decision, barbara -- marbury versus madison, you can pick it up and read it and understand it. if people cannot understand court decisions, we do not do a good enough job of exploiting our work in the opinions. >> from a different standpoint, a student asks about your style in performing your duties justice thomas said in a c-span interview he found it reared to be frequently at directing. she asked whether you think the jurors in indiana as into was your work on the court. >> i do. i will include western n.y. in

my definition of a mid westerner. that is pushing get a little bit. [laughter] i suppose justice thomas thinks i am being rude if i interrupt and some of my colleagues do as well. it is not in a rude way. we have an important job to do. we have to get information from the lawyers. we have a short amount of time. they only have half an hour to argue. you get interrupted after the first minute. i am sure we do that as well. if you have not been to the supreme court, i encourage you to go. it is not your image of a lawyer giving a speech. that is not what happens. in one half hour, you get more than 60 questions. it is very fast like that. you have to be nimble on your feet. i do not know if it is a matter of style. we have justices from all different backgrounds.

we have two from trenton, new jersey. i do not know what the trenton, new jersey, style is on the court. we have kennedy from the west coast. we bring to the bench whatever styles we develop. i like to think there is a particular midwesterners style. it is comfortable for some people. i am sure depending on the question, -- i am sure it depends on the question. >> one of our students asked whether your experience in going to a catholic high school had any affect on your style as a lawyer. >> [laughter] i was very fortunate. i had a very nice experience in high school. it was a small school.

it only had 100 students. you could not hide the results. you got a lot of education. you had a chance to do a lot of things you would not have had a chance to do anywhere else. i played on the football team. i am sure that was an important factor in shaping my views on things. >> there is a question that relates back to the public sector. it comes from an alumnus of turning to notes that during the nomination hearings, justice kagan supported the broadcasting of oral arguments before the court. mr. smith asked if you think if that is a good idea or if it will tend to politicize the court in the eyes of the public. >> that is a question that we get a lot. the court moves very slowly in

responding to technological change. one of the innovations i mentioned, making a tape of the arguments available, we moved it up -- we waited a year before they were made available. now they are available in three to five days. we are trustees of a extremely -- of an extremely valuable institution. all of us want to be very careful. we do not want to do something that may enter the institution. injure the institution. broadcasting is something we consider from time to time. i do not know which direction the court is going to go. i appreciate the argument that it would give people a chance to see what we do. i think that would be a good

thing, for people to see what we do. there is also a concern that it might affect what we do. whether it is lawyers who are showboating, whether it is justices to may affect the case. if you have been to the court, there is a dynamic. i do not want to think twice before answering a question. how is that going to sound? i just want to get the question out. if it does not sound right, we move on. it is an issue we have not come to rest on. it is something that was brought up recently. we need to keep in mind -- we need to keep it in mind. >> several students asked the question whether it is

difficult for you to keep your moral convictions from infringing on your application of the law. can you compartmentalize your beliefs of what the law should be? >> i do not want to sound glib, it is actually pretty easy. the conference room, as i said, where we have decided all our cases since 1935, is right off of my office. on one side of the room we have every decision the supreme court has issued. all the other side we had issues of every law congress has ever passed. we do not have books of philosophy. we do not have religious text. nothing like that. those are not the materials we looked at. we look at the cases and we look at the law.

separating personal views of what things should be, personal moral views from what the law is, is something we do all the time. it is not just the justices. criminal lawyers representing criminal defendants, the awful -- they often know that they are guilty. you separate your views of what the client did from the obligation to defend them. that sort of -- i do not know if compartmentalizing is the right word -- keeping it from your job is something that happens all the time. i think it is a horrible thing that people burn the american flag. you think about what it represents. at this moment, it represents our troops under fire. it is propulsive.

but i understand and respect the court's decision that it is protected under the first amendment. it is protected conduct. you can put aside your views to the application of the law. >> in the interpreted area, two tenacious seniors ask questions about whether a justice should have an interpreted philosophy when judging constitutional questions. justice centralia -- justice scalia -- you in the past have distanced yourself from labels of being liberal, conservative, or a strip constructivist. hal had the labels affected your career as a justice -- how have

the labels affected your career as a justice? >> i do not have an overarching interpreted it philosophy. some of the adjectives do not make any sense. i have never understood "living constitution appear "people must believe in a dead constitution. the question is, how do you interpret the most powerful words on the paper? i guess i am focused on the text as a lot of us do. if you are asked to interpret the law, you have to begin by reading what it says. you need to figure out what the words mean. things come up that do not seem

to fit. i do not have an overarching philosophy. i do not think judges are given free-ranked to modify -- free- rein to modify what the constitution means. our job is to give a faithful forced to the enactment of the fall of the -- of the founding fathers. in the case of statute, it is the faithful interpretation of the worst congress adopted. some judges try to give meaning. others think that the words carry more weight than extraneous interpretation like what congress said during the debates for the hearings. we tend not to focus on those. my mind is not closed to looking at the other resources, but i

can to be more skeptical. we try to focus more on the language. >> you just -- you may have just answered this question. i will ask it anyway. we would be interested in hearing your comment on justice breyer's statement in his recent book that the court should try to ascertain the purpose of congress and try to achieve that purpose even though the language congress has adopted may have been artful. i hope i faithfully summarize justice breyer's position. what is your observation on that? >> justice breyer has given me a copy of his book. i will read it as soon as i can. [laughter] it is a very good and thoughtful

work. i do encourage you all to buy it when you are in the bookstore. it is a very thoughtful piece of an issue that comes up case after case. you get a sense that you know what congress wanted to do. the question is whether you do what you know they wanted to do even if the words do not get you there, or you are stuck with the words. i tend to focus more on the words because i am not sure i can get it right in trying to decide that this is what congress wanted to do. even when congress wants to do something, they do not want to do it to jeopardize everything else. there are limits. it imposes a heavier burden on congress to show us what they are trying to get at. they have to be more careful at spelling out legislative

language that allows them to accomplish what they want to do. >> a number of our students -- you will not be surprised -- are thinking about preparing for small schools and wife be on it -- preparing for law school and life after it. >> i would echo what the professor said about the attorney to set up the center. ensure that you have a liberal arts education. i would avoid any pre-law, training to be a lawyer before you get to law school.

robert jackson -- i keep coming back to him -- he has a wonderful passage where he talks about what you need to be a good lawyer. you need to understand art. you need to have a good sense of poetry. you have to have a very good sense of the history of the republic and the history of ideas. a good liberal arts education is more important than any focus on pre-law. i sat in on a pre constitutional law class. they were wonderful. i do not regard as pre-law. i regard that as a liberal education. from my own experience as -- from my own experience, there are extremely successful lawyers who were science majors. there is no pre-ordained course

set for law school. >> candace notes that at the university of alabama law school, the confirmation process for federal judges is being broken down. another student suggested that senator lindsey graham has proposed that confirmation hearings should focus solely on whether the nominee is qualified and whether the nominee has the requisite character. the students would appreciate hearing your views on the confirmation process. >> at the end of the day it worked out all right. [laughter] i think it is not terribly useful, to be honest. if you have seen them, you understand why senators have a

particular moment when they want to focus on issues as they are concerned about. they usually do that by trying to get the nominee to can -- to commit to vote one way or another. the nominees, to their credit, have resisted that notion. it would be very inappropriate to foreshadow how he would vote in a particular area as part of the process. kabuki theater -- the senators talking about what their constituents are interested in. i do not think -- i think it could be made more useful and the questions could be more shaped in a way where you could give valuable information. they are playing to their constituents.

it is a very unsavory history. the next big batch of hearings came in the wake of brown vs. the board of education were southern segregationist senators led to make sure that the nominees would not follow brown vs. board of education faithfully. it is a recent phenomenon. they do not have a great lineage. i am not sure they serve a useful purpose the way they are structured. >> an alumnus and attorney asked about a recent article in the "new york times" regarding the growth of supreme court clinics in law schools. the clinics have had disproportionate success, both in petitioning the courts to

review a case and in presenting cases to the court. to what do you attribute the clinics' success in this regard? do you think this is a good trend for both the schools and the court? >> they have been very successful. in many respects, -- in many respects, they have been good for the courts. bringing some expertise about all and supreme court practices and presenting cases in a much more effective way than has been the case in the past -- one thing i have learned in being a judge, we rely heavily on the lawyers. we will hear 12 cases in a particular session. each lawyer has one of the few

cases they argue in front of the court. they put in an enormous amount of preparation. that is why we spend the whole time asking them questions. the better the lawyers are, the better we feel we can do our job. at law schools, professors are teaching courses and preparing briefs and petitions. i think they did a very good job. you know, i would like to see some of the criminal lawyers be able to spend eight -- be able to stand and up time on the supreme court level to do a good job. that would give us a better sense of what is going on in a particular case to have a lawyer who has been with it for a long time. it is hard to put aside the time to put aside a supreme court

petition or supreme court case. it is nice to have more of a mix of representation. i appreciate the challenges. >> a professor and law school director notes that the court that decided brown vs. board of education was composed of a former governor, three former senators, two former solicitors general, and a former sec chairman. i did not check that out. i have to take him at his word on that. he says that by contrast, over the past 20 years, presidents have chosen almost exclusively appellate judges for the court. do you think such an exclusive force -- exclusive focus on appellate court judges is good for the court? >> we justice stevens left, every member of the court had

been a federal court of appeals judge. that was never the case before. it was often quite different. part of the nature of the court's work has changed. it is much more pejorative -- it is much more near to leave -- it is much more narrowly focused. i think a political figure like earl warren or hugo black, fred vincent will look at a lot of what we do and glaze over it. it is more dramatic change, i think, to move from that political life to our job. every year there are four or five cases on our docket that

everybody will know about and everybody will be at arrested in. the other 85 or 90, i love them. they are fascinating, but they are not going to attract the attention of people who are likely to shape public policy and those sorts of things. the nature of the work may have changed. i think it may be a good thing. i am not sure. that may or may not account for the change. >> one of our students asked a question that ties into this in a way. elena kagan would be an example of somebody who did not come from a court of appeals. a lot of students asked if you or the other justices taking any particular steps to introduce

her to the court and helper transition to being a justice. >> when i came on board, the other eight justices all came by and told me how things worked. they had eight very different views. [laughter] justice kagan is -- had one of the best legal jobs in government as solicitor general. it is not different from what appellate judges do. you are dealing with the same sort of material in terms of precedents and putting together opinions. i do not think it is that much of a change in the way the system has gone. one thing i can say, she does not need any training. . she is -- she does not need any training period.

we are all very delighted to have her on board. >> june 22, 2007, -- the washington post took the position that the court was sympathetic to corporate interests. it says that some of the reaction to the citizens united case about political contributions reinvigorated that argument. however, she said justice breyer appearing on bloomberg television earlier this month insisted there is no pro- business bias on the court. do you think that pro-business term is a fair characterization of the court? >> no. i do not. if you look at the cases the author was referring to, many of them are 8-1, 7-2.

