some of these films can be translated into other languages that be sent abroad. these are films from the archives. i do think films are pretty fabulously creative. there are extremes, as you know. we just had a film that cost half a billion dollars. it's, by the way, in my view, a movie about bridging cultures in the future. but it might be cheaper to buy a book about the city's and the polynesian wars. you might get lessons of a similar kind. films are absolutely extraordinary in their power, in their reach, in their creativity. it is astonishing how young people are doing more. i mean grade school people are now making movies. where this goes is going to be

just sensational for the future and i am told we now have three the tv's -- 3d tvs. this is a film world. this is a film world. i wish we had more in resources, in some ways. i will tell you i was giving a speech about a month ago. i like to pride myself on writing my own speeches, but i asked my agency to come up with a paragraph for me on the numbers of what we have done in total in the past. the paragraph came back. it was adroitly written. i looked at it and refused to use the paragraph because i wanted to cry at how small the numbers were. do we do films?

we do. do we make much of a mark? no. we do the best we can with limited resources. >> we have time for one more question. jonathan katz? >> i am with the national assembly of state arts agencies. when you talk about the need for cultures to understand each other globally, i thought here is clearly an area of common interest between the state department and the neh. when you talked about the need to educate young people in a reflective capacity, i thought here is an opportunity for a partnership with the department of education. i have seen sometimes these kinds of partnerships institutionalized in the national endowment for the arts, like the arts education partnership that spanned administrations. i wonder where you see long-term

strategic partnerships either within the federal government or with public interest groups? >> we do work with other agencies. the three we have historically worked the most with, in terms of dollar interrelationships, or the library of congress, the museum of library services, and the national science foundation. we have also done projects with the department of education. we certainly work with the department of state. state is not a great reservoir for resources. they are pretty tightly run. but clearly how we interrelate with other institutions and work together is one way of using capacities of each in different ways. i think we are going to have to do more of that. it will be helpful.

>> before we close, you are here surrounded by some of the nation's leaders in the arts, culture, humanities, and education. there are more people on television and the internet. are there parting words you would like to make or any advice you might want to offer in this time of economic challenge and spiritual confusion? [laughter] >> let me say two things. everybody in this town knows that all presidents do not want to say "on the one hand on the other," but there are difficulties. the united states of america, by a quantitative measure, leads the world. there is no one close. in some ways, the real challenge is that we continue this.

and there is real prospect that the competition out there is going to make that very hard. one of the great circumstances is how do you not flop as a society. the national endowment for the humanities is one very small institution, but it is an emblematic one. i hope we are able to preserve it in the way it is. but the bigger issue always is where we are as a society itself. america is facing these challenges that are severe economic, severe international, and really testing to our people. this is a test we have to rise above. i will tell you i just visited one of the finest humanities programs we have ever helped

fund, a small exhibit in new york at the new york historical society on lincoln in new york. i had never really thought that lincoln had much of a presence in new york that mattered. it ends up it mattered in a great deal, in a whole host of ways. some of these pictorial circumstances -- a group called the copperheads, who were for slavery, against clinton being able to control the militia of the state of new york -- a group called the brooklyn soperistics -- groups in the north holding ideas you would think for 16th century. contrast it with an unbelievably enlightened leader and enlightened leadership around

the country of a very different bill. -- different ilk. lincoln helped lead this country but the country helped lead at lincoln. that is the way we are today. we have these challenges. the question is whether the great instincts of our country are going to come out. if they don't we are in trouble. if they do, watch out. this place is going to take off. >> thank you, chairman jim leach. [applause] h[captioning performed by [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> up next, steven briar on foreign oil and the u.s. contribution. after that, the annual radio and

tv correspondents dinner. then, a health-care moot court want rationing health care. tomorrow on washington journal, a discussion on the new health care bill and what is ahead for congress after the easter recess. the president and ceo of the consumer debt at industry association talks about consumer credit boards and reports. in a georgetown university professor on how to do the job. "washington journal," live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the minute wall street firms were in the business of harvesting middle-class and lower middle class americans for their home equity values and making loans, there was a natural risk of abuse.

>> sunday, michael lewis on the subprime mortgage crisis. his latest book is "the big short." michael lewis, at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific, on c- span's q & a. >> now supreme court justice stephen breyer talks about whether it is ok to use foreign law interpreting the u.s. constitution. the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies posted the discussion in washington. this is about one hour, 20 minutes. [applause] >> that was a very nice introduction. i think it is only fair to point out a review are from the l.a. times got a hold of a book that i wrote. this was a review.

