year's consultation? will he spread a bit of christmas cheer by reassuring my constituents that he will keep an open mind and that he will not be railroading through a railroad? >> i completely understand the concern that there is all the way along the proposed line. obviously, people are worried about it and, yes, this is a proper consultation-it must be a proper consultation and it will be. as i have said before at the dispatch box, for 50 years we have been trying to deal with the north-south divide and have a more effective regional policy. i do believe that high-speed rail has a really effective role to play in bringing our country closer together and spreading economic benefit throughout all our country. >> students in wirral tell me that they need their education maintenance allowance for travel to go to the sixth form or college of their choice. catherine mccormack, the head of south wirral high school, says "without ema, choice and diversity are not supported." does the prime minister think that a choice of courses is

only for those who can afford it? >> i have to say to the honorable lady that we looked very carefully at the study that was completed under the government of the labor party and it showed that nine out of 10 of those people receiving education maintenance allowance would have stayed on at school anyway. this is why the labor party landed us in such a mess over the economy. we have to ask the question about value for money and whether we are spending money in the correct way. we are not abolishing emas: we are replacing emas with something more effective. at a time -- >> order. members ask the question; they must listen to the prime minister's answer. >> at a time when we are legislating to raise the participation age to 18, we have to ask whether it is it is right to spend so much money on asking people to do something that by law they will be asked to do anyway.

>> time and time again, we seem to be exporting extreme islamist terrorists and suicide bombers to afghanistan, israel and now sweden. what steps is my right honorable friend taking to drain the poison of extreme islamism from our country? >> my honorable friend raises an incredibly important point. if we are frank on both sides of the house, we have not done enough to deal with the promotion of extremist islamism in our own country. whether it is making sure that imams coming over to this country can speak english properly, or whether it is making sure that we de- radicalize our universities, we have to take a range of further steps, and i am going to be working hard to make sure that we do. yes, we have got to have the policing in place; yes, we have got to make sure that we invest in our intelligence services; yes, we have got to co-operate

with other countries-but we have also got to ask why it is that so many young men in our own country get radicalized in this completely unacceptable way. >> the british house of commons is in recess for the holidays. prime minister's question will resume on january 12, 2011. on our web site, you can find the video archives of past prime ministers questions. >> with the house of commons now in recess, prime minister's questions will not be seen live this wednesday. it will return live on wednesday to a new worry 12 at 7:00 a.m., on c-span2. >> next, our exclusive interview with yelena kagan. after that, q&a with documentary filmmaker dan reid. >> it is hard to get here and it

is also hard to leave here. but all of us do leave and the senate always continues. >> search for farrell speeches -- farewell speeches in the c- span video library. more than 100,000 hours on line and friedrich is washington, your way. >> justice elena kagan was appointed to the supreme court by barack obama to replace a justice stevens interfirst tv interview since joining the court, justice taken -- we will get a look at her approach to her relationship with the chief justice and her thoughts on the confirmation process. she sat with c-span in her

temporary chambers for this interview. >> thank you for inviting us into your temporary chambers at the court for this interview. there was a piece in the slick magazine this month and it resonated with me -- slate magazine this month and it resonated with me. it said that once a lawyer has been nominated to the court, the next step is to become a great justice. tell me how he became a lawyer. >> i think i became a lawyer for all of the wrong reasons. when i was a law school dean i would tell people not to go to law school because you do not know what to do. but that is why i went to law school. i believe all of those things

about keeping our options open. i was not at all sure i wanted to practice law when i started law school. i thought what could be wrong with having a law degree and then -- and then deciding. when i got to law school, what i was amazed to find was that i absolutely love the law school and studying law in a way that i don't think i had loved any other part of my academic experience. i had been a good student, but i had not felt that passion for a subject matter. i like thinking about law. i like that law was something that was an intellectual challenge and a puzzle, but also had real-world consequences. you could think about using what you were learning to make the world a better place and to make people's lives better. i found it in as the interesting and challenging. in the end, i went to law

school for the wrong reasons, but i was glad i got there. >> on becoming a great justice, you have had a lifetime to observe the court. what do you think makes a great justice? >> i think people are great in different ways. some justices are great because they have extraordinary wisdom, they have an understanding of how to apply the law in their time in a way that completely is consistent the text of the law and the purpose of the law. and it is also completely write for the times that that judge lives in. there are some justices -- right or the times that that judge lance in. some justices have with them about the way the law operates in their society.

one justice that comes to mind on that score is robert jackson. there are other justices who are great because of their opinions and because there are so -- they are so a quick and moving and persuasive when they write about the law. -- so persuasive and moving when they write about the law. there are a lot of qualities that people have. many justices have been great in their own way. whether i can meet any of those standards is something to be seen and something that other people will have to say. >> you are the first justice to be nominated not having served as a lower court judge. does that matter? >> that is something for other people to decide.

i am sure i come to the job with less experiences. possibly, there are some other experiences that some of my colleagues have not had. i hope the court as a whole will be enriched by my presence. maybe you do not need nine former judges. maybe you can have some people on the court who have different kinds of experiences and who come to this job with a little bit of a different purse that -- a bit of a different perspective because of that. the learning curve is steep. there are many things i have not done before that i am doing with the first time. that is what makes the job so fun and so exciting. i hope i will be able to take whatever experiences i have had

and whatever talents i might have and put them to use in this different kind of place. >> we are talking to you six weeks into the term. can you talk to us about your application process and what the first six months have been for -- have been like for you? >> there is a lot to learn. the learning curve is extremely steep. sometimes it seems vertical. the people here have been so extraordinarily helpful. all of my colleagues have been wonderful, warm, and gracious. i think the experiences that i have brought to the job are going to help me a good deal. the solicitor general, you see the court in everything it does, just from a different point of view, from the point of view of the advocate rather than the judge. i am familiar with the practices and procedures of the court. it also familiar -- i am

familiar with my colleagues and the way they ask questions and the things they might be interested in. it has been a whirlwind. new and exciting things all the time. >> do you find a level of populist scrutiny you did not have as a solicitor general? >> that is for sure. when i was the solicitor general, i could walk down the street and nobody knew who i was. as a result of the confirmation process and your picture appears in the paper and on television, now i walk down the street and a lot of people know who i am, especially in washington, d.c. that is not so to when you get out of washington d.c.. people have been extraordinarily nice and kind. they yell congratulations to me, you go girl and all kind of things like that.