it shows the broad perspective of the court. i do not think it is a valid criticism at all. one thing that is frustrating about the coverage of our work, i sit down and talk at least once a year with the supreme court press corps, which is a talented group of individuals. it is very hard to cover the court. if you do not do a good job of writing opinions in an intelligible way, it is hard to write a story if you come out with a decision like the clean water act. we issue a decision. we rule for the environmental complain that rv business. -- complainant or the business.

the lawyer on the winning side thinks it is great. the lawyer on the losing side thinks it is bad. they have not quoted the sentence that the case turned on. you do not get to look at this and say, "they are trying to figure out what the sentence means. i could say why it may -- why it might mean one thing. i can see why it might mean another." it is hard work to do that. i think that type of categorization does not make a lot of sense. >> an attorney for the u.s. district court notes that when you were confirmed as chief justice, you spoke about attempting to change -- to achieve more consensus among justices. how did you first go about achieving this purpose?

in spite of some of the decisions over the last couple of years, the you believe you have achieved this objective or what effort can you as chief justice reasonably undertake to achieve that? >> i do not think i was under any illusions when i said that it would be an easy job to accomplish. one of my colleagues heard that i thought it was a good idea to bring about a broader degree of consensus on the court. good luck with that. [laughter] i do think it is a good thing. i do think it is important. i think you as consumers of law, justifiably have more confidence in a 9-0 decision to ban a 5-4

decision. we might come to a broader area of agreement. i think it is an objective work pursuing. sometimes it turns out better. we have had more agreement. other years not. it is up and down. i think it is something worth pursuing. i will continue to do it. i do not expect everyone to sang umbya." >> u.s. spoken about clarity -- you have spoken about clarity for lawyers and justices. are there any writers outside of the legal field whose work you admire?

>> yes. it goes back to something i talked about before. clarity is very important. you do not have to sacrifice a degree of elegance in your style. robert jackson is a perfect example. he knew exactly what he was saying and why. it was moving to read it. chief justice rehnquist was very crisp and clear. he has a book on the workings of the supreme court. i highly recommend it to any journalist or anybody going to law school about the -- about how the supreme court works. it is a good work. you can pick it up when you're picking up justice breyer's book. [laughter] that is why i think a liberal arts education is very important. one thing you do in a liberal arts education is you read a lot.

if you read a lot, you get a good sense of what is good writing. it helps when you are writing briefs or opinions. >> you mentioned chief justice rehnquist. one of our students asked if you could say what your work was like when you were at a law firm with justice rehnquist. >> it was a fabulous year. you sat right there. he would do drafts of opinions. he was famous for the "10-day rule." that you have to write a memo or a draft, you got to do it in 10 days. that net you did not have a lot of flourishes with respect to the basics.

danes are explained is clearly as you can. -- if things are explained as clearly as you can. i told him that if he gave me a month, i could do it better than in 10 days. he said the idea was not for you to do as good a job as you can, it is for me to do as good a job as i can. he was a wonderful man. logically, it was not just the writing. he played devil's advocate or you play devil's advocate. you ask for the best argument. you back and forth. it was an analytical process. it was very educational for me. >> you developed a close bond with your law clerks. people think we spend a lot of time walking up and down the halls with the other justices.

we really do not. the common law tradition is that you do not talk to each other about the case until you get to the bench. to get ready for that, the only people you can really talk to are the law clerks. you spend a lot of time with them. you try to get as much out of them as you can. it is an intense, hard year for them. it is a wonderful way to be introduced to the law. i was very fortunate to have that. >> a student asked whether when you're having that experience as a law clerk, did you imagine that you might be on the court or a chief justice? >> no. [laughter] it was an odd twist of fate -- of fate. justice rehnquist wrote an article about the powers and authorities of the chief justice

when i was a law clerk. he had no idea he was going to be chief justice. i certainly had no idea i was going to be chief justice. yet, the two of us were there in the '80s writing this journal. >> another student here at the college ask about hal you go about -- asks about how you go about choosing a law clerk. >> obviously you look for somebody who is extremely well- qualified. there are people i know who are judges. they worked for other federal court judges before. they will tell me that they have somebody i should look at. i am not going to be interested

in somebody to wants to be a lawyer and has done nothing but take law courses. in an interview after reading about a good group of them. i'd like to make sure that people have enough self- confidence to be useful. if i am going to argue back and forth with them to see if they idea makes sense, they have to be able to push back and not just wilt. it is not easy. these are young people just out law schools. i try to find ways to challenge them and see if they have that kind of confidence. the way the system used to work, you try to interview anyone you might be interested in on the same day. i gathered a box of donuts,

powdered sugar and glazed. i told my secretary, "anybody who has one gets the job." that showed me if they had confidence. they were not worried about powdered sugar or sticky hands. at the end of the day, it is about the doughnut. it is an important part of the process to sit down with these hard-working young people and have been challenged my views and my assumptions. i try to find somebody capable of doing that. >> i do not know at this question goes out of the debt question or not. why did you dispense with the bold-sleeve on your robe? >> chief justice rehnquist at the end of this term, put a

three-gold bars on the sleeve of his robe. he has seen a gilbert and sullivan production and that is what the lord chancellor was wearing. he thought it looked good. [laughter] i thought i would wait a while. i have to earn my strikes. my stipes. [laughter] >> what role, if any, should research from behavioral sciences have in a court decision? in two decisions, the majority opinion relied on research in sociology and psychology to assess the level of blame on juvenile offenders compared to adult offenders. should that research play an important role in the court's decision? >> you are trying to determine whether life without parole is a

suitable sentence for someone below a certain age. you consider whether someone at younger ages less blameworthy. to the extent that psychological evidence is suitable or physiological -- all of it. you can put anything you want in front of the court. the persuasion will have an impact on how the court looks at it. the problem is, we do not know anything about it. we note the way the mind works, but somebody to is young and cannot formulate the kind of moral sense as someone older, you want to know if they can formulate enough moral sense to understand the horrific crime they committed. i would have had to study a whole different field to be able

to make that judgment. it gets back to what i said earlier. lawyers have to do a good job of explaining it to us. they have to take the complicated scientific concepts and put it within a framework that we can understand. any kind of research is valuable. we are going to disregard some if they have not explained it in a way that we think is persuasive, but it is worth looking at. we get technical patent cases. i am completely at sea when it gets to arguments about how pulses move and what different chips do. we have to decide the legal issues that affect that. the lawyers have to explain not only the law, but the technology in a way that even i can understand. quite chief justice, thank you. i know our students, faculty,

and alumnus or dirt -- are very grateful for your answers. the chief justice is going to take two questions from our audience tonight. there is a microphone being brought up the center aisle. if he would like to ask a question, you can go to the microphone. the purpose is -- everybody is here to hear what the chief justice thanks, so try to ask a question and not try to make a statement. we would appreciate it very much if you have a question, put it in question form. this is the technology i was

talking about. [laughter] maybe if you want to just speak allow lee and i will repeat the question. -- speak loudly and i will repeat the question. >> [unintelligible]

she goes to a wedding and someone takes a photograph of her on a telephone and it winds up in the newspaper. i wonder if you could talk about that if you do not mind, the visibility of your position. >> first of all, it is not as bad as you might think. most polls when people ask who are on the supreme court, judge judy is always named. [laughter] a couple of the others. it is not like you are being mauled by well-wishers or opponents. sometimes people are not happy to see you warder are happy to see you and you have to get used

-- sometimes people are not happy to see you or are happy to see you. you have to be used to it. that is the best way to put it. >> this is following up on your comment about not having expertise in everything. do you have people on your staff to either have that expertise that you consult with if something is controversial? do you have people you can go to to get the sides of the argument so you can make a better legal conclusion from it? >> the answer is pretty much no. that is a good thing. we get -- the people who are supposed to do that for us or the lawyers. that is how things work. i think it would be a bad thing for us to say in these cases, "i need to know what the right answer is."

defiance is woven into the law. i do not want someone to tell us how it is. my job is all it -- my job is hard, but the lawyer's job is harder. they have to be able to present it in language i can understand. i have to be able to analyze it in that language. i have to be able to present it to you in the language you can understand. it needs to be brought to bear on these great technical issues. there is a sort of moral perspective here. i am sure it was very difficult for judges to understand when the internet came on the scene. lawyers had to explain it to them. i do not like the idea of having

experts we would go to independent of the adversary process. >> gracias, sir. >> thank you. >> chief justice, i am the regional representative for parentalrights.org. i am wondering what you think about the amendments to the constitution regarding parental rights. room vs. wade is probably the worst legislation in our country that conservatives are concerned about. the united nations is also seeking rights for children and try to make it a global affair. what are your thoughts in regards to rev the way, the rights of the child -- roe v. wade, the rights of the child.

>> i do not think you'll be surprised that i will not shared much about that. it would be inappropriate for me to comment about constitutional amendments. my job is to interpret the constitution. i will be happy to interpret what ever you come up with. [laughter] [applause] i think you appreciate, i cannot get into the other stuff as well. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> i am certainly happy i came to this party. my question might be a broad one, but to -- but what do you think is the greatest challenge to american democracy? >> well, you know, i have not given it a lot of thought.

i have enough challenges. i still cannot believe that 30% of the people can name a supreme court case. i think it is a challenge to make sure people get more involved in the government. i was visiting in australia not too long ago. they have a lot there that you have to vote. if you do not vote, you do not due to jail, but you get a ticket. if you look at the partition -- if you look at the participation rates in the we have, the founding generation gave their lives so you and i would have a right to vote for our leaders. it is quite sad. the idea that people do not know much about the judicial branch and the role that they play is very sad. i think that is a big challenge.

you are not going to be able to keep a democracy if you do not participate in it. it seems to me that more and more -- fewer people are participating in it. that is a big challenge. whether it is the biggest one, i do not know. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here for the conversation, the chief justice roberts. i am 81992 teacher's college graduate. -- i am a 1992 teacher's college graduate. many of us here are old enough to remember people such as clarence thomas -- 52-48 senate vote. that aside, he won overwhelmingly. hal in leading up to that

confirmation hearing, how are you able to maintain ordained debt level of impartiality and acceptance? >> i am sure it had nothing to do with me going into it. i do not know. if you approach it in different ways. it is a difficult process. i had the whole summer in my case to think about it and worry about it. you get to a point -- at the time, i was 50-years old. i was practicing law -- i had been practicing law for 25 years. you get to a point where you want to prepare and have good answers to the questions. i lived the life i lead, and that they do not like it they do not have to vote for me. i have developed views about what judges could be like and

how they should go about interpreting the constitution. there's only so much you can do about that. it is not a time to change how you should be looking at the -- at your life or the mall. once you get that perspective, your part of the process becomes pretty easy. >> thank you. >> just so nobody is offended later, all would like to say the young man at the end of the line will be the last question. the chief justice has already had a very busy day. [laughter] >> do you feel that america is ready to repeal "don't ask, don't tell?" >> you are like a senator at a confirmation hearing. [laughter] i obviously cannot. that is an issue that could come before the courts alike cannot

talk about it. thank you, anyway. [laughter] >> thank you for coming here tonight. i had a question about if you disagree with prior rulings such as the slaughterhouse cases. un 500 you and 400 justices -- justice thomas said it applied to privileges of the community. -- privileges of immunity. how'd you go about writing opinions if you disagree? >> the issue in that case -- justice thomas wrote a very compelling opinion -- i cannot

speak for the others in the majority, however right it might have been, it was a lot of heavy lifting to say we were going to overturn a precedents that was established in 1870-whatever. you're kind of stuck on that road. the first thing i do when we get a case after looking at the language of the constitutional provision on the statute, i look at the case as is interpreted already. we do not start with a clean slate every morning. that is why we have row after row in the conference room and in the offices. would like to go back and look at them because they tell us where the law is going to go. that does not mean we do not respect residents. justice thomas said we should reject the slaughterhouse presidents because it was wrong.

