[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> for the first 45 minutes we're going to be talking about the house split over the u.s. role in libya. your thoughts at these numbers.

if you have called us in the last 30 days, pick up the keyboard. you can send us a message. if you're on twitter, you can follow us there. more from the article in politico from politico.com. in essence, the house decided that it will neither endorse nor totally reject intervention in libya. a last-minute white house lobbying effort worked at least on the spending limitation bill. secretary of state hillary clinton asked house democrats to back their president in a closed-door meeting in the capitol on thursday and national security advisor summoned a small group of liberals to the situation room at 7:00 friday for a classified briefing that may have

influenced a handful of votes. more on the story this morning in the baltimore sun with the headline, congress of two minds over libya.

we'll have more on this story from various newspapers from around the country. let's go to the phones. our first call from oregon. david on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for c-span. i found yesterday's vote really frustrating because it seemed like the people in washington

once again chose cap it lation and instead of saying yes, yes, or no, no, they went with yes and no. and that just leaves us with nothing getting done except the taxpayers continuing to fund something that most of us probably think is not a good idea. host: what exactly do you mean by cap it lation and what kind of signal do you think this sends to our nato allies? caller: well, by capitulating i mean they didn't make a decision except to kick the can down the road which is what they seem to be best at. and i think the message that it sends to the allies is that we don't really have inn so to speak that's in control or really thoughtful of america

listening to americans before we engage ourselves around the world. host: brentwood, california this morning go ahead. caller: the president's mission in libya just doesn't add up. it doesn't make any sense. he said what i think on march 18, he said that we would be there days, not weeks. he says that nato is fighting this war, not us. his own defense secretary gates called nato as, what, a shadow -- a joke. as a hollow alliance. he said that the war powers act doesn't apply to him because we're not engaged in hostilities. you know, i could go on. it just doesn't pass the straight face test.

zee what do you think about what the vote in the house sends out? what kind of message? >> it sends out that the congress doesn't want anything to do with this. this is president obama's other war. it's all his. and don't forget the, if you break it, you own it. and that means nation-building. he has committed this country to goodness knows how many decades, how many years. host: missouris on our line for democrats out of bridgeport, connecticut. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think this is just a continuation of lack of respect for this particular president. you remember before the committed u.s.-nato forces in libya, everybody was calling for this president to do something. he is ditsdzering.

he couldn't take any action. everybody wants gaddafi to go, everybody wants no fly zone. republicans are calling for a no fly zone? libya. when this president finally did, he explained fully to the american people the u.s. role is to protect americans, proprotect libyan people. host: more from the newspapers. the "wall street journal," house votes against policy in libya.

back to the phones. california on our line for republicans. greg, you're on the "washington

journal." caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i enjoy it very much. my feeling here is we have come to a very, very strange place politically. i think that we're lacking leadership in both the president and in congress. i think that the two definitely need to come together. the president should come to congress, explain his view of the situation, and to share what information he can that we glean from sources on the ground in libya and through our diplomatic efforts to get congress informed enough to support or disagree with the president. but this position we find ourselves in now solves nothing. everybody appears to be going

in different directions and we should be unified. we should determine what the mission should be and we should proceed. host: in new haven, ohio, mike on our line for independents. you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. plain and simple. gaddafi was our friend. every time we turn around, our friends that turn on us, we turn around and invade the countries or bomb them or whatever. what i would like to know is how are we going to pay for this war? we have two wars running now. the meter is running. the economy is in the tank. congress had better get their submit together. host: let's mive on to watertown, south dakota. alan on our line for democrats. you're on the "washington journal." caller: i don't know about that other guy but gaddafi has never been our friend. you know? he's supported terrorism. and as far as republicans, i think they're two-faced because

remember when they first start out? get over there as soon as you can to stop these killings. and then as soon as he does get over there and get nato, which you and i don't believe is more of a joke than anything else, you know, trying to go after him, yet congress wants to tie our hands. you know, how do you go after somebody when you can't do it? host: what do you think the solution is moving forward from here? caller: i think we should just go in there, put our seals in or something like that, and just get gaddafi. take him out of that country and try him. no country in the world likes him anyway. host: in the atlanta journal constitution, the headline "house rejects right to war. lawmaker deny obama year long commitment,"

>> go ahead. caller: i've been listening to c-span for about an hour. it's kind of like trying to stop the cookies from baking after they're halfway through. this is not the first instance that our president has walked over the authority of the congress. and the rule of law. i've seen it over and over many times. where he's done what he wanted. he has not gone to anyone else for what they think. host: you said you've been listening for an hour so you heard some of the clips from the floor speeches. caller: yes. host: what do you think about what was being said by both house democrats and house republicans? caller: i think both sides are upset because of the lack of recognition they receive from the president. this isn't the first issue. i think everyone had something

to say that made sense. the part i really don't like is getting involved in libya in the first place since we're already in afghanistan and iraq, the second thing i don't like is that we are being had for paying 75% of the nato bill. that isn't right. and that should have been discussed before we ever got into it. host: that's barbara in montana. this is what representative dennis kucinich had to say in arguing against the action in libya. he says that we don't need another war. they didn't attack us. and they don't present a threat. >> we don't have enough wars going on? a war in iraq, a war in afghanistan? we need one more war? we have to wage war against

another nation? which did not attack us? we have to wage war against another nation which does not represent an actual or imminent threat to the united states? mr. speaker, i have to tell you, i have been all over this country and i haven't had a single person come up to me to tell me, you know, dennis, what america needs is another war. we're talking about the house split over the u.s. role in libya. our next call comes from florida on our line for independents. you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. and thanks, c-span. i just want to tell the american people based on what i'm hearing is that the g.o.p., the republicans are being a little hypocritical. people on the line calling you are talking about two wars that we're in, afghanistan and iraq, when we violated the united

nation's ruling that all countries are to be sovereign we don't just go into them. i think it was 1441. i heard the comments and i understand how everybody feels about the president's lack of making decisions. but it's not his fault. we tied his hands with the decisions that were recently made. and i want people to think about that when you -- i am so angry. when you have so many people that are complaining about our progress with helping other countries, you've got a president who is able to deliver and to help other countries. i know a lot of people don't like what's happening right now, but to point the finger at one person when we have the entire congress that is clearly not working together and one group in particular, the republicans, are being very, very hypocritical. and i just want to thank the president for at least trying and to keep it up.

host: and in the "new york times" this morning, "house rebuffs libya mission." back to the phones. jamaica, new york. line for democrats. go ahead. caller: yes. i'm a former marine corps officer, i'm an african american. as i listen to the g.o.p. talk about this good man in office i hear some of that mild but consistent racism that was

spude at me by certain individuals who just don't like black people. even before obama became president they said here is an opportunity for us to get power back by consistently defaming this man. he can't do anything right. and some of the words they use are just so vicious, so mean-spirited. it's not fair. they don't care that we're in libya. they found any issue to downtrod this man's name. and that's not to say that all of the marines that i served with were racist. most of them weren't. but there were always a few who just didn't like me because i had a little power and i was a black man. and i hear this again from the g.o.p. especially on the right. not all of them but far tomb are using his race as an opportunity to seize power. the vitriol, the rapid spewing of poll rised even two-faced

vitriol. host: on twitter, we've got a tweet. our line fore>1 what they think is good at the time and then walk back out. and this mess in congress right

now, it shouldn't matter who is president, how old he is, what color he is, he was handed a mess to begin with. now he has to figure out the best way to get things situated and settled. and congress is a joke. them folks don't want to work together to do anything. they want to fight about who is right, who is wrong, instead of getting their heads together and saying we've got a problem in our country and overseas. let's sit down together and figure it out. host: we're talking about the house split over u.s. role in libya. the headline in the financial times this morning, "reprieve fror obama over libya, funding cuts."