i feel noted, scrutinize, in a way i never had before. -- i feel noticed, scrutinized in a way i never had before. the number of photos thats -- number of photos get further and further away. people have been fabulously nice. >> i was reading on a blog about the court and someone noted that you were wearing blue jeans. >> it was what i was wearing and where i order a pizza from. >> justices could come here and resort into the anonymity of the court. videoay's society with everywhere, we will see. we will continue to follow you. >> it is a good thing that people talk about the court and

people have awareness that is important in our society. there is some uncomfortable nest that might go along with that. -- there is some discomfort that might go along with that. it is a point and that people understand the institution and have the ability to talk about it and the people who serve on it. >> what d.c. today as the role of the core? -- what do you see today as the role of the court? >> frequently, this court decides constitutional issues. sometimes it might be statute that congress passes. it is to interpret the law and

to ensure that the law is enforced and apply. that is a different role than the political role, then the role of the president and the congress. it is not a role where you are trying to give voice to what you think are the general sentiment of the american people or public opinion. your job is to look at the law and try to figure out its meaning the best you can and to

apply it. that is often hard. there are difficult questions that arise when the court tried to do that job. there are questions -- tries to do that job. we are trying to do the same thing, which is to look at the laws that exist and figure out what they mean and to apply and forced them in the way it ought to be. >> speaking of court-watchers, everyone was interested to know when you would ask your first question and what that question would be? i am wondering about your own thinking in your first oral argument. had you planned what the question would-be? was it the intellect of the moment that caused you to jump in when you did? can you tell us about that experience? >> i do not think i stressed about it too much. it was a bankruptcy case. i did not think it would arouse too much attention. i do not think it did. it was a complicated bankruptcy case. i tried to prepare for it as well i could. i tried to figure out the

issues involved. what i have done for each case is to think about what questions are important to me. what don't i understand? what don't i know? what sorts of answers from lawyers might make a difference in the way i think about a case? as i prepare, i have a running list of questions that i would like answers to. i walk into an argument with some general sense of that list. my colleagues will ask a question before i get to it often. i will not repeat what they do. but i will try to see what my colleagues are asking and try to figure out what some of them are interested in. i come in prepared with a set of questions. i also listen hard to what happens in the argument to figure out which of the questions i should ask and which would be important and which would be meaningful. >> it looks like you intend to be an active questioner. >> most of the justices are active questioners. i was a clerk on the court some number of years ago in the late 1980's. then, it was a much less active

court. it was a much less hot bench. many of the justices on the court at that time would not ask any questions. or they would ask a few questions. a lawyer could spin out an argument than in a way that is impossible now. most of us are at the questionnaires -- questioners. the lawyer is constantly trying to ask one after another after another. you know you will not have a large amount of time. i think it is a good thing about the court. maybe sometimes we take it a little bit far. sometimes you will see an argument where you think, that our lawyer. he never had a chance -- that poor lawyer never had a chance to tell us the basic theory of the case. all of us read the briefs carefully. all of us have an opportunity to say what he thinks about the

case. argument is for us to say, we have read the brief. we know what you think about the case. here are the questions that it inspired in us. here are the uncertainties you left open. we use oral argument to do that. it is important that you respond to our questions and our concerns. >> so you come in with a vast knowledge of the cases and what they are. that helps. >> it definitely does. sometimes it will have more of an effect than other times. some people come in and they have read the briefs and they have had experience in similar kinds of cases and they know what they think. other times, you will see a much more open, exploring set of questions.

you can see that the justices are struggling with some new issue or some different aspect of an issue that they have not confronted before. sometimes, it really makes a difference in terms of, help me try to figure this out. sometimes, a little bit less so. sometimes, in those sorts of cases where the people have figured it out a bit, the justices are using the questions as much to talk to their colleagues as to talk and get information from the lawyer. that is of value in oral arguments. we do not talk about the cases together beforehand. oral argument provides the first chance for you to see what your colleagues might see about -- might think about a case, what interests them about a case

and for you to suggest to them what you think. parts of oral argument is that, too. the justice are -- justices are talking to each other through the lawyer. person just happens to be there. >> it facilitates the compensation. having been in the world, what is your mindset about the government advocate? do you think you will be a little bit tougher on them because you know what it takes to stand there? >> i think they ought to be held to a high standard. frankly, everybody ought to be held to a high standard within come to the court. they ought to know their stuff and they ought to be prepared to answer our questions. i am certainly not going to give them any breaks.

i know that they work hard. i do not think i will hold it against them that they work for the government. those lawyers are performing a service. the solicitor general's office is important to the way the court works. the solicitor general post office appears in cases where the u.s. government is not a party, but has some interest and provide expertise. i think the court listens carefully to the government when it does that. the government does not give those arguments in the more respectful treatment than anybody else's. they understand that that is an important set of arguments to understand when one is looking at a case. >> i was listening to some of the recordings of last year's cases.

it is interesting to hear your colloquies with the chief. i am wondering about your intellectual relationship with chief justice roberts. often, your questions and answers were buried -- were very rapid fire. i wonder about your relationship with him. >> he was the great supreme court advocate of his time before he became a judge. i always felt as though he could do better than what all of us as lawyers were trying to do. he did it as well as anybody had ever done it, to be at that podium and to make an argument in front of the supreme court. that is intimidating to know that the person questioning you has stood in your shoes and has done the job better than anybody else ever have -- ever has. i have listened to the teeth's arguments and have talked to people who saw >>'s -- the senate -- i have listened to the chief's arguments and tough to people

who have listened to his arguments. if there is something you want to hide in your argument, he is certain to fight it. i tremendously enjoyed arguing in front of him because you had to be at the top of your game. you should have to be at the top of your game. >> will you tell the story for the camera about because you received from the president to nominate you? >> i received it the night before the announcement. i kind of thought it was coming. it did not come completely out of the blue. i had been on the short list for the prior nomination, the one that justice sotomayor was picked for. i interviewed with the president and i had not received the good call.

i received the bad call, the call that said, sorry, it is not you. the reason i say it was not completely a surprise the second time was because i could see that there was a difference in the days leading up to the announcement between the first time and the second time. the second time, they asked me for much more material. they made me prepare a statement. i started worrying about what clothing i would wear. things like that. i thought it was a good idea. i was more in the game the second year that i was in the first. >> where water -- where were you when the call came?