we have done it in our history, and is a good thing we did. it is a good thing that brown vs. board of education rejected plessey vs. ferguson. it is a good thing in -- it is a good thing that the court can revisit areas. -- if it is a statute and we think the court got it wrong, congress can fix it. if they think it is wrong, they can fix it. if it is a constitutional issue, we are willing to take a second look at things. you take a very careful look before you decide it is time to revisit one of those decisions. >> gracias. -- thank you. >> do you feel that the state of the union speech is a forum for

the executive branch to critique decisions by the supreme court? do you fill the supreme court justices should all be present for the speech or the support some justices who do not want to attend? >> i do not mean to be dismissive, but i have said what i had to say on that subject. i do not think it is prudent for me to say anything more. >> some supreme court justices do not believe -- >> some of my colleagues made a decision that they do not want to go and they do not. i think that is up to each individual member of the court. >> thank you, sir. >> i was wondering if he felt that any of your own personal experiences have had an effect on any of your court decisions.

>> i have not really thought about that. [inaudible] obviously, at some level i am sure that personal background has some of that on what you do whether it should or should not , but i cannot place a particular decision saying i had a decision -- i had an experience like that and this is all i will make my decision. we are supposed to be looking at the law according to the statutes in the cases and what the lawyers present and not necessarily our own personal experience. if your personal experience is driving how much you are deciding a case, then you

should recuse yourself and not participate. that is not a good thing. just because you had a personal experience you are going to decide one way or another. >> thank you. >> my question is, whenever we install a program on a computer, we get a page of a legal jargon. most of us when we see this, we just say ok. my question is, can you actually understand and read this? [laughter] [applause] >> i generally do not. [laughter] it is not so much the computer, but when you get drugs or over the counter stuff when you get a prescription, there is

instructions that will fall out. you unfold it like a map and it says someone got a rash from using this. it is a real problem. the legal system, obviously, is to blame for that because we issued these decisions and you sit there and say, "this person should have known. they should have been warned that something like this might happen." the company comes in and says " we have to warn everybody." if we have too much of that, we have nothing. if there are 48 different warnings in fine print you have to read, you do not read it. the benefit is defeated because there is too much there. i think that is a real problem. what the answer is, i do not know. it goes back to product- liability or consumer use

concerns. i do not think it makes a lot of sense to add another warning. there has to be a more effective way of alerting people to what they really should know. that is for lawyers, right? somebody gets hurt and the lawyer says, "here on page 14, we told you this might happen." again, it is a change in substance you would like to see between the valuable product in the user of the product this lost in the legalese. i think it is a problem. i encourage you all to read. [laughter] >> spoken like a true lawyer. >> this is somewhat related to an earlier question. the people who determine what the constitution means and interpret the law, and the supreme court does play a role in shaping public policy.

do you feel your decisions or the decisions of your colleagues are partially based off of policy considerations or do you just look at the law? >> i just look at the mall. sometimes that requires you to understand the policy issue and understand how it will have an effect. the get the sherman antitrust act. you know that the policy of that is to promote free competition and to prevent monopolies and restraint of trade. you know that if you're going to interpret it correctly. it is not that the policy does not enter law, we try to find it the policy that congress meant to achieve or the founders meant to achieve. that plays a very important role in how you interpret the statute and the constitution.

>> on friday, justice roberts released his reports. the chief justice says, "each political party has found it easy to turn on a dime to preventing judicial nominations." there is an urgent need for the political branches to find a long-term solution to the problem. to read the report, go to premecourt.gov/info. >> sunday, you'll see the grand public places and those only available to the justices and other staff. you'll hear how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice, elena kagan. learn about some of the court's recent developments. the supreme court, home to america's highest court.

sunday at 6:30 eastern on c- span. >> next, a series of interviews on comparisons and contrasts between the u.s. and great britain. we'll talk to jane goodall. after that, a ceremony >> this week, a look at the american and british forms of government from our recent interviews in london. this program compares and contrasts the parliamentary form of government with our own. >> it is there any way to describe the differences between americans govern and the wave -- way the british people govern?

>> it is a lot of different things and it is also something to do with the political culture. it may soon treacherous to our media colleagues over here. i think the discussion of the critical issues is somewhat more dominated by policy rather than treating the minutia of washington life. here, we are bound up with westminster stories. nobody else was interested in them. in terms of the politicians, the politicians in the uk do talk about the issues, probably more than the politicians in the u.s.i was struck by that. the politicians are caught by a superficial level issue of discourse because they're worried about the money-raising. it does not happen so much here in the u.k. >> in january we will have a democratic senate and a democrat in the right house. -- white house. >> here, and explain the difference.

david cameron is the prime minister and he has proposed all these cuts. will you get all these cuts? in the united states, you're not sure until the congress passes it. >> pretty automatically. and the british people who follow british politics think that they're comparable. your president is like our prime minister. -- is not like our prime minister. you have two houses of your parliament and we have two of ours. no. our prime minister has much more power than your president. he has a complete power over the lower house of commons. and the house of lords has very limited power. it has no power over anything that costs money or raises money at all. it has no power in the revenue department. even the powers and the rest of legislation are only the power to delay. it can keep sending bills back that it does not like until a

year has passed and then the parliament act can be invoked and it'll go through. our house of lords is not democratically elected. it is appointed. they are plans to reform that, and whether it comes about, no one knows. it has no real democratic legitimacy. it has expertise. it has not been set up to be an opposition to the house of commons. it often looks to us, british, looking to you, that you have two arms of government set up to oppose each other and slow the possibilities of making any change fast. >> if our president selects the treasury secretary, he or she goes before congress and has to be approved. who decided that george osborne would be the exchequer? >> the prime minister. entirely his decision. >> how many jobs does the prime minister fill? >> about 100 appointments.

>> do they all come from members of the house of commons? >> yes. >> if a particular prime minister wants them, he puts them into the house of lords, which he can do quickly. >> what is the restraint on the number of people you can put in the house of lords? >> there is no real restraint. you would be very much criticized if you put too many in, as mr. brown and mr. blair are criticized today. but there are no legal constraints. if they have the nerve to do it, they can do it. >> how long is your assignment as a lord? >> for life. >> for life. >> the two categories of the people in the house of lords in my time have been on a limited tenure, the church leaders. the bishops have to give up when they cease to be bishops. the judges as well.

our supreme court was a part of the house of lords up to two years ago. they have now moved out and they no longer sit as members of the house of lords. >> how is the supreme court justice appointed? >> we have an independent appointments board. they are appointed by an advisory committee of people, of which the senior judges have a pretty good say. >> is there any good with that the public can get rid of a judge by impeaching, like here in the united states? >> i have never heard of it. i cannot tell you. i am sure there must be a way. but it has never happened in my lifetime. i think the lord chancellor or the head of the judiciary, who schedules the appearances, would make sure they do not get any work to do.

>> what about the depositions -- the cabinet positions for the prime minister? what people do not like the cabinet officers? is there any way to get rid of them? >> only if the prime minister was to. -- wants to. the only way you can get rid of them is by having a vote of no- confidence in the prime minister. if the prime minister backs them, you cannot get rid of them. but the prime minister is quite sensitive to some political -- to his own political position. he would not support somebody who has clearly lost favor with a repaired >> based on what you -- lost favor with everybody. >> based on what you know, a few had even the opportunity, would you rather be prime minister of great britain or president of the united states when it comes to the power and the ability to get things done? >> i think the prime minister of this country has a great deal of power, more power than anybody realizes. while the president does have a great deal of power, the prime

minister in this country skillfully operates and has a great deal of power and can get things done, and some of which the president of the united states would find it difficult. >> you have a coalition government for the first time since when? >> there was a coalition government in the 1930's of a kind. of course, during the second world war, we had a coalition government. during the 1970's, we had an informal working arrangement between the liberal party and the labor party. -- labour party. almost all of those previous coalitions have been weak-kneed things where a government that was in trouble was needing to be propped up by another party or to get it through an emergency, like the second world war. nobody alive in britain today has any real experience of a willing coalition between two quite strong party is who, when joined together, are a fairly

-- are in a fairly impregnable position and agree with each other on primary policy. this is a healthy coalition that has the seeds to carry on for five years, but perhaps to carry on the other side of a general election. that is new to us in britain. it is common on the content, but -- on the continent, but not here. >> i am a member of the conservative party. i stand for what? can you delineate? if i am a liberal, i stand for what? >> there is a spectrum from what you might call the left to the right. the conservative party tends to occupy the right hand third of that spectrum, although there are wild extremes on the right were not in the conservative -- who are not in the conservative party. the labor party tends to occupy the left hand third. but to say that the liberal

party is in the middle third would be wrong. there are a lot of them who are to the right on the conservative and some who are to the left. liberal is in the old sense of the world, not the way you use it in the united states. you tend to mean that left-wing and in the united states. liberal means a belief in individual freedom, a belief in individual liberty. >> that would be like a libertarian? >> there are plenty of libertarians in the liberal party. there are high tax liberals, but there are also low tax liberals as well. it is the belief in freedom, individual liberty. >> us say you have the iraq war or the afghan war. if you are conservative, what is your position? >> if your conservative, your position ranges from being against the war all along to be

a really enthusiastically in favor of them to the feeling that these were rather difficult foreign policy ventures, military adventures, where we had a duty to support the united states, even if we had some doubts about the venture. liberal democratic party are almost all against the war. -- both wars. >> this was the first election that we had leaders, like you do in america, we have our prime ministerial candidates -- even though the public does not have any right to vote for them, they had three debates. i think they were generally thought to be a success. i think they will be a regular feature of future elections. but there was a great deal of difficulty about it. mrs. thatcher would never have taken part in them, partly

because she did not hold that sort of thing, so to speak, but she would up also been told by her advisers that you have everything to lose and nothing to gain. you are in the lead. but this election was very interesting. david cameron was very keen to have them. he was pretty certain he could out-debate gordon brown in the elections. he completely, in my view, underestimated the appeal of nick clayton of the liberals -- nick clegg of the liberals. he was able to say that youtube -- you two can argue about this but the reality is something else.

for the first time, the liberal man was the outstanding winner of that debate. the polls went up. by the second one, they got a better way of handling him and they got it right. it was quite interesting how to place. >> one of the things about this country, the system we have, is that want to win an election, you have more power. you didn't have a balance of power here. we have an unwritten constitution, for one thing. the way it works, kind of, winner takes all. the prime minister provides the cabinet ministers. >> what does it cost you to run? >> the amount of money you can spend is set. it is calculated according to your population. no political action committee or political party is out to

run campaign ads. you cannot buy television time if you are a british parliamentary candidate. people cannot buy on your behalf. the third time i ran for parliament, a few years ago -- i remember it as a that was yesterday. it was 5,000 pounds. >> it would have been close to $8,000. >> yes. >> ghandi raise that? >> the party raises -- >> how do you raise that to? >> the party raises it through bake sales. the campaigns are very much door to door. you don't have a huge budget. it is about using literature. you can have a campaign website.

but we have districts that are smaller. so you can go door-to-door. the national policy is subject to much criticism. but for local members of parliament, we have tough campaign rules. they serve as well. -- they serve us well. >> how much do they pay you for your job? >> i think it is about 55,000 pounds. >> that would be somewhere close to $110,000. >> yes. >> is that enough to live on here? >> sure. >> comfortably? >> find with it. >> what does a it -- >> i am fine with it. >> what does a lord make in a year?