he said and "alice in wonderland," alice emerges from a pool of tears, and they're sitting on iraq. -- sitting on a rock. he said this is before breyer wrote this book. your founders -- and they were always great diplomats who set the agenda for the next 100 years. there are always walking in the woods, were they not? it is beautiful outside. you pulled the curtains and you cannot see the woods where we really ought to be walking. but there we are. those pieces will -- those people also set an agenda, and it is extraordinary how long it

has lasted. 50 years, at least, and probably longer. it has big words attached -- democracy, peace, freedom, and prosperity. and that was going to work through cooperation. who are we? we are, in a sense, we could say foot soldiers, but that is to militant -- too militant. we are the professional people who are in part to carry out that vision. maybe not all of you are. very few presidents of countries know what to do. i would like at least 12, but not even one ever has. -- one to, but not even one ever has. we're professionals. the question is what we do to

participate in this. it is a good image. cooperation in many different ways through what professionals will do. what i do in the next 20 minutes or so is try to give you a picture of what i, as a professional judge, have to do with this enterprise. when i say i, i am not speaking personally, i mean our court. i think i can best do that and show you how that is involved over time if i classify the kinds of questions we have in just three kinds of questions. the first is going to be really exciting questions that produced terrific political arguments and are terribly, in my opinion, an important. category #two will be a big letdown. it is going to be very boring questions. they are terribly important.

because almost no political -- because all snow political benefit, but provide -- almost no political benefit, but the ride challenges. category three is important. let's go to our first category. should the supreme court of the united states, or should other judges, look at what other foreign courts do when they decide major questions of constitutional law? that is a great question. i knew that was going to be politically interesting. we had one of these meetings and sometimes they have interbreed meetings to get everyone to work together well. -- enterand branch -- interbra nch meetings to get everyone to work together well. this subject came up.

a member of congress said this document is an american constitution. why in heaven's name do you refer to cases -- he did not make it personal. he says, the supreme court is referring its decisions made by -- are offering to decisions made by foreign courts when they interpret the document. -- are referring to decisions made by foreign courts when they interpret this document. why do they do that? i said, i guess you mean me, because i have done that quite a lot. he said, perhaps i do. i said, the reason i do that is the following. we live in the world that is ever more interested in democracy. more countries have independent judiciary spirit more countries have constitutions or similar documents to protest -- have

more countries have independent judiciary spirit more countries have constitutions or similar documents to protest -- have independent judiciaries. more countries have constitutions or similar documents to protect democracy. if i see someone who enter but the document is somewhat like me and my country -- to enter ports -- to enter earth's -- if i see someone who interprets the document somewhat like me or my country -- he said not to refer to it in my opinion. i should have known when to quit. there is more to it than that. if i'm honest with you, some of those countries are struggling to maintain a democracy, independent judiciaries. they often refer to our decisions. if i right in my decision something that points out that

i have read a case of theirs, even if i disagreed with it, they know their cases are being read and they can go to their legislators and say, we have our role here. it helps show that we have an important role. it helps them establish that democracy in production for liberty. i realize i will not get anywhere in this political debate. it comes up sometimes. not all of the time. we meet sometimes. we just had an exchange with some canadian judges. there will be german judges coming here next year. we've been to india and they have been over here. the judges from luxembourger, and we talk to them and have a substantive -- the judges from luxembourg, and we talk to them

and have substantive meetings. -- from luxembourg come and we talk to them and have substantive meetings. if you can have discussions on issues and questions and it is not just i do it this way or that way, you actually exchange information and learn from each other, which is normal. no one is going to tell me, however good it sounds politically, no one is going to say i cannot read what i want. what i say, and others who do the same, it does not bind us and we know that and understand that this is the american constitution. what can i not read it? i do read it. if i read it, why can i not refer to it. i know it is not binding. if you write a law review article that is relevant, i will read and cite its. -- cite it. that is my view. i made this argument and i

guarantee people still got up and said, this is the american constitution, why are you referring to foreign courts? i say that is irrelevant. when i read things, i can read what i want. what is really happening, more and more, is people are learning from each other. sometimes they reject what the other person has done, never do they think it is binding. that is a sociological fact, not a leap. the law does not change that much, except we may have a more informed opinion, for which i see nothing to complain about or no need to be apologetic. that is an important issue. from a legal point of view, it is not overwhelmingly important. if some people do not want to read for an opinion, fine, do not read them. -- read the for an opinion -- read the foreign opinions, do not read them. i want to go to category two,

which i think, as boring as it is or will be when i explain it, it in fact is much more important. what i mean by category two is simply to look at the agenda and a list of cases which is being fully considered by the supreme court of the united states in this year, last year, compared him to 20 -- comparatively to 20 years ago. you'll see an enormous growth in the number of cases. there is no disagreement about this. everyone on the court will certainly believe a knowledge of foreign law perhaps international -- foreign law, perhaps international, is necessary or helpful to the decision. we only hear fully about 80 cases. i counted nine that involved some kind of issue like that. three of the more guantanamo --