>> i was at home when the call came. they told me that i should be at home when the call came. the president called and he was wonderfully kind and terrific. i think i started crying a little bit. he was -- everything he said moved me profoundly. he gave me one piece of advice which i did not take. this may relate that to a prior question you asked me. he told me not to read the newspapers for the whole time of my nomination and confirmation. sometimes i took that advice. often i did not much to my regret. it was good advice. he was wonderful. he was kind and personnel and the second conversation was a lot more fun than the first. >> if the article in slate is correct that it is every

lawyer's dream, can you describe what the motion was like? >> it is an awesome responsibility is it is a great privilege to be here. it is an enormous responsibility. this court decides important questions. many people's lives are changed because of this court's rulings. that means you have to do your best to get it right. you have to work as hard as you can to get it right. that is humbling. it is all-inspiring. -- it is awe-inspiring. it is this whole mix of things.

it is the most interesting thing you have ever done. it is the most important and the most humbling thing you have ever done. >> let's talk about the confirmation process. you said the president and-you not to read the newspapers. supreme court nominations are sold -- the president at-you not to read the newspapers. the supreme court nominations are so politicized have. -- are so politicized. >> i got it. i think people treated me well and treated me fairly. even the people who voted against me for whatever reason gave me a respectful hearing. when i went around to do the

courtesy the visits, i did 82 of them, and people wear courteous. and during the hearings, people ask me good, fair, an important question. i enjoyed that part of it. i am not sure i expected to. it was an opportunity to talk about something that i love and something that i have been thinking about for a long time, which is the will of judges in society and the will of the supreme -- the role of the supreme court. i had a good time. sometimes what the senators really want to know, you cannot tell them. they want you to give a thumbs

up or a thumbs down on the 10 hot cases of the last 20 years. or they want you to give them a sign on how you are going to come out on the next 10 hot cases that are going to be coming down the pipeline. people do that on all sides. they do it on the democratic side and the republicans do it. they have a different set of litmus issues, but all of them want to know those things. you have to keep on saying, i cannot talk about that. i can talk about some general issues. sometimes, you think they do not care about this. they did not care what i think about constitutional interpretation. they just want to know how i am going to come out on this case.

that is something i am not going to be able to tell them. a lot of the senators are thoughtful and smarts and educated about a wide range of-- smart and educated about a wide range of issues. i enjoyed my conversations with them and people were putting it to me and people who were tossing me softballs. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] who have had something of a number of notes. just because, as you said, the process had to come in part, politicized, you're just want to have some opposition. i like to think that i did not have much to do with me. i think that if that is true, it

is also a number of my colleagues. the number of no >> de think there is going to be a time in which people will stop noticing gender? >> at think probably, but we have not reached it yet, because as you say, much was made of it, and i think it was important and meaningful to a lot of people, and i think it should have been, to see a court which more closely reflects american society and the role of women and american society, is i think an important thing and a good

thing and a noteworthy thing. so i don't take it amiss that people say, you know, maybe she was a woman and maybe that was part of why she was picked. if that is the case, so be it. it is a terrific thing that there are three women on the court, and people are not wrong to talk about it. >> justice o'connor and justice ginsberg was talked about wanting to add a feminine touch to the feminine row, and the fact is there were none of them -- you have chosen to wear the black robe. was that a conscious decision? >> you this have to do what makes you feel comfortable. in my real life, i am not a frilly, lacy person. some of the things that people wear struck me as not something

i felt comfortable with. i have on occasion warned a white scarf under my robe. i think i wore that for all our pictures and for my investiture. i wear pearls allot, which sort of peek out from the road. i think that the rope is a symbol, and it is a symbol of the sort of the impersonality of the law and how you put on that road, and who you were before, in away is meant to go way. you are supposed to apply the law and do justice apart from any personal characteristics that you have. i think that is a profound symbol, that kind of plain black robe that says i am going to try

to the extent that i can not to be guided by any personal experiences or personal characteristics, but to apply the law in the fairest way i think it's possible. >> when you were in the robing room for the first time, can you talk to me about the process and walking into the courtroom and sitting in as a member of it? >> before my big public investiture, i was met by the chief justice and he gave me a little bit of a tour of the inner rooms that the justices go to, the conference room that the justices meet income and the robing room where the

justices take on and off their robes, and the dining room upstairs. on the tour, before he shows me the robing room, i looked and there were these wooden lockers. it goes from the chief justice and then it said justice stevens and it carried on down. the last locker was justice sotomayor. we walked around the building is a little bit and he showed me some other rooms. the maybe to 15 minutes. we ended up back in the robing room again. in that time, what happened was that justice stevens nameplate came off and each of the nameplate had gone over one and another was a justice kagan. he showed me the new locker with the justice kagan nameplate. it was a very effective way to say to me, well, you are here now. your part of the community. your part of the institution. -- you are part of the

community. you are part of the institution. >> after all the time you spent in that courtroom, describe the difference when you walked in for the first time. >> it was an odd-inspiring moment -- it wasn't on spiring moment -- it was an awe- inspiring moment. i was always the front row in the audience behind the podium. to be on the bench and to look out at the lawyers and at the public, you very much feel a sense of responsibility and a sense of awe. >> what do you think of this courtroom itself? >> it is magnificent.