-- >> he does not get a penny in salary. he does get expenses. a member of the house of lords could turn and come including all his expenses and things, maybe $50,000 a year. >> in the united states, as you know, a member of the senate or a member of the house, by and large, cannot do any outside work. what is the rule here? >> you can do outside work, unless you're a member of the government. but if you're a back-bencher, as i am, you can do outside work. the house of lords is designed to encourage you to do so because we believe that the house of lords should be filled with a large number of people who have expertise in all sorts of different areas, like surgeons, professors, lawyers,

and people who are most of the time practicing their trade, soared to speak, but it did so to speak, but attend the house -- practicing their trade, so to speak, but to attend the of lords to be a part of the debate. >> can remember the house of commons do outside work? >> thank -- they can do some, but i think it is fairly limited now and every penny of it has to be declared. gradually, they are not. that is a pity, too. i think we're better governed with people who have 1 foot in the real world, as long as we know where they are. i would not offend anyone for a -- defended anyone for a minute advocating functioning in parliament and not disclosing when they are coming from. -- disclosing where they are coming from. you have to say where your interests are.

>> is there any way to compare david cameron to any politician in the u.s.? >> that is an interesting question. i do not think you get a similar kind of character. he is very much -- he is quite an establishment figure in terms of his background. he comes from what we would say is a posh background. he is a traditional tory prime minister. i do not know who that would be in the united states. but he has become known as a compassionate conservative. in that case, he would be compared to george bush. although i do not know that he would appreciate a comparison. -- embrace the comparison. although george bush, he does not have the traditional u.s. background. but david cameron has at least

given the impression of wanting to change the conservative party, make it more modern in a sense to do to what tony blair did to the labor party, recognizing the people have changed and people are more tolerant than they once were, and also have a more open- minded approach to running government. but on things about the budget, they are pretty hard traditional in the sense of wanting to cut spending pretty sharply. that is something that we see here from conservative governments that we have not always seen from u.s. republican governments. they talk about cutting taxes, but they do not cut spending very much. the use least increase it. >> -- they usually increase it. >> you refer to cutbacks here as just plain cuts. can you explain how severe the economic cutbacks are here? >> they have not yet written,

-- they tend -- they had not yet bitten, but they will bite. people are increasingly able to see where they will bite. to explain how severe the cuts will need to be, one needs to give an impression first of the lotus and profligacy of the british government over the past 10 years -- the bloatedness and profligacy of the british government over the past 10 years. we have almost doubled our expenditure on a national health services. nobody doubts it has gotten better. it has not gotten twice as good. we have gone up from 4% of our gross domestic product to 8%. i think that you americans are close to 10%, and that is with private health care. everywhere you go, school buildings, welfare, claims for benefits, which is to say the way the state helps you when you are unemployed, they have soared in capacity benefit worried you -- which is where

you say that you are unable to work to do to back it or whatever it may be. -- unable to work due to backaches or whatever it may be. it may be serious or it may not. but the rolling green claims have grown. -- but the malingering claims have grown. expenditures have increased by 60%. the proportion of our wealth that is now being spent by the state has climbed from around the 40's to the 50%'s. we cannot continue like this. these things have got to be cut. >> what percentage of debt here compared to the u.s.? >> we are in the same ballpark. america, with its unique position and having the reserve currency at least for the moment of the world, it gets special treatment, i guess. they can get away with more borrowing than we can. the deficit is similar to the

u.s. here, it was 11% of national income, which is roughly what i think it will be in the states. that was considered to be an outrage by the incoming conservative government. it is much higher than when the international monetary fund famously had to come in bailout the u.k. in the late 1970's. people were very focused on that. with this new government, they can but to with this new government making such strides -- with this new government making such strides to bring it down, i would say that our borrowing is going on a downward path. our debt is at an average level, while it has risen a lot, it is still a half to some developing countries. the u.s. still looks like it is going up as far as the eye can see. the stock of debt relative to the economy will be the same ballpark, i suspect, in the u.s. case being higher.

it will depend on how you treat the state to get. -- state debt. we are in the same ballpark. when i this is different is that -- what i guess is different is that the u.k. has now put forward what most people would say is a credible plan for putting the debt on a downward path. you're not only borrow less, but you're not allowing the stock of debt to rise in the next year. that is not what is happening in the u.s.

and that goes free to people over 75. even if they're well-off. it is even more extreme with the case of the bus traveling. if you are over 60, everybody in britain can get a card to give them free bus travel. it that is a point of contention. david cameron was pestered in the campaign and election to say that he would keep it. but the treasury would like to get rid of it. they think it is crazy to be giving this free travel to a lot of rich pensioners and rich elderly people. >> in this advice session, what people are coming to that are direct results of because.

-- of the cuts? >> is very frightening. there are very big cuts in jobs in the public sector. some government departments will lose 20% to 30%. in my district, those who work work for the government, hospitals, schools, government departments. that is the big thing. >> what special payments are in this country for either children or older people -- old people? >> in this country, we have benefit payments for unemployed people. obviously, we pay a pension to the elderly. again, there is the fact that people are worried about how they will manage and how rough the situation will get. >> how much does an older person who is retired get in a pension? how is it determined?

>> you get a standard amount of money. i think it is about 70 pounds per week. >> so you're talking about $110 per week. >> but they also get other payments. they get a payment for fuel in the winter. but the basic payments are about 70 pounds per week. other payments they could get, whether they are payments for medical conditions or help with other things, those are being cut back and people are worried about it. >> what are some of the complaints you get all the time in your office from your constituents? >> they are just worried about how they will manage without a job. people are very concerned that the government has tripled the fees that people have to pay. people are worried about the future. in my district, we have a high turnout.

-- turnover. the highest turnout i've had for 20 years. i doubled my majority with the increased electorate. they came not in order to support me and my party because they knew that this government was coming in and was not good for poor people. >> we have 2 million people who work for the federal government. when we watched the cuts being announced every year, 500,000 people in the public service, is that like cutting a fourth of our civil service? is it the same thing? how you cut 500,000 civil servants in a country of 6 million people? >> they are not all civil servants. they are everybody. it is maybe 100,000 civil servants. it will also be policemen, the bureaucrats who are dealing with the different departments, and a lot of local authority, local government officials. the the thing to remember is -- the other thing to remember is

that come in that figure, it is all the people working for local government. a good chunk of that -- >> what control does the prime minister have over the local government? >> he is doing a classic trick of saying that we will cut a much money we will give to the local government, but we will give you much more control over how to spend it. they hated the fact that they were forced to spend on certain things. it is a similar debate in the u.s.. the state's hate having the federal government tell them how to spend the money. kamen said, you have less money, but we will stop -- cameron said, you have less money, but you will have more control on how to spend it. he will have less control over what the local government does than his predecessor. cuts will be felt on a local level. there will be blaming local authorities for that. >> in the u.s., the president

said we will cut the money to the states. he may never be able to do that because congress would not go along with it. what about here? what is the chancellor of the exchequer says that we will cut the money to the states -- doesn't mean it will be cut to? >> it means it will be cut. what they say in parliament happens. that is the key difference. when parliament does not get its way, it is pretty celebrated and you will hear about it even in the states. that would be a major loss for the government. and a sense, things are a bit -- in a sense, things are of that different in a coalition government. you have a lot of debate between the two parties, the liberal democrats and the conservatives, that have to happen behind closed doors within the treasury before these things get announced. in a sense, there is a new check a balance in the conservatives power that would not have normally been there. unless something cataclysmic happens, it will go through. that is the parliamentary system. it is a very different system. >> if you work for the chancellor of the exchequer,

george was born, versus the treasury secretary of the united states, what would -- george osborn, versus the treasury secretary of united states, what would a day be like? -- >> it depends on the purpose. -- person. some of very careful about their speeches. some prepared speeches and they want everyone to have seen it before hand. most of these guys in there and they have people they trust and they want to do it at the last minute. people at the u.s. treasury would be tearing their hair out because larry and i would be discussing his crucial speeches at 3:00 a.m. there was not time for lot of checking by the rest of the bureaucracy. what is really interesting and different is that the u.k. treasury is much more powerful in the u.k. than the u.s. treasury is. i was sort of amazed -- i should have known this going in -- but when i went to the u.s. treasury, i was surprised that

it is imminent. -- impotent. it does not have much control over the monetary policy because that is the fed's job. and it does not control budgetary policy. the president will set the budget. the budget he produces in january is currently receive and then ignored. -- kindly received and then largely ignored. the situation here is completely different. here, if is much more powerful. the finance minister stands up on a certain day -- you saw the report i did in the spring -- they stand up in parliament and announce what they will do. they sit down and, in a week or so, it will have happened. there is none of the debate or back-and-forth that to having congress. that is the key difference. congress is much more powerful. -- the treasury as much more powerful. but in the rest of the world, nobody really cares what the

u.k. treasury thinks. in the case of the u.s., we had a lot of control. some people said that too much control of their policies at the imf and some were surprised that we have much more control over others monetary policies to the imf. >> the republicans saying "no" for the last two years during barack obama's term to everything on purpose, another will get the house of representatives back. looking back on what happened during the blair years, what is the difference, what the tories could do when tony blair was in charge versus what the republicans can do in the united states when they were not in charge? >> what happened in our time, we inherited -- we left for the other government a very prosperous economy.