back to the phones and our discussion regarding the house's split vote over the u.s. role in libya. next up is dallas on our line for democrats. you're on the "washington journal." caller: yes. host: you need to turn down your phone there.

caller: they try to really [inaudible] president obama makes this issue just to see prove that they are in power, the g.o.p. is in power. obama. because he is the one who tried to make a deal with, and make the democrats issue between the republicans and the democrats. host: in jacksonville, florida, mary on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. as a u.s. veteran of foreign wars, i was stationed in berlin and i was standing outside that when gaddafi blew it up. now, these democrats that are anti-war and our government have never, ever erkssmelt

death or seen their cam rads with missing limbs and arms. this is an issue about getting someone who has killed americans. bottom line, and i don't think the president should ask anybody for permission to accomplish that goal. thank you for letting me air my views this morning. . host: next up is texas on our line for independents. go ahead. you need to turn down the sound. caller: my name is shawn. i'm a former air force member. my personal opinions about all the wars that's happened over the years is i feel it's been a waste of our government's time, a waste of our economy's time, i feel that if the government could spend as much time as they do with the wars with the american people and helping our economy, that our economy would

produce more than it has ever had before. i also feel that the government has the times when they're really ignorant. we have homeless people that have no roofs over their head that are barely getting by every day, no medical. it's a waste of time. you have china that is completely over us when it comes to ecknomically. host: and we're going to leave it there. more from the floor of the house of representatives. representative kinginger republican from illinois law maker makes the argument for the action in libya. >> the world is watching our actions today. the world is asking what are we going to do. we talk all the time about allowing europe to take the lead in certain areas, allowing nato to take the lead in

foreign policy and they have done that. now will we today pull the rug out from under them simply because we have a dispute between the legislative and the executive branch? i think the president should have come to this chamber, too, but he didn't. but the wrong thing to do is to pull funding and the right thing to do is to give him the authorization to go into libya. host: we're going to continue our discussion regarding the house split vote over u.s. role in libya. but as we do that we're going to take a look at some other o items in the news this morning. on the front page of the new york daily news. history. ground-breaking 23-39 vote. jubelant governor calls it one of new york's finest moments. also this morning in the denver saturday post, new york legalizes gay marriage. governor quomeow signs the law after a close vote makes the state the sixth one where same-sex couples can wed.

also, the lead story in the "new york times," senate vote injects momentum in gay rights movement. the big headline, new york allows same sex marriage becoming largest state to pass the law. they write, law makers voted late friday to legalize same-sex marriage making new york the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to we and giving the national gay rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born.

back to the phones and our discussion regarding the house split vote over u.s. role in libya. next up is ohio on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, everybody. what i wanted to say was al qaeda's primary recruiting tool is to tell other muslims that this is a religious war, it's a war against islam, well if we're in libya, sh defending islam, islam's right to have a failed government, then that completely debunks that recruiting tool. so i think it's probably the wisest conflict we've had in a long time. it certainly shines in comparison to iraq. and so far as president obama

wait forg the republican congress, they wouldn't give him a cold drink of water. millions of people would have died waiting on this silly congress. host: i want to get your response to this tweet that we got from joseph. what do you think about that? caller: absolutely not. host: why not? caller: because the prior administration did not respect life and limb. that's why. and they were reckless. any time they did war they were reckless and destructive. president obama is just using, he is not putting soldiers on the ground. every time one of our soldiers die, i feel it. host: our next call from carl,

republican in west virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would just like to say to the earlier caller, the guy that claimed he was a marine corps captain. well, i was a sergeant in the marine corps during the vietnam era and i would just like to say, sir, you are the one who has a problem with race. evidently you are a bigot. you know, using this race card is getting a little old. i sat around and listened to some of your people talk about george bush. they didn't do it because he was white. they did it because they disagreed with his policies. and i wish we would get off this race kick. host: what about the house vote yesterday? caller: well, i'm kind of have mixed feelings on that. i think it's a good thing to get rid of gaddafi but man, our

debt is growing every day and i just wonder if we can afford many more wars. that's all. host: next up, rich in massachusetts. you're on the "washington journal." caller: thank you for taking my call. the goal that we have over there is we want to take over the middle east and that's just plain as day. they're in afghanistan, they're in iraq, they're in libya now, they're bombing yemen now. it's all for oil. and they talk about we want to protect the libyan people, this government of ours. but they let innocent unborn babies be butchrd in the mothers' womb. so don't be so hypocritical. host: the "washington journal"

this morning has as its headline lead story, bome joins debt talks monday meetings aimed to break log jam. both sides remain far apart on taxes as deadline looms. president obama thrust himself into the center of the deficit reduction talks for the first time friday back to the phones. houston, texas on our line for republicans. you are on the "washington journal." caller: respond to the black guy that called and said that they are attacking obama because he's black.

i wonder if this man remembers how the democrats attacked bush. and when you attack president obama how do you know that they are not attacking his white side? he spent more time with his white side than he did his black side because his black grandmother didn't want that little light-skinned boy in with the black family. host: back to discussion with the house vote. what did you think about that? caller: well, i don't understand how it was -- that's what i didn't understand about that. host: we'll leave it there. in the wash post, more about president obama getting involved in the debt talks with the headline, obama steps in on high-level debt talks.

bloomfield, connecticut on our line for independents. you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the house vote yesterday? caller: basically, the house was totally irrelevant and basically a distraction from the real issue that we're talking about because i think our people in america and as a

citizen of the united states, who first went to libya in 1968 as a young pilot officer in the air force, i can recall the people used to live in caves. when i went back again to libya in 1984, the people all had houses, mazz raties, they had money, their dinners that no one was stealing it. and there was a sense of quality of life in libya that was not experienced in a way in africa. now, i want to find out for me, knowing the people in ben gazzie because i used to be stationed there and those people in benghazi who are half italians who were exceptionally cutting off women heads and throwing african women libians from the tribes into pits, i want to find out why are they taking our tax dollars and

funding this sort of terrorist mentality to african people? let's see will be the butcher of africa. he has killed more african people than king leo pold. i will not be voting for him next time. host: and we'll leave it there. the "washington post" has this headline.

host: th back to the phones. michigan, dennis on our line for republicans. you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning sir. you have a fine program here. a couple things. one is i believe this is a good first step what the house is doing yesterday both in terms of the way the american system is established is that congress is making these decisions once the president reports the facts. obviously this didn't happen and he couldn't take the time he was doing it until he came back from all his overseas trips. but even more fundamentally when the united states

government makes these interventions it puts all americans at risk by future retaliatory actions. we have seen this again and again. this is the blow-back effect. all those who are motivated to intervene in a situation overseas that doesn't already affect the security of their fellow americans have the right to do so on a private voluntary basis but no one has the right to put the whole nation at risk as president obama is doing now, president bush did previously. we see this future for disaster, they violate the property, money, the liberty, right of the american people and somebody got it wrong and then on top of that, a lot of innocent people die. i think the obama policy is a terrible policy on many levels. he is not the first one to have done this but he is with libya and so many areas taken us to an even worse level than previously. i want to congratulate in particular those congressmen

who have fought consistently against this sort of thing. host: and we'll leave it there. we want to let our viewers and listeners know about "newsmakers" coming up tomorrow morning. representative adam smith, democrat of washington, member of the house armed services committee, ranking member, he talks about whether the libya votes outcome may have been different if the president had gone to congress in march for authorization. >> if the white house had come to congress back in march and asked for authorization in libya, do you think it would have supported it back then? >> it's hard to say. the republicans are very focused on a process argument now and actually agree with one part of that. i think the president and the white house in general could have been more inclusive of congress in the buildup to the decision to go to libyafment it happened fairly fast and i think the president and his team were reluctant. but then you had the arab league, the u.n. very quickly they were