what i am most surprised by, i think, when i became solicitor general and i started spending a lot of time there and i had not been in the supreme court court room for a number of years before that, what struck me was how close the podium was to the bench, how close the lawyers who are arguing are to the justices who are asking questions. you are almost on top of a lawyer. any inclination of the lawyer might have to make a speech, i think, goes away. you're just right there and it is much more natural to have a conversation, to have a give- and-take than it is for anybody to be operating in any way. that is what i think is incredible -- to be orating in any way. that is what i think is incredible.

it encourages a kind of conversation which is what i think ought to be happening in the courtroom. >> cents recorded our series of interviews for this documentary, one things that -- one thing that has happened is that the bronze doors have been closed for security. that has always been a symbolic part of the process, the lawyers processing from a court and going down the marble steps. what do you think has happened to the building and the feeling of the process as far as security measures closing the stores? >> this happened last year before got to the court and i was not privy to any of the conversations that occurred among the justices. i do not really know the kinds of reasons people had. i am not in a position at all to think whether they were a prepared justifications for closing them or not. i just do not know.

>> i am not asking about the justification as far as the feel of the operation of the core. >> it does not make a difference. the court is just as grand as it always was. the people in the court are the same. people come from all walks of life. you have the people who are the supreme court bar and were their all-time, but you also have many members of the public, some who come for an entire argument, some who come for five minutes, they take people in for five minutes for 10 minutes to get a sense of what an argument looks like, and then they go out again. in the court, it is grand and awe-inspiring as it ever was. >> i goal the time. i am told that justice o'connor

was kind of the enforcer of this. she would walk around the building and said, " why are you not going to lunch? you should go to lunch." i like that. it is a community. people should get to know each other and really try to understand each other and care about each other. to the extent that she said that lunches are time for doing that, i think it is tremendous. >> the sentence a torn, the conference room, -- the sanctum centorum, a conference room, what is it like in there?

>> it is a great room. it is a lovely room, as every room in the court is. i do not think i had ever been in the room before. or a year and i was solicitor general, but i do not think -- i clerked here for a year and i was solicitor general, but i cannot think i had ever been in there. >> what is the conference process like? >> we all sit in assigned places. the chiefs it's at one end. the senior associate justice -- the chief sits at one end. the senior associate justice sits at the other. my chair is nearest the door. that is because i have two special responsibilities. one of those responsibilities is to get the door when anybody knox. -- anybody knocks.

some remain not because they left their glasses in their office or somebody needs to give a message to a justice, but my job is to get to the door and get whatever it is. because nobody comes in. none of the clerks do, none of the secretaries or assistance or anybody who works in the court do. i have to work a double set of doors. i hope to get open one and open the other and pick up -- i have to open one and open the other and pick up whatever. that is one of my job. either job is to take good notes. i am the one, at the end of the conference, who goes to the clerk's office and tells them exactly what the justices decided. in a given conference, we might talk about discrete number of argued cases, but we also talk about a wide number of art -- but wide number of other things, like cases that the court will take.

i am busy riding away all the time that i sit there. -- i am busy writing away all the time that i sit there. those are the two special rules for the junior justice. >> explain the process. as solicitor general, you're having to recuse yourself from a number of cases this year. how many cases have you recused yourself from? >> on the cases that i recused myself from where there is any labs, i get up and it -- any collapse, i get and walk out. -- i get up and walk out.

the worst month was october. by the middle of this year, most of them are likely -- most of the recusal issues will be gone. in the spring, i will have to recuse myself, but the artfest of license cited. -- the arc is definitely subsiding. >> we have done a number of these interviews. -- but the ark has definitely -- but the arc has definitely subsided. >> we have done a number of these interviews. what has it been like since you have been in there? >> i think there is really good discussion. it goes around the room. there is a rule that i like. nobody can speak again until

everybody has had a chance to speak once. so everybody gets a chance to be heard. each person talks about the with that person sees the case and what the important issues are and how they would resolve those important issues. sometimes, that is it. it is clear what will happen and it is clear that there are not any questions to be better around. often, people will go back and forth. oh, i changed my view. i heard another justice had to say. that is another or better way of doing it. or we do not have a clear majority on any approach. let's talk about it and develop a sense of where that majority will come from. and sometimes people will argue with each other. it is never hot.

it is never combative. it is certainly never angry. but i think there is good discussion. >> it is hard for people outside the court, especially people who are passionate about issues, how you can have so many 5-4 decisions and still have a great deal of comity. how does that work inside of this building? >> i am sure will learn more about that as the months and years go by. but it is very striking. it is not unusual. it is not the only court that works like this, by any means. in fact, congeniality is prized as a virtue in many courts. people tell you very much their personal relationships with the other justices, value their friendships, and they'll know

that they will disagree with each other some amount of the time. everybody else is operating in complete good faith, everybody's trying to do their job as best they can, try to read the constitution and the laws as fairly and as forthrightly and honestly as i can. and i think people duty to the credit for good faith, for thoughtfulness, for fair mindedness. who would want to be part of an institution where body dyslexic other? i think it is one of the great things about -- where everybody does likes each other -- where everybody dislikes each other? i think it is one of the great things about this institution. they can understand that everybody is trying to do the

best they can and everybody is working really hard and everybody cares a lot about law and about this country as well. so i think none of that is fake. it is very real kind of respect the people have for each other. >> as of are taping, have you been assigned an opinion? >> i have. i have had two sit-in's. i will not be much more specific than this, but every justice gets at least one opinion from each sit-in. >> this is the part of the job that is new. we have learned about the art of persuasion through handwriting. how're you approaching that to? >> -- our you approaching that -- how are you approaching that? >> i would like to write the

kind of opinions that really do address the competing arguments, not try to sweep competing arguments under the rug, but tried to address them fairly and forthrightly. i'm trying hard to write opinions that i think our thoughtful -- that i think are thoughtful and as well reasoned as i can make them. >> we are running out of time. two minor questions. we learned last week -- justices talked to us that briefs follow you everywhere. there is no end of reading. justice scalia is putting his three sons and i've had. >> i have -- justice scalia is putting his briefs on an ipad. >> i have a kindle.