they held the line for a bit. then something went wrong with spending. we criticize them pretty roundly at the time. you're not mending the roof when the sun is shining. and when it rains, we'll get wet. that is what happened. it is much more difficult now, starting from a difficult position and to get back into the economy. i do not know if i am fair about this. i don't follow american politics that closely. but there is one thing which i have noticed about politicians. if they will lose in the vote because they do not have a majority, they can say some pretty outrageous things in terms of criticizing their opponents, knowing that their opponents will get the thing through anyway and they want to be on the safe ground of criticizing so that they can be ready in the years to come to say that this did no work and that did no work and so forth.

i suspect that, if they had been the other way around, the party is the other way around, the other parties would have beach -- each said similar things than they are saying. in other words, when you are in government, you are faced with some pretty horrendous problems and there is no way of ducking them. you have to try to deal with them. when you are in opposition, you can pick and choose what you will make a fuss about and what you will let get by. no doubt, from where i sat, some of the major industries in the united states, particularly the car industry, had built up over the years some very, very deep-seated problems which had to be resolved. i had it a little bit in the coal mining industry in this country where, if i remember rightly, we had nine pensioners of the coal industry for every one employee in the company. and no company can survive that sort of historical on cost and

big decisions have to be taken. opposition sometimes criticize a bit, knowing perfectly well they may have to do some of the things they cells -- some of the things themselves if they found themselves in government. >> we have a thing called -- you have something called vat. we do not have it. we have the sales tax, but it generally does not go up beyond 10%. there is no national sales tax. explain the vat. >> of course, we do not have a state system in the way that you do. we do not have smaller units of government within the overall state that are capable of organizing their own budgets and their own tax-raising system. there is charges of various kinds, but all the expenditure is raised by the central state and spent by the central state the value added tax is --

central state. the value-added tax is so that each individual along the chain, from the production of an item to the final sale, pays tax on the proportion of value while it was in those hands. from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, all you know is that, the prices when code, you had 17% to that. now that is going up to 20% very suit in deed -- very soon indeed. >> so everything will have a 20% tax. >> everything except food, children's clothing, newspapers, magazines, charity. there are a few the zz items. -- the u.s. exempted items. >> it was the new tax rises the this administration announced,

although they all said it with -- offset by some of the payroll tax rise. instead, they are doing a consumption tax rise. in the 1980's, margaret thatcher rose to vat sharply in the recession of the early 1980's. in some generations, that still has resonance. we should remember the that is 20%. in the u.s., they do not think of it in those terms. here, that is a tax on everything except food. it is 20%. >> do you have property taxes? >> not really. we have taxes on transfers of property. whenever you transfer of property, you pay a proportion of that as a tax. we also have domestic rates, called the council tax.

this is for your local authority, your town hall or whatever. you pay tax according to the value of your property. but all of these taxes are small compared to vat. >> going to the council tax, what percentage of your income or your property value would you pay per year? >> i think i pay about 1,500 pounds a year. i have a high-valley property. >> so that -- i have a high- valued part. >> so that is about $2,500. >> yes. on a property worth about $2 million. it is not enormous. >> in the u.s., you can pay $15,000 for something like that. what other kinds of text you -- tax do you have? how much of this will go up.

>> who date are higher -- they are excise taxes, like on tobacco and alcohol. we have a very high tax on fuel, more than half of a gallon or liter of fuel is now tax. >> there are three leaders or -- leader four leaders to a gallon? >> yes. >> thomas is a leader? >> nearly $4 per -- >> there are three litres or four litres to a gallon? >> yes. >> how much is a litre? >> nearly $4. half the cost of a bottle of wine is the duty. those are causing difficulties for the government.

on the other side of the interest channel in the european -- english channel in the european union, they do not pay anything like that amount of tax on alcohol or tobacco. we are all in a customs union together. people are just getting on to the ferries with trucks and coming back loaded with beer and cigarettes. so the exchequer is being deprived of quite a lot of revenue. so there is an automatic balancing or leveling or equalizing of taxation going on in the european union. if one country pays a helluva lot more tax for anything, people will go to another country to get it. >> what else is different? >> we cannot have a religious right. issues like abortion, we have access to abortion in this country. people can debate about the

time. you can have an abortion in this -- you cannot have an abortion in this country easily if the child in the womb is too far advanced. there is no idea in this country of their right to bear arms. gun control is not an issue in this country because, actually, they are unusual. out in the country, people need guns to shoot. there are no rights about guns. the number of people that care -- are killed about guns in london in a year is not close to those in new york. the whole issue of civil

partnerships and gay marriage, these are not subject of dispute. all of the lifestyle and ethics issues are not politicized in this country. >> why not? >> because the british do not think it is right. the british thinks that these are matters of conscience. the matter of abortion came up to the british parliament. [inaudible] the majority are in favor of it. the same with the death penalty. we have not had it in years and years. >> you have been four years openly gay and a member of the conservative wing of politics -- you have been for years openly gay and a member of the conservative or right-wing of politics.

in the united states that might not be easy. >> you can believe that the people are equal citizens and believe that relationships between people of the same sex are not necessarily an anti- social, dangers, or personally damaging. it is not inconsistent with being a conservative, with being a fiscal conservative, with the leading in a small state, -- be leaving in a small state. -- believing in a small state. indeed, with believing that the state should not travel with people's private lives, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech. these are all the things that a conservative ought to be will to support. andrew sullivan is only an honorary american, but talk with andrew sullivan in the united states and you will get the same story from him that you will for me and millions of other conservatives. >> >> plame your policy of having a partner and two children -- explain your policy of having a partner and two children.

>> i think it is pretty common. last year was the first time that more than half of the children born in u.k. were born out of wedlock. we thought the we would get married, but it was one of those things that ended up -- in the modern world, you spend more time looking for a house and starting a family and then you think, we're not married, and we will have to fix that sometime in the future. >> some groups, is as high as 70%. -- in some groups, it is as high as 70% out of wedlock. what is your philosophy of not marrying? >> i do not think it was a conscious decision. if you meet someone later in life -- we met ehrlich-30's. you end up feeling a lip -- we met an hour late-30's. you end up feeling a little -- i never dreamed about what my

wedding would look like. i was not sure i would get married. it seemed like a bigger priority to find somewhere to live together and to start a family than to get married. also, the family started quicker than we thought. >> how old are they? >> two and four. >> uc tight security -- you see tight security. hear, when you ride the subway, you do not see security. you had a tragic highway -- subway accident. terrorist killed 150 people. what has that done to the society? i know you had the ira and the bombs over the years. >> during the second world war, we were bombed.

of course, we had the ira during the 1970's and the 1980's. i live in london and i take the subway. after the attack, was back on the subway and so is everybody else. we kind of looked at each other. there was this mutual feeling, getting on the subway and going to work. british people are more pragmatic about that than americans. it's a little bit of that stiff upper lip. >> i want to run a little clip of an interview we did in 1988 because it tells a little bit of a story that we should know about you before we go any further. >> and ira bomb went off, which was designed to blow up the british government. i was unfortunately in a bedroom that was very near to the bomb. my wife was killed there instantly. there were four other people killed and many people wounded.

i was badly wounded. and there were seven hours under the rubble before managed to be digging now -- before they managed to dig me out. i don't think anyone else was under for more than three hours. they got me out of life, just -- they got me out alive, just about. then i had to rebuild my life. >> go back to when that happened. >> i was fortunate enough. i got married again fairly soon, a great friend of my first wife. i have one more sun. -- son. so i have three sons. we have just celebrated our silver wedding. my second wife the night. -- and i. that was 25 years ago since that happened. i have rebuild my life in that sense and i have was a wonderful family around me,

which helped. and still have trouble with my legs. there were crushed. that there -- i was in hospital only a few days ago. i get up flareup of difficulties. they can sort it out. that side is not completely cured. but here -- the human spirit does recover. i think that is the key difference. it was just over 25 years ago. >> that is the ira? >> yes. a lot happened in the political scene as well. so far as they is concerned, we try to work together with them in northern ireland. we had some success. >> are you surprised that there is no more of the bombing going on? >> there are still a small element that they would try to like to get the bombing going again. they have not got much popular

support, even with the elements in iris society they would have been in favor of a united ireland. i think so far things are reasonably under control. but it has been a lot of hard work, and gradually getting things going again. >> that was a party of men, the -- party event, the conservative party meeting? >> the annual convention. >> how many people were killed? >> pipe -- five people were killed in the hotel i was in. because i was the government she whipped at the time, i was in -- government chief whip at the time, i was in the next room to mrs. thatcher. it was mrs. thatcher they were after. the bomb went off in the room above and i felt four stories in the hotel. they dug me out seven hours later. the only reason i survived was

really locked. -- luck. occur from the hotel came down and stop the hotel crushing me -- girder came down and stop the rubble from crushing me. a spring mattress came down and gave me air. it was a pretty horrendous thing. >> is there anything about americans looking at 9/11 thinking that it will never be over? >> if you have the combination of strong security, new york trying to frustrate, you need very good intelligence and some very brave men, who had infiltrated some of these organizations to find out what is going on. but at the same time, political leaders have got to be able to start some sort of dialogue with these people, because however evil the overall organization might be, there are

some less evil people in, who can be persuaded, and what you must not do is drive them all the other way. in all the successful things, there have been some negotiations for the moderate people are gradually drawn away from the real hard-liners and it can make a difference. >> when did you run for the house of commons and the first -- in the first place? >> i wanted to speak up for people who did not have a voice. there were very few women out of 650. thereabout 20 women. -- there were about 20 women. there were no black people at all. i was the first black woman elected to parliament. i was dazed. i was very proud because i speak up for people who would not have been heard otherwise. >> first black woman to be in the parliament of this country.

>> yes, and i think, was elected 150 years after the abolition of slavery in the british empire. it shows you the progress. there are more minority members now. on both sides, the conservative party have done very well actually. there have been half a dozen white members when they did not have any when i first came in. -- black members when they did not have any when i first came in. there are not as many as i think there should be. it is a big advance from when i started. >> given the system and you are aware of what goes on in the united states, we have over 40 members of the u.s. house of representatives out of 435, the total number is 3% of 646 members? >> i think it is about 20- something now.

>> under your system, how you get more minorities to elect -- elected? >> they put pressure on organizations. under most circumstances, they will elect a minority member. we do not have that here. we've had a history of segregation and so on. in the labor party, but in the -- in the labour party. they or encouraged local associations. some very good people coming from the conservative side.

in the media, [inaudible] -- you could not or you could? >> you could. >> sky network is a very different station from fox. all of the satellites -- they knew they'd need to be balanced. >> to you feel that the news's balance? -- do you feel that the news is balanced? >> yes. [inaudible] >> american say that this is freedom to say whatever you want to say, freedom to have a gun in your house if you want that have it, all of the things that we have been talking here. the first amendment protect speech -- you would be about said spend whatever you want to one politicians.