launching and they needed our help. from that point i think the president has done a good job of explaining it and what the republicans in the house have could have done is say we feel our voice should be heard, let's authorize it. instead, they hang back for 100 days, criticizing the president saying we support gaddafi should go, we support the folks who are rising up against gaddafi are worthy of support. but we just don't like the president's process. well then autsdz an autsdzation. congress could have done that. >> you can see the complete interview with representative adam smith, the ranking member of the house armed services committee tomorrow morning at 10:00 and 6:00 on c-span. he will also be talking about not only the vote yesterday but also the discusses the past week's decision by the obama

administration to draw down troops from afghanistan, the house vote and the defense spending bill, which will be the first order of business after the july 4 break. that's on "newsmakers" tomorrow morning at 10:00 and again at 6:00 on c-span. back to the phones in our discussion regarding the house vote yesterday on the u.s. role in libya. dallas, texas on our line for democrats. you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: good morning. i was just calling because i'm enjoying the program this morning. however, thank you for keeping everybody on topic. and i just want to say it feels like i'm watching fox news this morning which i never watch. but that's what it feels like. all the republicans calling in backing the president as usual. but don't forget it was eight years of terrible bush policies that we'll have to deal with so it's going to take more than two and a half years to deal with this mess. and i feel it will make it a whole lot easier if we are

taking care of our economy and not other issues that the republican party are only interested in taking back the couptrin an the white house. host: in the "new york times," g.o.p. hopefuls press romney on abortion rights. out of jacksonville, florida.

back to the phones. hillsdale, illinois on our line for republicans. jerry, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. this is my second time calling in about two months but i'm going to make this short and quick. everybody seems to be jumping on the republicans about this. but if you notice it is deb niss kucinich was the first one who brought this to the floor. and all he's saying is tell the president you have to get authorization to do anything militarily. not nato. so everybody quit yelling about republicans. it's a democrat who got on the floor with this and started this ball rolling. host: hold on a second. i want to read to you a tweet from heinz jimmy. what are your thoughts about

that? caller: he's got that good point, too. they look like holler one way but if one of them does something they put it off on somebody else. host: virginia governor bob mcdonnell has an op ed, the vice chairman of the republican governors association. the headline for his op ed says, next up, prosperity,

south carolina. independents. you're on the "washington journal." caller: thank you very much. i appreciate you answering my call. i have a question first. cut me what the international republicans are? i know what if log cabin republicans are. but what are the international republicans? and then i'll give my comment. caller: well, you tell me. caller: well, i heard you read it from the newspaper that the international republicans voted with the democrats on funding but they voted against authorization. host: internationalist republicans. caller: yes. host: well, i don't want to speak for the group but i believe it's republicans that that feel that we should be engaged in this war in libya. caller: the point i wanted to get to and maybe it's moot now is that they voted against authorization but they voted

for funding. and i'm thinking that maybe they have deevepbts defense contract nrs their state and they're just looking out for the real thing which is it's the economy, stupid. thank you very much for your time and letting me comment today. host: in the "new york times" this morning.

raleigh, north carolina on our line for democrats. you're on the "washington journal." caller: this congress is never going to support this president. they want him to be a one-time president so no matter what he does they're not going to support him. at first they wanted him to engage in the war in libya and now they don't want to support him when he made the decision to try to engage in the war in libya. so their purpose is to make him a one-time president. so no matter what he does it's never going to be good enough for them. we know what the underlying issue really is but that's something that the people do not want to talk about. he is doing the best he can. he just does not have the support he needs. host: our last call regarding the house split bill yesterday over the u.s. role in libya from cleveland, ohio. go ahead. caller: i trust that president

obama will make the fair and equitable decision regarding libya. that's why president gaddafi first asked for our help because he didn't want to follow the president of egypt. and president obama responded fairly and with help. and when he assessed the situation, he responded fairly and eektably again. i think he is a very just president and we can trust his decision-making. he has good priorities and he seems to have his priorities straight. host: thanks for the call. and thanks for all the callers who participated in our last segment. in about 45 minutes we're going to be talking about the warning labels on cigarette packs. you may have seen some of those. that's coming up later on in the program. but coming up after the break a

discussion on the u.s. markets and global debts. today is saturday, june 25. we'll be right back.

>> we're trying to reach people in how the world works from a high school student who is cures to a person who is just trying to make a living and is worried about what's going on in the world and in the country. >> sunday night. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span tv, getiesberg college professor discusses prostitution and the civil war. then ed ward cox talks about his father in-law and then the mar key and his impact. get the complete weekend schedule on c-span.org/history.

or have it e-mailed to you. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york, the u.s. equity capital markets reporter for the financial times. and he is here to talk to us about the impact of the greece and european debt crisis on u.s. financial markets and the economy as well as the state of u.s. markets overall. welcome to the "washington journal." guest: thanks for having me. host: what is the overall impact of the european debt problem on u.s. markets? guest: well, it's been sort of big picture risk that is have been weighing on u.s. investors' minds recently. obviously the primary concern is the u.s. economy, what's going to happen to it in the second half, what is fed policy going to be going forward. but europe represents what they call a tail risk. that is, that if greece were to default, if the crisis were to spread, that could clamp down

on the availability of capital for banks which then spills directly over to companies and consumers as well. so there's definitely a sort of a present but sort of at the margins concern about what would happen to the u.s. economy if the european situation weren't stabilized. host: this is the headline from last week's "wall street journal."

tell whause you know about what was discussed in this phone call and what's the finance ministers are trying to do and how that may help the u.s. economy from going under. guest: well, what happens next month is that greece faces some deadlines for making payments on debts that it had issued previously. greece doesn't have the money to pay those. europe is trying to what they call the troika, the euro zone, the imf and the eu are trying to provide short-term funding as the article mentioned to greece, enough to get them through the next kind of rollover of debt. but europe is, as you might imagine, not entirely thrilled about having to bail out greece, a country that many people feel like didn't manage its finances very well, got themselves into this situation on their own. so what a lot of people in europe would like to do is see

some privaten vestors, many owned by banks, most of them european banks, but some also owned by private investors. they would like to see those people who they think willingly took on the risk contribute somewhat toward the ball out. other people are worried about what signal that might send to the markets and basically that europe isn't quite willing to go all the way to save greece. people think that could have a destabilizing impact. the ministers are trying to on the one hand figure out, ok, to what extent do we sort of give greece a lifeline? and then on the other hand they're looking at what's happening within greece right now. the greek parliament faces a couple of votes on a budget package. a five-year budget that will include huge cuts to states, to state services, raise the retirement age, thing that is

will initially help greece get on the road to help them pay its own debts, without having to default. but the greek politics are tumulttuss. i'm sure people have seen images of greek's rioting protesting some of these cuts. they feel they were sold something not being delivered. so leaders are negotiating with the greek leaders. there's a powerful opposition party in greece that doesn't want necessarily take more of europe's money. so these things are a caledrn of uncertainty and there's intense negotiations going on over the weekend much like we saw in the u.s. when the financial crisis hit its peak and bankers and ministers were wocking well into the night and the weekend to try to get things settled. host: in your paper on friday,

the financial times had this headline, greece agrees to more austerity cuts. grease has agreed to additional spending cuts after lenders found that the $28 billion -- euro austerity package agreed last month was no longer sufficient. tell us a little bit more about that. guest: what the eu and the other groups are trying to arrange a bailout package are very concerned that greece have a realistic package of cuts that has a lot of buy-in from different constituencies in greece. they don't want something that narrowly passes that at any moment could be overturned by new government. so what they wanted to do is make sure that greece had formal pledges to cut certain programs and packages. the they want to ensure that there would be some way for

europe, the rest of europe to monitor these programs and say we need to make sure that you're meeting these goals and stuff like that. they wanted greece to set aggressive short-term goals and in addition to make other reforms to the economy that might allow grease to grow a little faster in the future so that it didn't simply continue to pile up debt and not be able to produce any revenue. so it's been an intense couple of weeks for the greek government and for the european authorities that have been monitoring it closely. host: we have one item from bloomberg talking about ben bernanke.