i do truck them around in hard copy, so i do it both. it is endless reading. in many of these cases, not only the party submit briefs, but there are many, many organizations and individuals and governments who are interested in the case and they will submit friends-of-the- court briefs. sometimes, there can be 40 or 50 breaks. -- 40 briefs or 50 briefs. if a kindle or an ipad can make it easy, that is terrific. >> are you reading all the time? >> i have always worked hard,

but i have also found the time to do things that i like to do. i am hopeful that that will still be the case. >> the last question is really about -- you mentioned earlier about educating the public about the court society. do you plan to be a public justice? do plan to be speaking belote, being on panel sessions, writing books? what will your approach be been interacting with the public? >> a think that will develop over time. i do not plan to be public justice in my first year. i am planning to learn as much as i can about the court and about the issues that the court handles and to soak it all in and not to distract myself by going a speaking by going out and speaking. -- and not distract myself by going out and speaking. i hope to be a person who hopes

to educate the american public about the processes of the judicial role and legal interpretation. i think i would enjoy doing that. over time, i will do more of that. but i think i will sort of played by year a little bit, try to figure out what audiences are most important and what messages are the most appropriate ones for me to convey. >> our last question is a catchall -- the biggest surprise that you want people to know that you have experience so far. >> the biggest surprise. gosh. >> is it all as you expected? >> i do not -- i am not sure i had a defined set of expectations. to have something that is really big surprise, you have to have a real set of expectations

that this is not totally like what i thought it was. for the most part, did not quite know what i would find. i did not quite know how the justices related to each other in conference. i did not quite know how the internal processes work. this is a little bit of a black box. the certain processes, you can listen to tapes of arguments, but i do not think there is a very good idea of what happens inside the institution. that is true of even lawyers who have appeared before the court several times. there is a lot of guessing. what does go on in there? so i was not sure what i would see.

but what i see, i think, has been very inspiring. i think you have nine people who are working really hard and trying get the best that they are able to do something really important in this country. and i think that what i have seen is an institution that works very well and that the american public should be proud of. >> thank you for helping us understand it better with this interview. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> for more video on the supreme court, check out our website, and to an end>> on sunday, january 2, watch the updated version of our documentary. it includes comments from the newest justice and others.

that sunday, january 2 at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the senate continued debate on the u.s.-russia arms reduction treaty. discussion focused on an amendment by the senator from idaho. here is a portion of that debate. senator. i appreciate that very much, mr. president. i appreciate the courtesy. i wanted to follow up -- i think senator kerry was down here earlier today talking a little bit about proceeding. i know we have people in the cloakroom wondering how we go forward with the amendment process. so i just thought, if i could enter into a conversation with him through this, this, unlike most procedures, where you have a 60-vote cloture, you're -- your ability or your strength on

the issue itself rises because it actually takes 67 votes or two-thirds of those voting to actually ratify a treaty. so it is not like when a cloture vote goes by here and you go from a 60-vote cloture from 51. in this case you're actually strengthened because it takes more votes after cloture to actually pass this piece of legislation. and i just wanted to, if i could, to verify with senator kerry the process of actually offering amendments, not just on the treaty, because i know we're still on the treaty, but also on the resolution of ratification where i think numbers of amendments might actually be approved and accepted. mr. kerry: mr. president, the senator -- mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, the senator from tennessee is absolutely correct, obviously. the key question here is, is there sufficient support to ratify the treaty?

and once we get to that sort of question postcloture, when and if that is invoked, that's what the threshold would be for the passage of this item. it is not as if you have cloture and all of a sudden, boom, 51 votes necessary to pass it. secondly, i would sty my colleague -- i want to emphasize this -- if the majority leader were to put the cloture motion in this evening, it doesn't ripen until tuesday. and so we would have the rest of today, all of tomorrow and tuesday to have amendments, continue as we are now, and then if it did pass, we'd have another 30 hours, which as we all know, takes the better part of probably two days. so we're looking at conceivably thursday under that kind of a schedule -- and i know a lot of senators are hoping not to be here on thursday. so i think that's quite a lot of time within the context of this. but the senator is correct. the answer is to his is "yes."

mr. corker: if i could ask one other question. if a senator colls to the floor and wants to offer -- if a senator comes to the floor and wants to offer an amendment not on the treaty itself -- which we realize are more difficult to pass because of what that means as a result of our negotiations with russia, but if they wanted to offer an amendment on the resolution of ratification, which is something that might likely be successful and accepted, it's my understanding, all they have to do is come down an offer that he amendment, call up -- or ask unanimous consent to call it up, is that correct? mr. kerry: mr. president, without the help of the parliamentarian -- but obviously we're expwield to do a lot by unanimous consent here. and that is one of those things. we will not object obviously. we want to try to help our colleagues be able to put those amendments in. it would be without objection on our side. mr. corker: so, it is my understanding to be able to track with other senators --

talk with other senators who have an interest in the treaty itself and would like to do some things to strengthen it, it is my understanding that what i just heard was the chairman of the foreign relations committee would be more than willing to accommodate unanimous consent requests to actually offer amendments to the resolution itself and that he knows of no one on their side that would -- at present that woul would objeo that. so if people wanted to go back and forth between the treaty and the resolution itself, they now can do that on the floor. mr. kerry: that's correct. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. mr. kerry: i thank the senator from tennessee. mr. president, i will yield five minutes to the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee, senator levin, to be followed by seven minutes to the senator from oregon. i would as -- i would ask the senator from