>> its and of -- it's the freedom at the expense of the port. -- of the poor. the freedom to spread untruths is extraordinary. how many americans believe the barack obama is a muslim? to continue to say things that are wholly misleading, people are accustomed to hearing things without contradiction. >> is there a difference in journalism between the two countries? >> i have worked with the financial side of the times, there is a little bit -- a trust their journals more origin and say they have much lower standards in terms of everything else. they basically leave the journalists to make their own judgments on many things. that is in the u.k.

and many newspapers, that means there is less -- there are a lot of stores that are not true. the great thing about the sunday is that the stores do not have to be as true. i thought i was a very worrying. -- i thought it was very worrying. you would never hear that in any serious newspaper in the u.s. i was taken aback initially and then rather compressed about -- i -- was rather impressed by the attention to detail in new york. >> i ran the press complaints commission. >> who controls it? >> it was an attempt by the newspaper industry to demonstrate that they had set up a body to seek to raise press standards, particularly standards of invasion of

privacy and inaccurate reporting. partly to stop either political party that won the election to bring in any controls of the press. they wanted me to run it after the first -- he had not made much of an impact, and i tried to run up standards by getting the public to complain about anything they thought was unfair, wrong, inaccurate, distorted, invasion of privacy, things of that sort. but we had no actual legal penalties. we could not find people but we could criticize heavily and the newspaper hated that. they hated that completely. it was also free to make a complaint. you never get charge anything --

you never got charged anything for making a complaint. all lawyers were not involved. and i think we did raise the standards over the years. >> who paid for it? >> the newspaper industry paid for it and i is the chairman had to maintain our independence from the newspapers. i had to be sufficiently respected by the people to say that i was not their tool because i was being paid by the newspaper industry. there was no secret of it. >> when did you running? -- run it? >> i think i started in 1995 and then i went to 1981 or 1982. >> but took on someone publicly in that time period, a guy named pierre is morgan. -- pierce morgan. he is going to take over the larry king show. >> i'm very fond of him. he is a very successful man and he will be very successful in america and no hard feelings at all. but it was when i was first garden. -- first starting. he published photographs of the

first earl of spencer's wife who was walking in the grants -- on the grounds of a nursing home where he engine -- where she had gone for mental breakdown. he is the brother of princess diana. the earl of spencer. he is one of our big landowners and a big aristocrats of the old school. i am an aristocrat of the new school. i do not have any land. he is one of the big ones. this was right at the heart of what we were trying to stop. the intrusion of someone in the hospital. i said this was a very serious breach of the code, and it was right at the beginning, so i went to rupert murdoch, and i said in the end, it is used that -- it is you that has to have people that you have confidence and running your show. >> he ran news of the world. >> the popular newspaper.

he said very famously the conduct of this young man is unacceptable. and he shortly afterward left. he got a better job with another newspaper. i don't think he did himself any harm. i invited him to lunch and we had lunch together and we're good friends. there is no hard feelings about it at all. it was part of the process of trying to demonstrate a free newspaper system did not require government intervention and loss -- laws to stop it intruding into people's privacy. >> what is more like in -- what is more alike than different? >> i think we are all liked -- you have a written constitution. that written constitution means that you have a supreme court, the president, and they'll balance each other. our common history brings us

together. i think you have not -- the second world war has brought us together, fighting side by side. there's a lot that we have in common. i think the way that the way obama could sweep through and become president could not really happen in this country. it is much less class-written. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] .

>> the one thing we've absolutely learned over the last 30 years is that economists and other sages are not very good at predicting what happens. >> in his columns in neek nook

and "the washington post," robert samuelson has written about the economy and politics and other issues for over three decades. he will join us sunday on "q.&.a.." now an interview with jane goodall, who talkeds about her life and work. she also presents awards to people whose work in conservation she admires. from george washington university in washington, d.c., this is ban hour and a half. >> alumni and staff and students of the george washington university, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the historic lisner auditorium for the jane goodall awards. it's a particular pleasure as well as an honor to have dr. goodall on our campus. her early work on primate behavior captured the imagination of millions.

she has expanded her work to include conservation and striving for a better world. it is also an honor to present this year's global awards. individually and collectively they advance her -- advance her commitment to sustaining and flourishing all of the life forms on the earth we share. and one of the most urgent and important issues of our time, our efforts to educate and enlighten and inform are are strengthened by the many relationships we have throughout the capital area and the world. i am pleased to note that the jane goodall institute recently established a chapter of roots and shoots here at george washington. that will provide our students with yet another opportunity to act on their passion for changing the world.

ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the president and chief executive officer of the jane goodall institute, maureen smith. >> thank you. thank you very much, everyone. i want to welcome all of you, especially the 600 george washington university students who snapped up tickets for this event in record time. so welcome and thank you to all of you. tonight we want this to be very informal. although i'm dressed in a suit and feel rath ir -- rather like a member of the partridge family, i would like all of you to just feel relaxed. you will notice i have no notes. we have not rehearsed any of this. we want it to be as relaxed as possible to give you an insight into dr. goodall and her work. and i want to welcome the board

of directors, board of governors, i should say. and the j.g.i. staff or board members that are here, please? [applause] we had a very long board meeting today, but it was a lot of fun, too, so this is a great way to cap off a very eventful day. i want to briefly tell you a bit about my history with dr. goodall and j.g.i. i have only been at the helm for six months but i've known dr. goodall for years and i think longer than that because as a child i requisiting with my father in a leather chair and watching jane goodall on national geographic specials. i said, like probably many of you, i want to work with her

someday. i envisioned it would, working with her out in the jungles of africa. that didn't happen. my life took me into the entertainment industry. and then six years ago i was making documentaries like return to gombe and "when animals talk." when the opportunity came up to be a part of her organization, i decided to make a dramatic shift in my career and join her organization, and i couldn't be more thrilled much the people at j.g.i. dedicate themselves 24/7 to making the planet a better place and trying to do what we can to fulfill the vision of this incredible woman. so enough about me. i know the reason we're all here tonight is because of -- because of that one individual woman who shows us that we can change the world. ladies and gentlemen, the one and only dr. jane goodall. [applause]

>> hello. ? place be seated. hello there. >> i greeted them in a certain way. perhaps there is another type of greeting you would like to introduce to the group? >> the kind you would hear if you came to the most wonderful, magical place in the world, gombe park and climbed up and hoped to hear the chimpanzees greeting the day. [imitating chimp sounds] hello. [applause]

maybe at the end before we go i'll make the good night call, the sound that you hear when the chimp anees -- chimpanzees are in their nest and are calling back and forth across the valley. so if you remind me. >> i'll try to remember. so a little while ago when i was introducing myself i talked about watching national geographic specials and being so inspired about your work. national geographic is represented here and we'll be talking about them more shortly. but they have produced a video for tonight that encapsuleates your journey with them. we are celebrating 50 years of dr. goodall's pioneering rich and vision for our planet. we'll talk about it afterwards. >> july 14, 1960. 26-year-old jane goodall arrives on the shores of gombe stream game reserve on the

coast of what is now tanzania the >> when i looked at the wild and rugged mountains where the chimpanzees lived, i knew that my task was not going to be easy the >> she had been sent by renowned anthropologist dr. louis leaky, who then approached the national geographic society about supporting jane's work. she has no field experience or college degree. what she has is determination to observe champaign ansees with a mind uncluttered by conventional scientific theffeds -- methods. >> when i first came to gombe to study chimpanzees, i knew nothing about them. nobody really knew much about amend -- them. she also has the courage to spend months in a remote, even dangerous play, getting closer to wild chimps than anyone before her.

within weeks, she is making astonishing discoveries. chimps will hunt down large mammals and eat them. and more shocking, they not only use tools, but make them as well. >> the chimpanzee is actually modfying a natural object to suit it to a specific purpose, thus making a tool. >> when leaky first heard about tool-using at gombe, he got extremely excited and said "now we have to redefine man, redefine tool, or include chimpanzees with humans." >> these discoveries, caught on film, sent national geographic into a flurry of coverage. in the next five years, national geographic presents jane's first film and many

articles in the jane becomes a star. she and her beloved chimps, david graybeard, slow, and flint, become known worldwide. and jane redefines science, adding an emotional component. >> it's perfectly possible to be incredibly emotionally involved, feeling great empathy for your subjects the >> it's what would drive jane to learn as much about chimps as anyone in the world, to find out how alike we really are. >> during the very early years i thought how like people they were. but they seem to be much more gentle, much nicer. but then it became more and more apparent that chimpanzees, like humans, have a dark side to their nature.

>> she witnesses a war between chimpanzees that lasts four years. decades deep in her study, jane discovers that the chimp populations are under threat from the outside. by the 1980's, they are an endangered species. jane realizes she can best save these creatures by leaving gombe to speak to the world face to face about the importance of protecting these chimps. >> if we just sit back and allow the chimpanzees here and everywhere else to become extinct, it will be an enormous black mark on us as a species. as we destroy the natural world, we end up with a

situation where the people are suffering. so there has to be a way of creating a balance between humans and the natural world. >> gombe has since become a national reserve, and jane's sights are set on the future. >> she has launched conservation projects, humanitarian work. the jane goodall institute is promoting a new generation of conservationists and helping to mentor a new generation of chimp researchers. >> i'm going to do everything i can to cheer them on. >> 50 years later, jane has witnessed the lives of three generations of chimpanzees. the dream that jane goodall set in motion lives on, and her

partnership with national geographic continues. the october issue of national geographic magazine features a celebration of the young english girl who was a pioneer in so many ways, who patiently reached across every boundary to draw us closer to our closest relatives. >> thank you to national geographic. thank you. [applause] so take us back 50 years and tell us about how national geographic came into the picture and the impact it had on your career. >> well, the national geographic really came into the picture because of louis leakey. he had to go tackle a whole lot

of people at the geographic who were horrified. you know, here's this young girl straight from england. she doesn't have a degree, it's potentially dangerous, and you're asking us to fund such a ridiculous, crazy expedition? but in the end louis leakey was very persuasive, so they agreed and really they impacted my life in more ways than just providing the funding to carry on with the research. they provided me with a house and some -- >> you want to clarify that? >> on louis leakey's advice, after i had begun to get the chimpanzees used to me and know them, they wanted to make a film and recommended this dutch photographer, hugo.

he shared my passion and he came and was patience -- patient and i think really and truly it was his film through the geographic that really took the chimps to living rooms around the world. and the number be times that i good -- go -- i mean i can go literally anywhere and somebody will say "well, i read about you in the "geographic" growing up and because of if -- it and the exposure and the films, the document -- documentaries. i can't walk through an airport in the u.s. without at least six people coming up and asking for autographs and so forth and you ask them, and they say yes, they read it or saw the film. my son -- wouldn't -- maybe he wouldn't exist but for the

"geographic" -- mel payne, the editor back then, or actually the head of the science research -- i can't remember his exact title but whatever it was, louis leakey said, well, you can't expect jane goodall to be out there on her own in the bush and have this young dutch photographer come out and have the two of them on their own. i mean this is a different era. we're going back 48 years or something. so it was a way of getting my mother out for a second time. he said, you know, she must have a chaperon. that was always the big joke at the geographic, this is the most expensive chaperon in history. so. >> that's great. and we have the october issue here that features gombe 50 and amazing photographs and the great interview with you. you want to talk about that article too and what it means to you?