guest: what bernanke is talking about is specifically to what extent do u.s. banks hold debt in -- hold greek-sovereign debts or other troubled european countries, the so called portugal italy greeg and spain. large corporate loans that might not perform if those countries were to default. he certainly is correct that u.s. banks don't hold a

tremendous amount of those debts. that most of them are held by the national banks in those countries as well as other large european financial institutions. so if greece were to worst case scenario default, u.s. banks wouldn't see an enormous hit to stay solvent. however, like you said u.s. markets are another matter. what we actually saw last week was something that was quite squarey, some investors began to pull their money out of money market funds. you might remember from 2008 were a huge source of concern because people began to pull their money out that they began to lose money which is something that money market funds were never supposed to do. these are the funds you might get in your savings account. they pay small but they're supposed to be completely safe. so because a lot of these money

market funds do hold european bank debts, not necessarily greek bank debts but debts in large european banks in france and germany which do have quite a bit of exposure to greece, investors began over the last couple of weeks to pull money out of those funds. now, it isn't quite at crisis levels. we're no where near we were in 2008 as lehman brothers and a.i.g. and fannie and freddie were struggling. but we are beginning to see echos of that near the horizon. that's what u.s. markets are focused on. what would be the impact if investors were to pull back dramatically and go to holdings like cash, short-term treasuries. the yields actually went to one basis point in financial terms that means it pays 0.01%. that not a lot. those bonds are very strong demand. so we are seeing some of that

defensive crouch by u.s. traders that might be gin to spill over. host: we're talking tw telis. he is the u.s. equity capital markets reporter here to talk with us about u.s. markets and global debt. we're going to take a look and listen to a little more of what chairman bernanke had to say on the impact of greece's financial crisis and what impact it could have on european banks and the u.s. then we'll start taking your calls. >> so to the extent there is indirect impact on the core european banks that does pose some concern. and there's a reason why the federal reserve and other regulators are continuing to look at ways to strengthen money market mutual funds. in terms of the impact of a

problem in greece on the united states, as i've indicated, direct exposures are pretty small and we're doing all we can to monitor those exposures. however, as we saw in a small situation, a small case last spring, a disorderly default in one of those countries would no doubt royal financial markets globally would have a big impact on credit spreads, on stock prices and so on. so in that respect i think the effects would be quite significant. . .

guest: guest: directly, the fortune 500 companies do not have a tremendous exposures to greece. their business is not tremendously affected by what happens in greece or even spain or ireland or portugal for that matter. italy is it that the more substantial. i think what you want to be concerned about is whether or not the crisis begins to spill over to other parts of the market.

for example, one effect it might have is to drive down the value of the euro. that would drive up the value of the dollar. the value of the dollar is directly tied to how fortune 500 companies do. one thing we have learned is the extent to which large companies earn overseas. as the value of the dollar rises, that makes exports more expensive to other countries. so, in that regard, you definitely want to watch very carefully the value of the dollar. that will have a big impact on how large u.s. companies trade. as far as the bond market goes, this has been good for the bond market in that more people are leaving equities or leaving riskier assets to move into bonds. you also have a demographic trend, more people retiring in

the u.s., the baby boomer generation looking at their retirement more and more, so you have big secular trends into bonds. in some respects, the greek crisis could be good for a bond portfolio. however, it depends on what kind of bonds you own. there are riskier bonds that we are beginning to see underperform a little bit after doing well for the last couple of years. treasury bonds that investors piled into over the world -- all over the world have been very well. they are not paying a lot in yields so you might not be getting quite the income stream that you would have expected. host: next up is jeff from albuquerque, new mexico. caller: i think when ben bernanke was trimming money to

buy treasurys, why couldn't he use the same money and send it back to the people? guest: i think that in some respects that money does get to the people in the sense that when the fed -- they have not quite printed money, but they have done things to expand the money supply. that has had the effect of driving up the price of stocks because people leave things that pay yields like bonds and go into the stock market which creates a lot more cash in the economy that filters through investment portfolios. in that sense, it makes people more wealthier and cheaper for companies to borrow as well. in theory, if you are a company that can borrow money and expand, it does get into your

hands. it is not directly go to people. but, in that respect at least, that is the intention of the fed. it has other more distant effects, decreasing the value of the dollar in some ways which can make you feel less wealthy in some ways. it buys u.s. overseas. -- you les overseas. there is not in direct relationship. in some respects, it does filter through to the rest of the economy. host: next up is charlotte, n.c., on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am calling about the debt ceiling in washington. with the republicans and

representative eric cantor walking out with joe biden -- they are complaining that we will have to raise revenues to get this working. we will not be able to get social security in the long run. medicaid for people who get medicaid, not be able to receive in long run. all of this going on, i cannot understand why the republicans will not come to the table and just say yes to revenue because they know we have to do it. i know they signed a pledge with [unintelligible] they are going to have to get over that. e host: ellen, thanks for the call.

telis demos, is there more pressure put on our christmas here in the united states -- on our crisis here in the united states because of what is happening in europe? guest: i would not say that is directly true. obviously, in so far as the greek crisis may cause investors to pull out of markets to default, it might leave the fed to bring in anothe rprogram of what they call quantitative easing which is what the caller referred to. that drives up the indebtedness of the u.s. and in that respect, it might. given the level of deaths in the u.s., even another $600 billion -- of debts in the u.s., even

another $600 billion program would not make a difference. politically, it does. people look at a country like greece and they say could that be the united states in some number of years? we are facing a situation where we cannot pay our debt and we do not have options to raise money, we are not seeing enough economic growth going forward, and then think we are quite a ways away from that position. i think it drives a lot of people and the congress to say, look, this is something we need to get a handle on where this will be us in a few years. host: in the wall street journal this morning, italian banks cit e the debt crisis, not vice versa --

it seems like the italians are doing okay, but they might be affected on some level by what is happening in greece. crest coat that is right. -- guest: that is right. what is interesting is the banks in these countries are actually quite conservative. greek banks were very well run and they did not make loans that would not be repaid and they did not dabble in exotic securities. they made loans to companies and the were mostly repaid on them. italian banks function similarly. some of the french banks as well. that is a product of the way

europe regulates it banks. it does not allow banks to do certain kinds of lending to do some of the more exotic things that got u.s. banks into trouble a couple of years ago. it simply reflects the slightly different makeup of the banking sector there. at the same time, many countries in europe grow at a much slower rate than they do in the u.s. if you are a bank lending money to companies or individuals who are buying things, you are not going to be doing that as much going forward as you would in the u.s. which grows and generally at a faster rate. those banks -- the price that they pay for not dabbling in more esoteric activities is that they are tied very closely to their economy are growing slowly.