three of them were guantanamo. one was a vitamin company in ecuador buying vitamins from a dutch company, wanting to say there is an international cartel of which the united states has one member and ecuadorian company wants to suit under our antitrust laws in new york. -- sue under our antitrust laws in new york. can they do it? it is not an easy question. why did they want to do that? we have a lot of things that country's -- other countries do not have, and there is some economic advantage to them doing it here. it was a tough question. to know the answer to that question satisfactorily, i think

i had to look at and know about a european antitrust law. i knew about it because they filed briefs. canada filed briefs. japan filed briefs. if i go yesterday -- two days ago, we have a case in front of us involving the reach of the securities and debt -- anti- fraud provision. what happens to fraud committed in the united states which affects a buyer in europe or austria? we have briefs filed by france, england, australia, and they are not just briefs as they used to be. but are designed to show that -- they are briefs that explained thoroughly what the reasoning is, where the conflict are, and why it is a problem. -- where the conflicts are, and why it is a problem.

a company in los angeles wanted to get information in a federal court belong to another los angeles company. under a federal discovery statute, the competitor wants to read your information. they say they do not want to give it to them. they say, we want it, so we can give it to the anti-cartel authorities in europe. the europeans said they did not wanted. again, we have a lineup of countries telling us both ways. nobody thinks that is irrelevant. we had mrs. -- what was her name? in the klimdt paintings. does anybody know that? oh, my goodness. i have reached an age. most of the things i remember very clearly never really happened. [laughter] she brings a suit in los angeles.

her grandparents were -- were great uncle lived in vienna and the nazis took one of the paintings are brilliant. it is hanging in the museum in vienna. she thinks she is entitled to it. it is a very difficult question. the question that came up to the court was whether she, if she sued in los angeles, the museum could assert a defense of sovereign immunity. we are part of a government. for technical reasons, there were certainly in the 40's, but in the '70s and '80s, they might fall in it an exception -- might fall in an exception. where do you look to find out if it is sovereign immunity? what are we looking at, then or now? i found a helpful case in paris, in the court of appeals. it was a great case of christian dior.

the ex-king did not pay the bills and so he was sued. he exerts sovereign immunity. the judge as you working, you are not king, so you have no sovereign immunity. that helped me decide the case. i am try to give you a picture of the world. we had, in that year, a case of nafta where nafta has certain requirements as to what the president can do. can progress -- congress makes it tougher to bring the trucks in from mexico which is an environmentally-based law? does it violate nafta? that is a hard question. you have to look to treaties and how they work to resolve that. we have the warsaw treaty, which has to do with airline liability. the people who are most against using international law -- of

course, where you have a treaty, of course you look to how other nations interpret it when you are looking to your own interpretation. you have to. it is normal. what do we do with very hard questions? this year, we had it. we have had other years. there is an alien tort statute which gives anybody the right to bring a lawsuit in new york or any other place in the united states to recover money from anyone in the world who has violated international law and heard them. why did they pass that statute in 1790? they were thinking of pirates. if you find a part, here is what you do -- hang him during -- if you find a pirate, here is what to do -- hang him. i am overstating. the point is, who are the

pirates today? because the statute is still there. what is the equivalent? to really go into that, it is harder than you think. it is not just a question of waiting the morality of the various -- of waiting -- of weighing the morality of barry's bad acts. -- of various bad acts. somebody start suing all kinds of people. henry kissinger is the example. you're always worried that the belgians will put him in jail or somewhere else. the problem legally is, to have all rule in the united states -- a rule in the united states, that it is generalized in a world without the supreme court act and harmonize things, that the rule will work elsewhere.

it is a tough question. to answer those, of course you have to know something about international law and how laws of other countries work. that is the world today. that is the problem i am putting to you. it is a boring, detailed problem. it happens now. it happens more and more. in a world where protections against what i call arbitrary behavior, which is shorthand for human rights, where more people all over the world are wanting and getting protections in that respect, it is something more and more american judges have to know about. i hate to make his confession, but i do not have universal knowledge. -- make this confession, but i do not have universal knowledge. the lawyers tell me in their briefs. that means they have to know.

the lawyers also do not have universal knowledge of everything. they have to learn how to look things up. that is what they learn in law school. law school basically gives them some substance, quite a lot. it gives them lessons in how to look things up. they call it the socratic method, which is simply a device designed to portray that this is a very exciting thing. [laughter] but this is what has happened. it is circular. the law school's or you, if you are taking a course in law, have to bring these kinds of lot of other nations, how to look it up, but all of international bodies, how to look up. gospel lot of international bodies, how to look it up. -- paul lot of international

bodies, how to look it up. he found more than 1000 organizations that are international in the sense that they make law -- like the imf or the wto to make laws and rules that are more than buying -- are binding on more than one nation. my point is that you have to teach things perhaps like that, not to the professors. do not have a special course called "international law." people may or may not take it. something of this should come into a course in contracts and tort or business law or other places. i am trying to show you that lots of people are involved, that these administrators, as we are, or professionals, as we are, have much work to do.