>> it was actually going to be on the cover but the oil spill bumped it off the cover. it would have been the cover, actually. but you know, national geographic is no longer only published in the u.s. it's published in many other cries -- countries and i've already seen five different country's editions where the chimps did make the cover so that's kind of nice. but this was an article with david crum, and he interviewed me, i knew him from before and another geographic article. so going through the 50 years and looking at the family trees, you know, a lot of nostalgia went into this article and it was really nice to see an article back in the "geographic" after i think 10 years, something like that. very special. >> special to all of us, too.

so thanks again to the geographic. one of the reasons we're here tonight is so many people consider dr. goodall one of their personal heroes. but it's always interesting to find out who your heroes are too. she started handing out the global difference awards. quite often they're not people the masses have heard about. sometimes they are. we'd like to start tonight giving out the first award. it's to the national geographic society, it's the jane goodall award for excellence in social responsibility. i'd like to invite terry garcia, the executive vice president of mission programs, to come up on the stage and get award from dr. goodall.

>> thank you. it's a mark of enormous gratitude for what the geographic has done, not so much for me but for the chimpanzees. my uncle collected "national geographic" from way, way back. and the number of house is -- houses i go to, they say we can't throw them away, they're 23il8 diagnose filling up the attic. >> you can get it in d.v.d.'s now! >> much easier. but there are still houses filleds with the "geographic." thank you so much. it's been an honor. i have just a few remarks. first of all, thank you jane and maureen. it really is on honor for "national geographic" to receive this award and be here

tonight for this celebration. how fortunate we are that louis leakey was so persistent and told us so many years ago that we needed to meet and support an amazing young woman who wanted to study chimpanzees in africa. it was quite a leap of faith. but 26 grants, 25 "national geographic" articles, 24 national geographic films and books later, i think you would agree with me it was well worth taking. people often are surprised when i tell them national geographic is not a media company. our mission is not to publish magazines or produce television programs, even though i see some of our television producers out there. sorry. when we were founded in 1888 our mission was to diffuse and increase geographic knowledge

and that meant we were going to explore. for over a century we've been sending is adventure luss -- adventurous men and women to every place on the planet. that original endeavor was to fill in the blank spaces on the planet. they've done that. we have made more than 10,000 grants for field research and conservation around the world and we're actually stepping up the pace now. when these people return from the field, then we tell their stories. that's been our practice. explore to increase knowledge, communecate to disseminate or diffuse that knowledge. lately we've begun to ask ourselves, is that enough? you know, sometimes the lines between reporting, educating, and advocating are less well defined than they might seem. sometimes dispassionate objectivity comes at a cost.

sometimes as jane said we should not be objective at the expense of being human. and sometimes the very act of telling a story changes the story-teller. and that's what's happened to us in a way. you know, over the last decade with photographers, exmorers, scientists, hundreds of them out in the field in search of various truths, and almost without exception they have come back as committed conservationists. that's because the truth that they have found is that in some -- so many cases, things are sliping away. climates are changing. habitats are slinking -- shrinking. languages are being lost. whole species are on the brink of extinction the so we felt we needed to make a change in

"geographic's" orientation. now our mission is to inspire people to care about the planet and even more that we are going to use our resources both scientific and educational as well as media to begin to focus the public's attention on some of the key problems confronting the planet as well as focus on the solutions to those problems. in spite of all those problems there is reason i believe for optimism. one is from my perch the emergence the -- of a new generation of scientists and explorers. they take their inspiration from jane goodall and all that she's accomplished and as we speak tonight there are men and women all earv -- over the world in remote places, in some cases enduring unimagine enable hardships to pursue what they think is important. and most encouraging, there are

many more who want to go if only they had the means. somehow -- who knows, somewhere out there is another young woman vision ary like jane goodall with the will to make her dream become a reality. hopefully this person like jane will not just bear witness to events but help write a new story for the planet. it's been a wonderful journey with you, jane, and we look forward to the journey that we're going to take together. so thank you very much. plaups applause -- [applause] >> so the next award is for overall global leadership. the awardee is dr. mark plotkin. he's known as the indiana jones of the plant world. he's an ethnobotanist and

president of the amazon conservation team. i thought you could tell the people a little bit about how you first met him and how what they're doing is somewhat similar to what we do at j.g.i. and on the ground with local communities. >> yes, well, i can't remember when i first met mark but i was immediately attracted because of his passion, because of his commitment not just to going into wild places in the amazon but to the people and working with the people. of course we've realized very clearly in j.g.i. that if we wanted to con serve the gombe chimpanzees or any other wildlife in a developing country where people are living very often in poverty, there's no way that conservation is going to work if you don't work with the people and help the people to lead better lives. therefore, live in a way that

will be less damaging to the environment. so mark plotkin not only had this vision, but he also realized that there was a tremendous knowledge and ancient knowledge and wisdom about the plants in the indigenous people, particularly the shamans, and that that knowledge was disappearing. so he set up some of the old shamans and he found the money so that they could actually have a school. so they had a shaman school and the young men were coming to learn the ancient art that otherwise would have disappeared. he also, i loved that he was so passionate about the fact that the local people, the indigenous people, pharmaceutical companies wrb coming in and taking these medicinal plants and the local people got nothing, and of course this is still happening in many, many places and he

fought tirelessly so that the people would get some money back and not have this continual stealing and stealing and stealing of their treasure, their future. so that was what really, really appealed to me with mark. he's still involved in the same kind of projects and missions. >> great. and my notes here show that he and his team work with more than 32 amazonian tribes to map, manage, and improve the protection of more than 70 million acres of ancestral rain forest. pretty amazing. mark could not be with us tonight, but i know his wife is in the audience. i would like for her to stand and be acknowledged. there she is. thank you very much. [applause] and through the wonders of technology, we do have him in a video where he gave a little thank you. so let's roll tape.

♪

again. [applause] >> so we've talked a little bit about the work in africa and certainly that was the big focus of the national geographic attention, but we know there is something essential to what we do at j.g.i., and that's working with youth through the jane goodall roots and shoots program. i hope you can talk about how that began and how it inspired you. >> it doesn't take much to get me to talk about it >> i know. >> it began in 1991 in tanzania. i met so many young people who seemed to have lost hope. they said they had had lost hope, were depressed or angry or just apathetic and when i talked to them they all said

more or less the same, we feel this way because you have compromised the future and there is nothing we can do about it. we have compromised the future of our youth. i've got grandchildren. everywhere i go i look at children and feel how we've harmed the planet since we whether -- were there age. but roots and shoots is about empowering young people to take action to make this wording a better place. not just to sit back and say well, this is very sad, but there's nothing i can do, but to get together and realize that the power of youth is huge. once the young people know the problems and they are empowered to take action. every groum is choosing three kinds of projects to make the world better, for -- to make it better for people, for their own community, like raising money for tsunami victims and

so forth, or traveling out, going to see mark plotkin and the project, a project improving things for animals, not just domestic animals but wildlife too, and a project that is going to improve the environment. and of course the imagination of young people who sit down and talk about the problems, there's always one young person who wants to help animals, always, in every group. always somebody who wants to go do community service and help people. there's always several who want to go and improve, you know, clean streams and clear litter and stuff like that. it means every group of roots and shoots, there are young people who can fling themselves into whatever action has been decided because it's their passion and it started with high school students, 12 of them. it's now in 121 countries. we've got about i think somewhere between 16nd 18 -- 16

and 18,000 active groups and they're all ages, from preschool right through university with a brand-new group starting in george washington university. we even actually have roots and shoots groups in old people' homes and we've had wonderful groups in prisons. so it's gone even beyond yulieski gourriel. -- beyond youth. but it's basically youth driven and there are lots of members and mentors here tonight. could you all stand up? because this is the future of the planet. where are you? yes. [cheers and applause] >> and toif finally say that we have 27 jane goodall institutes in every different part of the world and every single jane

goodall institute is having roots and shoots as one of its central programs. but of course there are roots and shoots groups way beyond the 27 jane goodall institutes. i think 121 -- i think it's more than 121 because rick is developing latin america and it's just going like this. so it's very exciting. it really is for me one of my greatest, greatest hopes for the future and it's still growing. and any of you here who are not involved, just check up roots and shots.org and get involved when you get home. >> and if not tonight, tomorrow. because tomorrow we're going to have a workshop here on campus at the amsterdam house at 11:30 and you can learn all about roots and shoots. we'll have i think several

hundred roots and shoots participants coming here, and it's a great way to see it in action and get inspired. so tonight we're recognizing three particular youths from the roots and shoots program. i'd like to run the video and talk about each one briefly. let's roll tape, please. ♪ >> hello. thank you very much, dr. jane

and j.g.i. for give me the opportunity to be here tonight. i am so honored to win this award and believe that in winning i am representing all of the youth of the roots and shoots network. who are working in their communities around the globe to make the places they live and this planet as a whole a better place. i have seen in roots and shoots groups in my community and around this planet that when anybody, no matter their situation, put their minds to it, they can change this planet. they can change this world and i am proud to represent them all here tonight. thank you very much. >> hi. of all the young people to be inspired by jane, it's an honor to be chosen for this award. thank you. please thank the jane goodall institute for all their

support. and especially to jane who showed me positive change for the future is possible. thanks for helping me. bye! >> hi, my name is ardis. i'm from india. i'm very grateful to dr. jane goodall and the roots and shoots istitute for this award. dr. ga -- goodall has been my inspiration. i'm sure conservation will no longer be a theory but will become reality soon. jane goodall institute in india is going to take shape very soon. it's functioning well with the help of volunteers.

i want to help roots and shoots spread out more in this big, wild country. i hope to see you in india among all the beautiful animals we have here. dr. goodall, thanks for everything. you have made a difference not only in my life but thousands here in india as well. hope to see you here very soon. [applause] >> tell us a little bit about, let's start with arun who we saw there in the video. >> i think the important thing to say about all these three young people, is as ai -- kai said, they rement other young people. and what is so special about all of them, like our other youth leaders, is that they are not only, they've not only been inspired to try and make a difference, but each one of them is able to inspire others

and this is how our roots and shoots program is going. we realized several years ago that there is no better way of growing hoots -- roots and shoots than having these young people as our ambassadors. our first youth fellow is here this evening as well, and he was the one who first started going out into schools and talking about the roots and shoots mission. so by selecting three out of many, it was very hard, almost impossible. >> i know you struggled. >> but choosing the older ones, because, you know, we don't give this award to people who are over 24. so when you find really dynamic leaders like arun in a country that is struggling -- i mean we all know the problems in india. just take the tiger for one. losing its habitat, losing out the spare parts.

so it's desperately important for the young people of india to find some hope and esfinding hope for thousands by involving them in projects to reck sea turtles. but rather than what they've actually done, the important thing is they're all making a very major difference in their own ways in their communities and they are inspiring others and spreading the message. as i say, it's a greatest hope for the full. >> we have a bit of a surprise for you tonight. one of the young people featured is here tonight. kai neander, would you come up and get your award? [applause] >> thank you. thank you.