some businesses got them into trouble, but some of them have allowed them to make money at a faster rate. host: explain to us the difference between what is going on in italy and what is happening in great britain. in the new york times -- guest: banks in britain all look a lot more like banks and the u.s. they carried less capital, were

less conservative, and so during the plan increases, british banks got into trouble and the british government spent a large amount of money bailing them out. then, of course, the u.k. presence of the economy being that much closer to european economies are much more exposed to consumers in those countries that have their banking with u.k. banks. and state land too many more companies in this region. -- they all land to many more-- morey lend to many companies in this region. in some respects, it is like the u.s. banking system by that much closely tied to europe so the risks are a little bit more substantial. as i said before, and the u.k. government is still a major

participant in some of its biggest banks. in that respect, people are much more cautious -- one to watch much more closely what the banks are doing. host: back to the phones. our discussion with telis demos regarding u.s. markets and global debt. in butler, indiana, we are talking to walter. go ahead. caller: good morning. when mr. ben bernanke turned around and says the exposure of america to european debt will not be too dramatic, i find that hard to believe because the federal reserve will not open up its books and show who is lending money to. second of all, it is a proof that keynesian economics does not work. america used to be able to bounce back from recessions because we had a great infrastructure and we made furniture, cars, computers, etcetera, etcetera those days are over.

what you see increase is a linchpin for all of these companies that have cradle to grave and type of programs and spend more than they earn. all you have to do is look at wisconsin. they were storming the capital and everything else. every time they do q.e.1, q.e.2, q.e.3, all it does is devalue the dollar which makes the stock market seems like there is more productivity but all it is doing is injecting of the white elephant for one last big hurrah. guest: yeah, he certainly made some interesting points. with respect to the value of the dollar, one thing he said is at the u.s. does not manufacture things anymore. obviously that component of our economy has shrunk from years

past. also, in one respect, while the value of the dollar artificially drives of the price of stocks, but it makes it cheaper for u.s. companies to export goods to other countries. we have seen it manufacturing be one of the bulwarks of the u.s. economy in the last couple of years. that sector has recovered much more quickly. in some ways, it is temporary. not necessarily because they see opportunities going forward, but there does seem to be a pulse in u.s. manufacturing. i would not quite give up on that sector of the economy yet. again, our current the school policy actually makes it easier on those companies. concerns, walter's about is the u.s. beginning to

look like? as i said before, people can draw those comparisons to greece. you know, what one can debate about what the obligations of the government to the people are, whether they should take care of them more or less, but certainly in the u.s., we are committed to a smaller government, and you know, insofar as -- sorry, i lost my train of thought a little bit. and what it looks like -- we are kind of on the path to getting to debate whether or not those obligations should shrink to some extent. we are not quite at the place where greece is.

there are some critical differences still, but obviously, walter brings up some good points. host: telis demos of the " financial times." this street from john in north carolina -- tweet from john in north carolina. guest: that is right. there certainly is a concern that a greek-type situation could happen in the u.s. the u.s. economy grows faster than the greek economy does. republicans were worried that if we raise revenues, that is if we raise taxes, we would begin to impact the economic growth rate which would make it harder for us to repay our debts in the future. certainly, we would not want to do something that would

necessarily want to hurt the growth of the u.s. as the caller before said, when it comes to spending money, i think that there is a sense that we want to spend money affectively. if we want to raise more debt, we should buy things like infrastructure that might be able to accelerate u.s. economic growth going forward. it is a balancing act. do we want to shrink the government so much that we begin to hurt growth? of course, we do not want to be entirely in dead it. -- indebted. i think he is referring to the idea that the government borrows money and basically put people to work. that has worked in some respects in the u.s. we have seen with quantitative easing. we have seen economic activity picked up, but the effects have

been temporary. it is unclear when the fed argues that it has not been temporary. outside factors affected supply chains of the earthquake in japan. the situation in libya with a have turned off the spigot and a large amount of oil has not made it to the market. the fed would say we are growing pretty well, that we just need to be patient. it is hard to tell yet exactly where we are on that spectrum. host: our next call comes from new haven, connecticut, robert is on our line for democrats. thank you for waiting. caller: i have one question, sir. we talk about global debt. i am just curious. how many countries have hit in debt?

like the united states, over $2 trillion indebtedness in social security that they have taken money from. to me, that is a hidden debt. how many trillions of dollars of hidden debt is there in the world? the guest: to be honest, i am not entirely true. i think most countries do count of those debts when they talk about debt to gdp. the caller is talking about future obligations and what obligations governments might have all agreed to that have not been counted yet. i am not sure. i do not know if somebody has tracked those. in greece, it is no secret that the fact that people retire early, earlier than they do in

other countries, in some respects has contributed to the crisis. while i am not sure exactly how those effects are quantified, i do not think there is any secret about the fact that governments around the world have perhaps agreed to cover certain costs that they will have to reckon with in the future. host: this morning in "the wall street journal," -- host: why would they are right that the appointment is going to stabilize the markets in europe?

guest: right now, the european central bank has actually begun to raise interest rates a little bit. and they have begun to turn off some of the stimulus that have been pumping into the european economy out of concern that inflation is a bigger problem than here in the u.s. that happen to come at a critical moment when the current president of the ecb, jean-claude trichet, his term was ending. it threw out a lot of uncertainty about what european policy would be going forward. they were considering a couple of different candidates who fell in different places, either hawkish of dovish part of the spectrum. hawkish seem to be more aggressive in raising interest rates and cutting off stimulus. dovish central bankers are seen as those who are concerned more about economic growth and jobs

and how they can continue to stimulate that. he seems to fall a little bit more on the dovish side of things more so than the other candidates have been. in that respect, he might be more willing to allow european policy to stay relatively accommodative, that is to allow more money to circulate throughout the economy more so than some of the other candidates might have been. of course, we do not know what he will do until he gets there. at least now, people trying to invest in the market might have more clarity about the type of individual who will be setting policies. host: tulsa, okla., you are on the "washington journal." caller: i am nervous about seeing hyperinflation. i am wondering what you guys

think about ron paul getting rid of the fed since we cannot actually afford these loans anymore. i am just curious on your thoughts about what you think about these things. guest: obviously, hyperinflation is something that is a clear that more investors are thinking about and you can tell by watching the price of gold. it is at an all-time record high in nominal dollars. it is over $1,500 an ounce at the moment. that is seen by a lot of people as indicative as the money supply here in the u.s. what is interesting is although the u.s. fed has been very accommodative, has pumped a lot of money into the economy, we have not seen that money circulating. much so far because banks have been much more conservative and have been sitting on their capital and not putting it to work in the u.s. economy.

we have seen companies sit on big piles of cash rather than to invest it. some might ask are we simply waiting for the other shoe to drop. might we see hyper inflation in the future? obviously, that is a concern. representative ron paul has been elton front of this issue talking about how the federal reserve, by tinkering with the money supply in the u.s., has created inflation. i am not an economist. i am not going to get into whether or not that is necessarily the right way going forward. certainly, it is a large part of the way investors are thinking about the market right now. you can tell that by looking at the price of gold. you concede what that is done -- you can see what that has done to the price of the dollar.

it is a question that should be on people's minds. most recently german chancellor angela merkel visited the united states. talk about the discussion between president obama and chancellor angela merkel about the european crisis and how it might affect the u.s. and what the germans can do, if anything, to keep the crisis from becoming a hyper crisis. guest: germany is europe's strongest economy in many respects. germany, in many ways, is a leading these european efforts. the concerns of the german parliament have been weighing heavily on the minds of people watching your a closely. germany -- angela merkel has

been rather outspoken about the fact that she thinks europe needs to support greece and they need to show that this effort to unify european economies through fiscal policy can be successful going forward. of course, there are many critics within germany who say we have managed our finances well, so why do we need to pay for greece? so, german politics have been pushed to the center stage as some of the opposition parties in germany are challenging chancellor angela merkel's position. germany, in the same way now that greek politics are in focus, german politics are as well. host: our last call for telis demos. thank you for waiting. caller: thank you for taking my

call. what is mortgage insurance for? guest: mortgage insurance -- it depends. for an investor, mortgage insurance might be a contract that they take up with another financial party in case the value of the mortgage that they owned decreases. i think for a borrower, mortgage insurance typically is -- if you have a variable rate mortgage, if interest rates go up, the cost of your mortgage might increase. you might buy some insurance against that possibility. you can also insure against the possibility that your bank recalls your mortgage early. i think it could have a few meetings. i apologize. i am not exactly sure what the caller might be referring to. host: we are going to leave it there.

telis demos, thank you very much for being on the program. in just a few minutes, we are going to be talking about the new cigarette warning labels. but first, all weekend long, we are featuring the history and literary life of savannah, ga., on the c-span2 and c-span3. here is the president of visit savannah. >> the tourism industry plays a vital role in the overall economic prosperity for our city. overall, the hospitality and tourism industry employs a little over 20,000 people and generates $1.6 billion in the visitor spending each year. that comes from about 6.5 million overnight visitors and another 5 million daytrippers.

