote coordinated systemic coordination. if you are going to be the victim of one of these organizations, as a member or outside group that has spent years wooing these committee

members, you aren't so happy. one of the targets is veterans affair committee. some have suggested in the past that well, you know our bias is towards a smaller number of committees with larger jurisdiction. so if that's your objective, then look around and you see which kind of panels might be merged, veterans' affairs and then where does it go? military armed services committee or health related and send it to the health committee and small business committee as well. that exercises the small business committee. but some i heard on veterans, the hearing room fills up with representatives of the veterans' organizations and it is an indirect message-sending technique because all the

lawmakers realize that these veterans organizations are located in every state and district across the united states so it's probably not a wise idea politically to think about abottle issuing or merge the functions. the house and senate have a three-step process of how you get on committees. one of those -- there are four what are called committee on committees. most of them are called steering committees and this is a party panel. so we have four of them. most of the time they are called the steering committee. they are the panel that hands out committee assignments to lawmakers. new congress and those who want to transfer from one committee to another. this can be highly interesting

political process to say the least. if you want to get on a certain committee, if you are a freshman and know a lot of lobby friends, you enlist their help and the leaders will put you on committees that will help you try to get re-elected. that's one of their objectives. during the time of term limits when republicans were in charge of the house, 1995-2007 during this time and hastert was the speaker, he came up with a different technique of deciding who would share a committee. term limit was six years as committee and subcommittee chair. the democrats kept it for 110th but eliminated it for the 111th. there was a vacancy for a committee chair, then you would have three, four or more

republicans from that committee coming in before the steering committee, this committee on committees or house republicans, one by one and they would have to explain and answer questionses about why they were the best choice to be the committee chair. and then they would have to respond pretty positively to certain questions. for example, how much money have you raised for the party? that was an important criterion of being a committee chair. how good are you at putting together coalitions, working with outside graups to pass our agenda. -- groups to pass our agenda. what kind of public relations strategy have you devised to communicate internally or externally, the priorities of our party's preferred measures. all of these questions are critical in deciding whether or

not a or bmp is going to be the committee chair or maybe c, if you will. at the start of this congress, you had really a clash of tight ands, you may -- tifans, you may call between john dingell chairman of the house energy and commerce committee and henry waxman decided he would challenge john dingell for that chairmanship. both of those are decades long experience. john dingell the longest senching house member ever in history. you had two giants going head to head. and because they have been around for so long, you can be sure they had a lot of allies and networks in the broader influence community that they could engage to try to

determine whether one or the other is going to prevail and get the votes to do that. after the committee makes its recommendation, they have to submit it to either the democrat caucus or republican conference and this partisan instrument atlanta -- instrument can direct the committee and last is pro forma and the house and senate vote to place people on standing committees respectively. and then policy making, basically that boils down, you have hearings, markups and reports. those are the major stages. hearing process, obviously, no lobbyists or the people they represent are going to be up there to testify. they have read the testimony of people and worked with the committee staff to