>> kai, you don't have to leave het -- yet. you can say a few words. we couldn't get enough of you on that video. so, please. >> well, thank you. >> nothing like putting you on the spot. [laughter] >> as i said in the video, i'm still not sure why i won this award, because it's -- i'm simply a representation of the youth around the gloke in the roots and shoots network. and every single one of us is out there working on simple projects, doing simple, everyday actions that together are changing our communities, changing our world and altering our individual future and our future as a generation. and it's been incredibly inspiring for me to have the opportunity to travel around the country and the world with roots and shoots and see youth everywhere i go working in their communities to help my future to -- and to help the future of my children and my

children's children. i know that that's what keeps me going every day is seeing those youth owe diagnose all out there that -- youth all out there. it's an honor to win this award on behalf of them. thank you. [applause] >> i'd just like to say one more thing. i wish we could have had aki -- d kai coming up here giving a talk and you would all understand how amazing it is, but one thing that really struck me that a young tanzanian told me, he was one of the very first founding members in 1991 and just recently i asked him what roots and shoots had meant to him in his life, and he said all the usual things, that it changed the way he thought, that he realized he could make a

difference and that it was important for him to try and make a difference, that he had met many inspiration people and had a lot of fun and it helped him get through life because he was using his life to try and make things better. then what he said was what i really love about roots and shoots i know anywhere i go in the world, even if i know nobody, if there say group of roots and shoots, i've found my family. that, to me, is what it's all about. >> wonderful. wonderful. part of the success for roots and shoots isn't just the young people, it's the very dedicated adults and educators who lead these groups. tonight we're going to be acknowledging one of those in p particular. would you like to talk about rick a little bit? >> well, rick is a very, very special man. i'm on asked who my heroes are. a lot of my heroes are teachers, and this particular teacher is a very special hero. i first met him, it was when

roots and shoots was first being introduced into the u.s., 1993, something like that, and he was teaching in an alternative high school in dandurry -- danbury, connecticut, and it was a school where many of the kids had dropped out and were coming from dysfunctional families, a lot of violence, drugs, and gangs and rick told me every night he was ready to be woken up and he might, you know, stop somebody committing suicide by being able to counsel them. it was that bad. and when i first met him, he was just beginning to recover from he is off gale -- esophageal cancer and had been given something like a 20% chance of living and was in tremendous pain. i always remember him saying he got through, he's sure, because of the love of his family and

because these tough students who he never thought cared would come and write little notes and bring him food to eat. and he was so touched by how much they cared. then, you know, he moved on and helped us in tanzania and has mentored hundreds and hundreds of roots and shoots students and he's just an incredibly special, amazing person. and, yeah. >> so we have a video of rick, but we also have him here in person. but you can never get too much rick. i'd like to run the video. he is our winner this year of jane's award for excellence in education. let's run the video, then we'll meet rick.

>> apart from my family, the person whose appreciation means the most to me is jane goodall. you usually have to wait until you've died to get thanked. this is much better. it's an honor because it honors the work we all do for young people all over the world for the j.g.i. and roots and shoots family. this award means we have made things better. this means we have -- we are not alone. we are all fragments in this journey called roots and

shoots. jane has always been there for my efforts even when the odds seemed impossible. i've always tried to be there for her and the program, even when she gives me the 007 assignments, "recycle these instructions after you read them." with jane we walk hide by -- side by side but always we finish in a circle. believing that who we've met is more important than just talking. [applause] >> thank you, jane. good to see you. >> he's already got his award. you saw it in the film. just, you know, he got it and

he doesn't have to take it. you can go and see it at work. >> but i did suggest next year has a cup so we can put some beer in it. jane talked about the alternative school. she neglected to mention that she saved several lives of children at the school because of the sadness of their lives and when jane came and said "you're so important, i'm here to be here for you," not just once an -- but over and over and wrote letters to them and encouraged them, there is no better role model on this planet than jane. and -- [applause] yeah. from a teacher's perspective, roots and shoots has an incredible mod -- motto, which is compassion, knowledge, action. and that has been the motto

that we've followed because you can have all the compassion in the world, but if you don't know what you're doing, you can really mess things up. so not only has she met emotional needs, but she's met educational needs and encouraged young people to be the best they can be academically, personally, every way you can think of. jane, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> so if some of you weren't watching college football this past saturday, you may have been watching the sundance channel and the season premiere of the iconoclast series. it was a great event here at the jane goodall institute because it was an episode of films over the summer with jane and charlize theron. it was the first time they had met, but jane had always been a hero of charlize's and we

thought it would be a tremendous opportunity to show the world a facility we operate in congo, a chimpanzee sanctuary. perhaps you can tell the people more about it and then the filming with charlize. >> the sanctuary for orphan chimps is the largest in africa. we're not proud of that because all the chimpanzees are there because their mothers were shot. some of the older chimpanzees, their mothers were shot for the live animal trade and then the chimpanzees were rescued from pets and so forth. but most of them now come in as little victims of the bush meat trade. the bush meat trade, of course, is the commercial hunting of wild animals for food, made possible by the big logging companies, foreign logging companies going into remote places and making roads. so even if they practice sustainable logging, just taking out the big trees, they

make these roads and along the roads come the hunters. now they can go on the logging tracks to previously inaccessible spots and they shoot everything, he will everybody -- elephants, eanltopse, chimpanzees, anything they can smoke and into the towns where the urban elite will truck into town and pay more for it than a piece of chicken or goat. they shoot the mother. no self-respecting hunter in the old days would shoot a mother with a baby because you don't do that. that's your meals for the future. but now it's for money. so you shoot a mother chimpanzee and then what do you do with the baby? there's little meat on it. i still remember the first time i saw a -- an infant chimpanzee for sale in the market in kinshasa. it was one of the saddest

things. he was all in a tiny little heap and sweating. i thought he was close to death. i went over and made the very soft sound of great -- greeting you make very close up, and to my amazement he sat up and reached out and touched my face. i couldn't leave him there. fortunately the american ambassador enabled us to confiscate that baby, because it was against the law and that little chimp is now one of those in the sanctuary. he started off in what was then zaire but now is in congo, brazzaville. as i say there's over 140 chimpanzees there and we're desperately seeking funding to get them into better conditions onto these three islands that we've been able to have the use of, the congolese government and pay the fishermen who are kind of camping there so that

the islands will be freed up for the chimpanzees. now we have to raise the money for the infrastructure so it's safe to put the chimpanzees on these big islands full of foretz. but it is desperately important that we do this because the big adult chimpanzees are able to escape even from the strong electric fences. they're so clever. they can short it and they'll put branches up. one is really clever at getting out. he had to be incarcerated in his indoor enclosure for four years because it's too unsafe to let him out. so we didn't let charlize and the film team go near this particular part of the sanctuary, but we thought it would be really nice and that's what they wants -- wanted, to meet some of the baby chimps who go out in the forest every day and learn to climb and play and of course they're total hi adorable. charlize melted.

yes. >> and the equipment that they have is basically human playground commitment -- equipment to climb on. so with the acquisition of these three islands we're able to give them a setting to live and play and thrive in as chimpanzees should. we can put specific groups on the different islands so that they get along well, and by size and attitude, i guess, and know who is there. and chimps don't swim, so it's a place where we don't need a fence around the area, yet we can have the vet rinarnes that we have and other people, the staff go there with the food and services that they need and we hope too it will at some point give people a chance to see chimps in their natural habitat on the island. but let's get back to charlize for a little bit, because i think a lot of people might be interested to know that although she and the crew were

going 0 go back to a hotel, she and you hit it off so well she asked if she could camp with you in the same camp area overnight and just get the camera crews away and just sit and tell stories by the fire and get to nope each other. i'm sure there would be a lot of people curious what those conversations were when the cameras were turned off. >> we talked about her childhood a lot because she grew up in south africa in a poor family, so we exchanged stories because i, too, grew up if a family where everything you had other than what you needed was a treat. of course, for me it was the war years. it was apartheid. so in a way, although i was in england and she was in south africa and we're different age, but we had a lot in common. she, too, is very passionate about wildlife and animals. and so it was a very lovely evening. she actually cooked the food.

tell you a secret, it wasn't that wonderful [laughter] -- >> what was it? >> it was some kind of pasta that she tipped the water on but it wasn't properly boiling, and we teased her a lot, but everybody was hungry. so -- and i have to say, too, she had a fantastic film crew with her. they were absolutely wonderful, and so everybody worked as a team and i hope, i hope that this session of "icono claft" will really get the message out there that this is a place that really, really needs help, but it's also i think we should make clear, it's p just looking after the orphan chimpanzees. it's also involving many of the local people. we're definitely improving their economy. we buy all the food for the chimps from the nearby

villages. we've started a program to improve their lives in different kinds of ways with new farming methods and help to build some schools and encourage the government to build roads, and of course they're all very excited about the sort of film you show, tourism. so there's no question that j.g.i., as it always does, has made a difference in the whole area. so we're not just there for the chimpanzees. if we don't bother about the people, the chimpanzees will just continue to be killed. everything is enter connected. -- inter connected. >> and i think some people might be under the impression we can take the chimps in and rehabilitate them and let them out in the wild but that's not the case. you want to explain that to people? >> first of all the chimpanzee infant taken from the mother, you have to make sure they can learn how to behave like chimpanzees. like our children, they're not

born with a whole set of intinkts that tells them, negotiation did, oh, you go out in the bush and climb a tree like this and fish for insects like that and you interact with others in this way and this gesture means that. they have to learn by watching and imitating as well as trial and error. but the other big problem is that first of all, the habitat is disappearing fast and, you know, in many places where there is suitable habitat with wild chimps there, and thep need that habitat, also chimps are very territorially aggressive. that's the dark side you saw in the film and if you release a whole lot of other chimps into the interpret -- territory of an existing community, they're going to attack them and that's for sure. so it's really difficult. and the final problem is that these chitches have grown up with people. they trust people, they're not

afraid of people either. so if there's a village nearby, they're going to wander in, why not? and somebody's going to get hurt, either a chimpanzee than a human because they're so much stronger than us when they're adults. so it's very, very difficult. if we found the ideal place we would love to be release them and we hope that we can, but in the meantime these islands are a really good solution for the moment. >> yeah. and so i think charlize really got that message and was very moved by her experience. you touched on it, she's from the area but she also has a group that she works with that tries to improve communities there as well, and i think that's part of the reason why you are giving her an award tonight because these -- she's the real deal. >> yeah. >> she really backs up what she says and she's very passionate about this and she's also agreeing to help us get the islands funded and do other th a