>> where do you see the future of tourism for the city of savannah? >> on one hand, what people want is what you see behind me. it is the beautiful live oaks and green parks. that is what will always be what draws people. as we look forward, we are exploring the notion of adding cruise ships to the riverfront, maybe a big convention hotel next to a convention center, a new sports arena, things like that could be on the horizon. forever, i think will be nothing more than what you see behind me. our friends in las vegas, orlando, and san francisco draw tens of billions of visitors a year, maybe hundreds. for a city of our size, our overall population in savanna property is not even quite

150,000 yet we still attract over 11 million visitors a year. we're proud of that. we take good care of our visitors. we make sure everyone gets a smile and hello. that is a big reason why they come back. host: book tv and american history tv will be featuring a sit-in on all week long as our local content of vehicles visit eight southern cities to feature the history and literary life of these communities. for more information, visit us at c-span.org/localcontent. >> the house recently voted on two measures related to military involvement in libya. look for continued debate in the house and senate at the "congressional comical."

find daily schedules, com mittee hearings, and information on elected officials. c-span has launched a new website for politics and the 2012 presidential race with the latest events from the campaign trail, biographical information, twitter feeds, and links to media partners in the early caucus states. >> "washington journal" continues. host: for the next half hour, we're going to be talking about cigarette warning labels. the new, graphic warning labels will be on cigarette packs. this is some of the report in done since the announcement was made last week. this is out of wednesday's "washington post." cigarette packaging will feature graphic warning labels.

these are some examples of those labels. the right that each brand must rotate images randomly throughout the year. each morning will include a 1800 quit now number for smokers to call to kick the habit. the images are designed to discussed and unnerve all ages. the fda predicts it will reduce the number of smokers. those are some of the images that will be on the cigarette packaging. here to talk more about that by telephone is tom glenn of the american cancer society. what are your thoughts about

these graphics? what do you think the effect will be? will they have any real effect on folks addictive to smoking cigarettes? guest: i think they will. they are part of a comprehensive program to control tobacco use in the u.s. and abroad. they are an important part of the entire package. it has been 25 years since we have had a change in the tobacco labels. these are a significant step forward. before, the packages have a little bit of a label on the side. they were small and wordy. now we will see graphic images , front andhe poack back. we will not be able to ignore the images of what tobacco does

to you anymore. host: does it bother you that some of the images are faked? this is from the wednesday edition of "the washington times." he writes that some photographs art illustrations. the dead man is an actor. the man with the hole is photoshop the baby is a creepy drawing. does it bother you some of the images are fake? guest: not at all. the effects are real. there could have been a reverse

feeling if real cadavers had been shown. the fda went through a thorough research process to find out what people were most willing to accept. this was the result of research. the pictures to pack -- depict the results of tobacco use. host: we're talking about cigarette warning labels starting in 2012. the graphics were put out by the fda. beginning in september of 2012, some of these will be on packs of cigarettes. if you want to get involved in the conversation with tom glynn of the american cancer society, give us a call. we have numbers for smokers and non-smokers. if you have called us in the last 30 days, send us an email

or follow us on twitter. when we start talking, make sure you turn down the audio on your television or radio. have shock advertising campaigns been proven to work in the past? guest: yes, the u.s. is the 40's country to have these warnings on their packages. the graphics have ranged from more mild to considerably more graphic than what we have. in brazil, there are very graphic pictures of a chronic feet. to the product -- necrotic feet. the warnings have enabled smokers to be more informed and motivated to consider quitting. another important thing is that

while the primary audience is the smoker, is not the only audience. we're also looking at children and youths who may become smokers as well as non-smokers so they can recall again that the effects of second-hand smoke are important as well. it is a multiple audience we're going after. the data from other countries has been pretty clear that the labels inform and motivate. host: our first call for tom glynn comes from rick in minneapolis on the line for non- smokers. go ahead. caller: i called him on the line for smokers. mr. glynn, i could not disagree with you more. i think it is a noble thing you are trying to do, but in pictures will do nothing to dissuade people from smoking.

i believe the sad reality is there are crisis -- vices in this world. whether you are a smoker, drinker, a druggie, eat too much, there are all kinds of things. end withit going to an the world health organization and all of these people who claim to legally care about people and their help? stop all the chemicals they put into the tobacco. host: how long have you been smoking? caller: 35 years. i have tried to stop four times with the patch and twice with chantix. they do not work. guest: those are good points you

are making. your experience in trying to stop multiple times is not unusual. the sad fact is that tobacco is a very dependence-producing product. it has been compared by the surgeon general to the same addictive properties and dependence-producing properties as heroin and cocaine. is a very difficult product to give up. i think you are correct in saying that for many people, the pictures will not have an effect. but humans are very good the ninth, avoiders, and self- deceivers. the fact is that one out of every two people who smoke from the -- for more than decade or 15 years will die from a tobacco-related disease. unfortunately, those are often

very gruesome diseases like cancer and heart disease. we hope the package labels will provide some incentive for some people. it is not going to work for everyone. it is not a panacea. i do hope that you will try some other possibilities. it will do you good. it is something that one should try to stop at any age. it is not just for 30-year-olds. host: the next call comes from dallas on the line for non- smokers. go ahead, william. caller: it does not bother me one way or the other. i did as a young marine -- dipped as a young marine.

i figure what i did was my business. i defended the country. i was in the end of vietnam. i am a disabled veteran now. it is not because of tobacco. it is because of my back. and carried a machine gun. theave always been of opinion that after you are of a certain age, what you do with your body is your business. host: is snuff the only way you consume tobacco products? caller: that is it. i have smoked cigars on occasions around the bigwigs, the colonels and generals. they thought dipping was a little -- that was in the military. i have smoked a cigar with some of them.

i never thought i had to start doing something because it was offensive to someone else. i had more important things to worry about at that time. host: we will leave it there. tom, are you concerned that the graphic images, especially the one with the man smoking through the hole in his throat or the cadaver was stitching, might move people from smoking to dipping snuff? guest: that is a good question. i want to say thank you for your service to wm. you are right. these images are focused on people who smoke tobacco.

there are certainly other forms, including smokeless tobacco. we have a voice said at the american cancer society that if everyone in the country looked at the labels tomorrow and said they were going to switch to smokeless tobacco, we would have less cancer, heart disease, and one disease. but there is very little evidence that people are able to switch from smoking cigarettes to using smokeless tobacco and staying with it. what often happens is they become tool users -- dual users. it speaks to the fact that tobacco is very dependence- producing. host: sasha sends this tweet to ask if countries using these campaigns have seen decreases in smokers. guest: the difficult thing is to

tease out the effects of the labels from other factors. the countries with strong labels are usually countries with strong tobacco-control programs in general. they have high prices for tobacco. they have smoke-free environments. they provide good treatment for tobacco-dependence. it is difficult to tease out the specific effects of the labels. we depend more on the research like the fda did asking smokers and non-smokers about the effects of seeing the graphic pictures. host: tom glynn from the american cancer society, is in waitrons director, thank you for joining us. i want to take a look at some of the articles that have come out since the announcement from the fda requiring graphic photos on cigarette packs. this was on the cover of "usa today" on wednesday.