oregon, is that enough time, is seven minutes enough time for the senator from oregon? thank you. i would thank the chair and reserve the balance of our time. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, the risch amendment states a concern which is a legitimate concern. i think probably everybody would agree to that. this concern has been there in the start i treaty. it was there in the moscow treaty just a few years ago. that we need to address the imbalance or the -- yeah, the imbalance, i guess is a good word, between the number of strategic nuclear weapons that exist on both sides and the nonstrategic nuclear weapons. but that was true during start i in 1991, when president bush negotiated it. there was no effort to, in effect, kill the treaty with an amendment stating that concern, although it was a concern then. during the moscow treaty debate here in 2002, i believe senator

biden again raised the same concern about this imbalance. it is a legitimate concern, but you don't kill a treaty because there's some legitimate concerns about issues. the russians have concern about our large number of warehoused warheads. we have a big inventory of warheads compared to them. they have a concern. we could state that as a fact, the russians have a concern about the number of warheads that we have. but putting that into the treaty kills the treaty. we could make any statement of legitimate concern. if it's in the treaty text, it will kill the treaty. now, senator biden in 2002, i believe -- or it may have even better in the first start treaty -- raised this issue about the imbalance and it was a legitimate issue, but there was no effort to kill that treaty which had been negotiated by president bush by inserting a

legitimate concern into the treaty. there's a number of legitimate concerns. the russians have legitimate concerns about our conventional capability, about accuracy, about our encryption capabilities. they were not addressed adequately for the russians in this treaty, but they have a concern. should we state in the treaty the fact of legitimate concern -- excuse me. yeah, should we by an amendment attempt to insert in the treaty the factual statement of a legitimate concern, just kills the treaty. and that's what concerns me, as to why it is that there is such a determination to try to kill this treaty by means of an amendment which states a legitimate concern which has been true during the last two treaties negotiated by two president bushes. that's what troubles me. and that was the difference that senator corker pointed out,

between seeking to amend a resolution and seeking to amend a treaty. so to senator risch, through the chair, i happen to share the same concern that the senator has about this imbalance, as chairman of the armed services committee. this imbalance existed in 2002. it existed in 1991. and we ought to address it. but we don't address it by killing this treaty, and that's what this amendment does. now, despite the absence of this language expressing a legitimate concern, we have support for this treaty by former president george h.w. bush, secretaries brown, car liewchy, cohen, perry, and schlesinger support this treaty without this language. it was true that former secretary schlesinger said, for instance, he has a concern about this imbalance. i think we all do. he stated that concern. he still supports the treaty

without this language, without this expression of concern. secretaries albright -- former secretaries of state albright, baker, christopher, eagleburger, kissinger, powell, rice, schultz support the treaty without this language. they have the same concerns. as a matter of fact, i believe that it was senator sessions -- it may have been someone else -- who said that former secretary kissinger has expressed this concern. in fact, quoted, i believe, from secretary -- former secretary kissinger's writing on this issue. he has that same concern which senator risch and all of us have about this imbalance. but without the language, former secretary kissinger still supports this treaty. so all i can say is, i think there's a legitimate concern which is expressed in this amendment, it's a concern which has existed and needs to be addressed, as former senator biden said when he was debating a treaty, but not to kill a

treaty by expression of a legitimate concern. and so that's what i think the issue here is, not whether or not the language in the risch amendment expresses something which is legitimate but whether or not the absence of that concern being expressed in the treaty should be enough to vote for this amendment and to kill this treaty as a result and to force it back to an open-ended negotiation which we have no idea where that would lead. so i hope we defeat the risch amendment not because we disagree with what the concern is but because, understanding that concern, we don't want to do damage to the treaty and kill a treaty which does so much for the security of this nation. i yield the floor, and if i have any time left, i yield the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i'd like to add a few dmoants those of the senator from --

comments to those of the senator from michigan. first of all, i'd like to observe that this treaty encompasses fairly modest reductions in our strategic force. we are looking at icbms reduced from about 450 to about 420. in some cases those icbms being reduced in terms of the number of warheads they're carrying, but modest reductions. when we look at submarine-launched ballistic missiles, we're looking at a fleet of 14 trident submarines, we're looking at keeping all 14 of those. reducing the number of silos on each submarine from about 24 to 20. so, again, a modest reduction. indeed, two of those subs will be in drydock at any one given point in time and they do not count against the numbers in this -- in this treaty. in bombers, we're looking at 18 stealth missiles currently and keeping -- stealth bombers and keeping all 18 or b-2, as they are known. we look at a modest reductions

in our fleet, our aging, ancie ancient, antique fleet of b-52's, modest reductions there. so the -- in its entirety, what this vept represents is modest changes to the existing structure negotiated by a republican administration and maintenance of verification regimes incredibly important to our national security. it's in that context that we have to look at various amendments being raised that if they were sincere about their purpose, they be added to the resolution we're passing, but if their real spurp to kill -- purpose is to kill the treaty, then, of course, it comes in the form of an amendment to the treaty which would effectively, in fact, do that. and so let's look at the structure of the issues that were put forward here. the first, the goal of this start treaty is to address strategic, not short-range tactical nuclear weapons, which have never been covered by a treaty, including those

negotiated by a republican administration. second, tactical nuclear weapons are categorically different than strategic arms because they do not pose an immediate catastrophic threat to the united states homeland that strategic weapons do. with shorter range and smaller yield, they are intended for battlefield use. and i would note the quotation for general chilton, commander of the united states strategic command, who said, "the most proximate threat to the u.s. are the icbm and slbm weapons because they can and are able to target the u.s. homeland and deliver a devastating effect to this country. so we are appropriately focused in those areas that are of particular -- we are appropriately focused in those areas in the particular treaty for strategic reasons. tactical nuclear weapons don't have the proximate threat that icbm an and slbms do." i also note that if you look at this from the russian perspective, we have tactical weapons deployed in europe,

numerous european nations have tactical weapons which can reach the soviet -- or the reach the russian federation, formerly the soviet union. meanwhile, because of our superiority at sea, the soviet -- or the russian tactical weapons do not represent the same kind of threat to the united states. i'd then note that we have already addressed this issue in the senate ratification resolution, which states, "the president should pursue, following consultation with allies and agreement with the rush federation, that would address a disparity between the tactical nuclear weapons stockpiles of the russian federation and the united states that would secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner." so it's already in -- in the resolution of ratification. and then i would note that gates and clinton, secretary gates, secretary clinton, said in a letter, "we agree with the senate foreign relations committee's call in the resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the new start