the fda will require a graphic photos on cigarette packs. the right is the most sweeping effort since the warning became mandatory in 1965 that they will begin requiring tobacco marketers to cover the top half and 20% of tobacco advertisements with graphic anti-smoking images. also in the article, they talk about into-smoking laws that restrict or ban smoking in 35 70 districts.

they hope to cut the number of 2020 and reduce the number of deaths. we want to continue our discussion, this time from the other side. on the phone is audrey from smokers' rights. she is the founder of the citizens' lobby against smoker harassment. that is what clash stands for. what is it that clash is against? guest: this is part of the anti- smoker crusades march down the road to smoker-free society. they employ tactics meant to

demonize smokers, not smoking. this is another way to have people turn against smokers. one of the pictures is about second-hand smoke coming babies. that is a tactic to convince the public to put pressure on smokers. it goes beyond that. it adds to " you are killing people close " whether we do it around them or not. it is about the smoker, regardless of the behavior at the moment. host: the fda is trying to get people to quit smoking. is it wrong for them to be doing this? guest: there is no way today that anybody can say the public has not been beaten over the head with the information that smoking is risky. we do not deny it.

we think it is exaggerated, but it is risky. how much more do we need? as long as it is legal and they have been informed, they should be left alone to make the decision instead of being controlled through punitive taxation and smoking bans. these are not to protect anybody but to limit one more place where you can have a cigarette. it would be equally effective if hands. off smokers' how far do you go in the course of this paternalistic endeavor? host: before we get to calls for the smokers' rights lobby, there

has been a new regulations instituted in new york city that prohibits smoking outdoors. tell us about that. guest: as of may 23, there is no smoking on beaches, parks, and pedestrian plazas. mayor bloomberg has turned times square into one. host: in new york, you cannot smoke outdoors, in offices, bars, or restaurants. is it basically now just confined to your own personal vehicle and house? guest: essentially. they say you can still smoke on the sidewalks. that is nonsense. they're coming to the sidewalks next. they're coming for our cars and homes next. the anti-smoker crusade is

something they've been planning for 40 years. they went from the planes because people consider that a small space. then they went to restaurants and bars. then it is the outdoors and sidewalks. this is their march. as far as the outdoor band, that is not going to be effective. there is no enforcement. it is the park police that enforces it, all 100 of them in all five boroughs of new york city. most people will not know about the law, just like they did not know it was banned on playground for many years. host: are there signs up around the park say no smoking around the playground? guest: not that i recall. mayor daley did put up signs around the parks, but people do not notice them along with the

other signs about dogs and swimming. people do not see the signs. host: we have a map of state cigarette tax rates. this is as of august 3, 2010. the tax on a pack of cigarettes in new york was $4.35. in places like north dakota, it is only 44 cents. california is 87 cents. missouri is the lowest at 17 cents tax on a pack of cigarettes. do you see these taxes as being punitive or as a way of raising money for states and localities? guest: it begins from the punitive standpoint. this is the anti-smokers whispering in the years of legislators. legislators say they will stand behind it because they're trying to save people's lives.

meanwhile, they will make money at the same time. they need people to keep smoking. they have so much of the budget invested on the backs of smokers. the state child health insurance program on the federal level when they raised tobacco taxes, it was to fund children's health insurance. someone should ask the president why he does not smoke, does he not care about the children? host: the next call is from susan who is a smoker. caller: i would like to tell people what i have been going through. i do not know how people do not know what has been going on. when i tell you what i am going are bugs that come out of the cigarettes and

attack you. this is what i am going through now. i have an exterminator coming to my house. i took this bug to rutgers in new brunswick. they are the leading people and do not know what it is. they told me it was a cigarette beetle from out of a cigarette. i could not believe it. i have been watching every cigarette i open. the larva is at the tip of the cigarette. it is yellow. host: we will leave it there. your thoughts? guest: cannot respond to that. i have never heard of anything like that before. host: tell us more about how you got the organization to come to pass?

guest: we were established in 2000 following the governor's announcement he was raising the tax on cigarettes. that was at the end of 1999. he stood there and said it was to encourage people to quit smoking. a light bulb went off in my head about using the power of taxation to manipulate my behavior as an adult. i did not need him to do this for me. clash was born. about three months later, the new york city council was holding hearings to "review" there 1995 smoking ban. i learned "review" live "what more can we do?" host: let's move on to larry from bowling green, ohio. caller: i think banning the

chemicals they put in the cigarettes will do more than this to solve the problem. that is where most of the cancers are coming from. host: audrey? guest: they said there are 4000 chemicals in cigarettes, but they cannot define which ones are causing the problems. there is a debate among researchers that you cannot possibly know which is which. there are so many you cannot even measure it. how do we even know this is what is causing cancer if they cannot figure out which ones to remove? i do agree that smoking is risky. i think a lot has to do with genetics and the synergistic effects. some people will debate the

cannot even show how smoking causes a tumor. from let's take the call john from pennsylvania. caller: i am 63. i have been smoking for 50 years. i have two points to make. number one, just like the lady said, they try to divide the classes. they want people to feel good because they do not smoke. umber two, if they are so bad, just ban them. they will not ban them because they're robbing you every time you go to the store. host: would you go to a legal means to get them? caller: i am not sure if i would or not. a guarantee you he would make it so uncomfortable that you

definitely think about not smoking. host: do you see is moving towards prohibitions on spoken? guest: we already have the fact of prohibitions on smoking. this is what they are aiming for. they're close to the end. i am not a defender of the tobacco companies. we have no connection whatsoever. i am not funded by them. but on principle, this is an absolute violation of their rights as a legal company to advertise their product like any other legal product. this hysteria over smoking, i have a list of about 10 things where it talks about obesity being as bad as smoking. stress is as bad as smoking. why this hysteria over smoking?

it has become a religious, cultish thing already. it has been going on for centuries. this is a trend. we're back in another cycle of it. in the early 1900's, tobacco was prohibited in a number of states. they pick out as one thing and we are supposed to bend over for this kind of abuse. this is abuse. people scream about outlawing bullying. this is just another form of bullying. the criminals are the in-smoker crusaders. host: let's take a call from frank in connecticut, a non- smoker. caller: i want to make a comment. i think the campaign with pictures will not work. i think it will have an adverse effect. the youth are looking for

attention. i do not smoke. i remember when i was a kid, i used to enjoy watching the world war man region marlborough -- marlboro or man and would pretend to have a cigarette in my mouth. i think they should just a plain packages so there is no incentive or anything for the young kids who are looking for challenges. guest: they're trying to do that in australia right now. that just goes against the principle but i was just talking about. you are telling a legal company that they cannot promote their brand. i think that is wrong and more dangerous to society than letting an adult to make an

informed choice on their own, leading up to them. as far as the kids go, when they started making graphic images in canada, they started treating them like baseball cards. they feel invincible at that age. inman not be effected on the children. if you read the canadian studies, actually read them, smoking is on the decline and was declining more book tour. -- more before this than down the road. the kids it said they could not remember what they even said after a while. host: renowned cnn sports caster has died at the age of 64. he started off as a taxi driver and became the first sports anchor and died after battling a

bladder cancer since 2009. he was 64 years old and began on cnn on their purse day, june 1st, 1980, and cover nearly every sporting event over the years. you can read more about that on cnn.com. our next call from northport, fla., on our line for smokers. you are on "washington journal." caller: another example of the nanny state and the fda. here is the hypocrisy. if tobacco was so bad, let them try to ban it. they said federal agents in and they arrest an amish farmer for selling milk. host: we will leave it there. coming up on the program tomorrow, talking about the withdrawal of troops from afghanistan. from "the christian science monitor" linda feldmann about

the gop race and david wasserman will be talking about redistricting. we will now be going live to the program that will be following "washington journal" which is the 4th circuit court of appeals. we go live to that now. we will see you tomorrow live on "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [applause] credit >> good morning. good morning. thank you. thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much.