treaty to pursue an agreement with the russians to address them." tablght catactical weapons repra thorny issue because it involves the european powers, it involves disparities of geography. it is why it's been so hard to link them in the foos a nuclear treaty -- foos past to a stratc nuclear treaty and why they are not done so in this case. but it is the commitment by the secretary of defense, by the secretary osecretary of state, e president and by the senate to pursue this issue that is important and that is what is before us now. so in terms of addressing this issue, if there are changes that need to be made to the language, to the ratification resolution, that would be appropriate. but ending this treaty, which greatly enhances the security of the united states of america by providing the appropriate verification protocols, is absolutely essential. thank you, mr. president. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, how much time do we still have?

the presiding officer: you have 16 minutes remaining. mr. kerry: 16? and the senator from idaho has 10? the presiding officer: 10 minutes. mr. kerry: so somehow we're going past the hour of 3:00. okay. a senator: unless, of course, you want to yield some time back. mr. kerry: do you want to yield some time back? let me use a portion it was and i'll yield some back at the end, mr. president. first of all, both bill perry, former defense secretary bill perry, and jim schlesinger have been mentioned and the commission that they served on. let me make certain that the record is clear about their position with respect to this treaty. secretary perry said the following, "the focus of this treaty is on deployed warheads and it does not attempt to counter or control nondeployed warheads. this continues in the tradition of prior arms control treaties.

i would hope to see nondeployed and tactical systems included in future negotiations, but the absence of these systems should not detract from the merits of this treaty and the further advantage in arms control which it represents." jim schlesinger, from the same commission, said, "the ratification of this treaty is obligatory." i wish more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were here to hear jim schlesinger's comments, but he says ratification is oh blib obligat. and the reason it's oh blig story you really -- obligatory is you really can't get to the discussion you want to have with the russians regarding tactical unless you show the good faith to have the strategic verification and reduction structure in place. now, mr. president, let me just say, supposing that the senator from idaho's language was adopted here.

would it mean we're reducing tactical nuclear weapons? no. would it get you any further down the road to be able to reduce them? the answer is not only would it not do that, it would set back the effort to try to get those reductions because the russians will not engage in that discussion if you can't ratify the treaty, and if they pass this amendment, this treaty is, as senator levin said, it's de dead, it goes back to the russian government with a provision that is now linking those weapons in a way that they haven't been willing to talk about, even engage in the discussion at this point in time. so in fact, we'd be setting ourselves backwards if that amendment were put into affect. what's oi ronic, he's amending a component of the treaty that has no legal impact whatsoever.

there's nothing legally binding in the language that he would pass that would force them to negotiate. so it's a double setback, if you will. i simply say to my friend on the other side and i talk to him privately about this and i think he's open-minded on it. we have language in the resolution right now with respect to nuclear weapons. we're not ignoring the issue. the language says we call -- the senate calls on the president following consultation with allies to get an agreement with the russian federation on tactical nuclear weapons. now, i'm prepared in the resolution of ratification to entertain language as a declaration that would also make the senate's statement clear about how we see those nuclear weapons in terms of their threat and i hope that would address the concerns of many of our colleagues on the area side of the aisle. but the bottom line here is that

senator risch's language not only does it make any progress on the topic that he's concerned about, it actually sets back the capacity to be able to make the progress that he wants to make. now, if you want to limit russia's tactical nuclear weapons, and i do and he does, and i think all 100 united states senators do, then you have to pass the new start. you've got to approve the new start. and if you reject it, you're forcing a renegotiation which never gets you not only to the -- to the -- to the tactical nuclear weapons, but which leaves you completely questionable as to where you're going to go on the stratigic nuclear weapons, which means the world is less safe, we've lost our leverage significantly with respect to iran, north korea. we have certainly muddied the

relationship significantly with respect to russia, we've unpushed the restart button and we've opened up who knows what kind of can of worms with respect to a whole lot of cooperative efforts that are important to us now. not the least of which, i might add, is the war in afganistan where russia is currently cooperating with us in providing a secondary supply route and assisting us in other ways with respect to iran. so i -- i just say let's not do something that we know unravels all of these particular components. any time you -- you change that resolution ratification, it's like pulling, you know, a piece of string on -- on a sweater or aian roll and -- yarn roll and everything unravels. one piece undoes another piece and undoes another piece. that's not where we want to go. so, mr. president, i hope that we will say no to this amendment

and proceed on. i will reserve the balance of our time. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. risch: mr. president, under the u.c., i believe i have the last 10 minutes. am i correct on that? i think that was the u.c. the presiding officer: the chair believes that is correct. mr. risch: okay, thank you. so when i start at the conclusion of my 10 minutes, we'll vote. the presiding officer: the chair believes that is correct. mr. risch: thank you. the presiding officer: correction, the senator from massachusetts still has 10 minutes remaining. mr. risch: my understanding is that he can use that at any time and get the last 10. mr. kerry: unless the senator says something completely outrageous, which he has mogd to

not do -- managed to not do in the last three hours, i will not need to use it. mr. risch: thank you, senator. i'll try not to disappoint you in that regard. well, mr. president, fell year senators, distinguished chairman and ranking member, i think certainly we've had a civil and a good airing of an issue that is of considerable concern to i think every member of this body. i'm -- i'm a little disappointed in that we started out acknowledging that it was a -- a very deep and serious concern to every member of this body as it was to the commission in their report on america's stratigic posture and i felt along the

line a little bit the concern was denigrated and i -- i want to back up on that one more time and say that in my judgment and in the judgment of members of this commission, the issue of tactical weapons exceeds in severity and concern the issue of stratigic weapons. now, i understand one might argue that you're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, as opposed to which -- which really is of the most concern. but i've come back to -- and the reasons i gave as to why i think that the tactical issue is more important than the stratigic issue. and that is on the stratigic issue, we're in about the same position we were in 40 years ago with the exception, and admittedly an important exception, that the raw fums are

down. -- numbers are down. when we started this each party had about 6,000 warheads. as i said, if either party pulled the trigger and launched 6,000 or some significant part of that, obviously that's -- that's the -- the teeter ens that each -- deterrence that each party was counting on that neither would do that. today we're down to and with all due respect to my good friend from massachusetts, the numbers reported in the press are 1,100 and 2,100 and i understand that there's intelligence information that we can't go into here. but in any event most people would agree that we have the advantage in numbers from a stratigic standpoint. and, indeed if -- if the numbers are even close to that, the -- whether it's 6,000 warheads or 1,000 warheads, when someone pulls the trigger, the party's over for this world. and so focusing on the raw

numbers when we've got a 40-year history that we aren't going to do that and they're not going to do and most people agree that neither side is inclined to pull the trigger, what are the real concerns? the real concerns with an accidental launch from them, although remote, possible, but more importantly an intentional launch from a rogue neighbor. one would look at north korea or iran in that regard. and so in my judgment, the two issues that really need to be focused on are the defensive missle issue and the tactical nuclear weapons issue. now, let me say, i agree with my good friend from massachusetts and senator levin, that geography is such that tactical weapons -- the issue of tactical weapons is substantially more

important on a direct basis to the russians than it is to us. afterall, we have oceans on each side of us to the east and to the west which the russians don't enjoy. they've had a 100-year history of seeing invasions come by land and enter immediately, which we don't have. and so in that regard i will concede certainly that the tactical issue is important for them. and the good senator from massachusetts makes a good point in that i -- i think they would like to relocate, if they could, their tactical weapons to be focused more on the chinese threat and perhaps more on the threat from the south from other countries and we ought to help them out in that regard by entering into negotiations in that regard on the tactical weapons. but i come back to them, the tactical weapons are an important issue. senator levin says they are a

concern. senator levin says we shouldn't kill this treaty simply because of a concern. and i agree with senator levin. i have not from day one said that we ought to kill this treaty. i have said from day one everyone has convinced me and i think virtually everyone else, that we are much better off with the treaty than we are without a treaty. and i think everyone has worked in good faith in that regard. but on the other hand having said that, i don't think we should then throw in the towel and say, well, okay, we will agree to any treaty and that brings me point to of where we are. we are exercising our constitutional right that every one of us has, not only our right, but as a -- but a duty as a united states senator to advise and consent on this treaty and any other treaty put

in front of us, and that's where i have problems. the position we've been put in is these negotiations have gone on, the treaty has been negotiated, it has been signed by the president, and it's been put in front of us and what we're told is it's a take it or leave it. if you don't vote for this, you're voting to kill the treaty. now, i disagree with that. i think simply because we amend the preamble to this treaty is not a killer. indeed, my good friend from massachusetts tells us the treaty doesn't -- the preamble doesn't mean anything, it's throwaway. the language is throwaway. it really doesn't mean anything. well, it does mean something particularly when it comes to the context in which you interpret and you react to the treaty. so to everyone here i say, you have the opportunity to set the restart button with russia.

and we can do it by focusing on what is an extremely important issue which most everyone here agrees is an extremely important issue but nobody ever does anything about it. so let's tell the negotiators, go back to the table and at least agree that the interrelationship between a stratigic and tactical weapons is a really, really important issue. and we're not just going to go on like we have over the last 40 years. the times have changed that we trust you're not going to pull the trigger on us and you trust that we're not going to pull the trigger on you. but this issue of tactical weapons where we enjoy, if you would, a 10-1 disadvantage to the russians, we have are tactical weapons that are out there that can be much more easily gotten a hold of by

terrorists than stratigic weapons. we have tactical weapons that continue to be designed, continue to be manufactured, and continue to be deployed by the other side in violation of their -- their admittedly individual presidential initiatives needs to be addressed and it's so important that people on this commission said that it really should be addressed before stratigic weapons. you have the opportunity to put that in here. there is no intent to kill this. it is an intent to make it better. we have the right. we have the duty. we have -- we must advise and consent. i urge that my colleagues vote in favor of this very good amendment. thank you, mr. president. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i think conscious has time expired on their -- the presiding officer: the

senator from idaho has slightly less than a minute left. mr. kerry: mr. president, let me just say as i yield back time providing -- mr. risch: is the next -- is the vote -- mr. president, the next vote going to be on this amendment or are the judges going to be voted on first? the presiding officer: that is correct. the next vote is on the risch amendment. mr. risch: thank you. mr. kerry: i will yield back the time momentarily. i want to say one inning, the -- one thing, the two principal officers are bill perry who says the absence of the -- the b absence of the tactical nuclear should not detract from the merits of this treaty and he is in favor of our ratifying this treaty and jim schlesinger who was his co-author, who worked with republican presidents as secretary of defense and secretary of energy said that

the ratification of this treaty is obligatory. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. risch: can i have my last minute? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: mr. president, and, senator kerry, i respect that. i would remind everyone that i filed the letter dated december 17, senator kerry and senator lugar from six members of the commission including james schlesinger, which says that dealing with this imbalance is urgent, referring to the tactical weapons -- dealing with this imbalance is urgent and some commissioners would give priority to this over taking further steps to reduce the number of operationally deployed stratigic nuclear weapons. i agree both are important. i thank the good chairman, ranking member for a very good dialogue on

>> the amendment was defeated by a vote of 60 to 32. the senate returns tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and resumes debate on amendments. also this week, a continuing resolution on government funding. the senate could also take up the defense authorization bill and a bill to provide aid for some 9/11 first responders. live coverage of the senate on c-span2. next, "q&a" with documentary filmmaker dan reed. then prime minister david cameron at the british house of commons. after that, c-span exclusive interview with supreme court justice elena kagan. tomorrow, a discussion on how the health care law will be implemented and its impact