thank you for getting up so early today. i am delighted to be here. one of the great privileges of being the chief justice is that you get to be the circuit justice for the fourth circuit, a tradition going back to john marshall. the role of the circuit justice has changed dramatically since chief justice marshall crime. they no longer have to write circuit, that arduous process which began during the told the century, came over to the colonies with the english legal system. even though here, writing circuit was much more arduous given the greater distances and the greater dangers of travel. the system and fell into disuse after the efforts of 1891 which set up the intermediate courts of appeal system we have today and the practice formally ended 100 years ago this year, with the judiciary act of 1911. since that time, we have worked

out what strikes me as a pretty good deal. we will stop -- we will leave you alone in you and by this to your conferences. before i join judge wilkinson, i want to make some comments. my colleagues and i heard 86 cases this year selected from more than 8000 petitions for review. as you know, the argument calendar runs from october to april. , we continued the practice of hearing more cases in the fall than we do in the spring and with the idea that it will give us the chance to start working on decisions rather than having them her distributed evenly throughout the year. the jury is still out on whether we will continue that practice going forward. as of today, the court has issued decisions in 82 of 86 cases that have been argued. we expect to release the last four on monday. when i say we expect to release

them, you can probably deduced that the expectations are pretty high since i am here. in this term, the fourth circuit did provide us with some interesting work. opec four cases from the fourth circuit, two affirmed than two reversed. that is not at all since we reverse more cases than we a farm. the fourth circuit did better than average in fact, i did it better than statistics suggested. i dissented in one of the cases reversing the fourth circuit. i think you should look at this as three were correctly decided and one was not. there are, though, two very gloating district court judges here who should be recognized for what you may call "the last laugh" award. these were judges who were reversed by the court circuit but then were vindicated by the supreme court.

in the last laugh in the janis capital and the stewart case. i dissented in the decision to reverse the fourth circuit. looking forward, by the time the dust settles on monday, we will have about the same number of cases going into october than we had last year. we saw the retirement of our good friend and colleague justice john paul stevens after 34 years of service on the supreme court and 45 years of government service in total. he served our court with distinction and dedication, and i can assure you he is greatly missed by all in the court. while we had to say goodbye to one colleague, we had the great delight of welcome. another. we are delighted with our newest member, justice elena kagan.

she was very familiar with the court's work and was able to hit the ground running offering seven majority opinions this year. i think anyone who follows the work of the court will agree that her opinions are clear and careful and your questions from the bench very incisive. i can tell you she is a very collegial colleague in our deliberations there is one area in particular were she has shown to be a great success. a newly arrived just as at the court is appointed by me to the supreme court cafeteria committee. next it is a way of bringing them back down to earth after the excitement of confirmation. shortly after she arrived, justice qaeda and succeeded in getting a new frozen yogurt -- justice kagan succeeded in getting a new frozen yogurt machines. no one can remember the prior

justices on the committee doing anything. [laughter] i hope this is the loss, will have to comment on the supreme court renovation -- i hope this is the last time i will have to comment on the renovation project. it is nearly complete and under budget. right now, we are removing the construction barriers around the property, putting in landscaping, and then the court will once again be able to reclaim its status as one of the most beautiful landmarks in washington. another sad point, as was mentioned, we have to say goodbye this year to the director of the administrative office, jim tough. he has served -- jim duff. he served as an aide to chief justice warren burger and now the counselor to my predecessor, chief justice rehnquist, and most recently as the director of the administrative office. jim has served with great

distinction and will the minister. i, in particular, will miss his wise counsel on a daily basis. the supreme court, like the rest of the judiciary, and is facing increasingly difficult to budget constraints. we come at the court, are finding ways to do more with less. under the recent budget agreement for 2011, which began in october 2010, the court will operate under the same appropriations level of the previous year. the judiciary will have a slight increase in funding to meet specific needs including the cost of defender services, security, and jury fees. i very much appreciate the judges and administrative support staff of the fourth circuit in running a very efficient court system in the face of an ever-increasing pocket. -- docket.

i will work closely with the administrative officer to ensure that the courts of adequate funding to carry out their vital business. and i am very grateful to the judges and administrative staff of the fourth circuit, my circuit, for the sacrifices they make for the good of the courts in to help sustain the real flaw in our country. i am also grateful to the members of the bar, those in public and private service, for rockbridge and for recognizing that they serving clients but also as officers of the court. now, i would like to turn to a grilling from judge wilkinson. thanks. [applause] thank you. >> cheese, welcome to the fourth circuit. -- chief, welcome.

i want to say you wrote a great dissented it had nothing to do with the fact that it was my case that was reversed. it is such a pleasure. this has been a difficult conference because virginia and south carolina have faced each other in the college world series. we will not inquire about the outcome of last night's game. it is such a pleasure to have you here, chief. i know i speak for the entire federal judiciary when i say how much we appreciate the dedication and the leadership and the sterling character, craftsmanship, warmth, and humor. >> i like this discussion already. [laughter] >> and judges of all persuasions really appreciate the leadership that you are giving the judicial branch.

it has been, i think, almost six years since he were confirmed in august 2005. i was just wondering if looking back, is there any one thing, one event, one opinion, one moment that more than any other stands out from the rest during those first six years? >> it is hard to pick just one. if i had to, i would say it is a moment, not on the bench. i do remember, and i always will committee first time i presided over the court. justice o'connor on my left and justice stevens on my right, both of whom have since retired, but i would say the

most memorable moment was my first time in the conference. the work of the court is, in some respects, very public. the arguments are in public and open to anyone. our decisions are there for everyone to see, but the deliberations of the justices are in private. even some who have been around the court to not have a good sense of what goes on. i certainly did not. i was going in to participate and was also expected to at least get the discussion -- discussion rolling. i did not know quite what to expect, but the level of discussion, the level of analysis that my colleagues were prepared for, and there were prepared to present their views in a coherent way. the interaction between the justices was at an extraordinarily high level and inappropriate degree of collegiality but reflecting the fact that these people who have

looked at so many different authorities it came up with different views and interested in explaining those in the conference room, on one side of the table we have the u.s. reports and on the other side the u.s. code. people will get up, pulled the books down, and they will check their points. i looked extraordinarily impressed by the process that went on there and appreciating the great challenge would be to participate at the appropriate level. >> it is interesting. conference as are talked about a cut and dried affair were you announce a formal reverse and there is not much discussion. i gather your sense is that there is a lot more interaction and is publicly known. >> at various. -- it varies. by the time you have read the briefs and the arguments, sometimes it is cut and dry.

sometimes there is conflict with the courts of appeals, that discussion and conflict in the lower courts to make it clear what we think the right result is so we will not spend hours pondering every case, but others present are difficult issues even when the outcome is clear. the ground of a decision can be the subject of a discussion. >> i have often wanted to ask you about the restrictions on the judicial life. there are so many things we cannot do, and that goes ee and a.a.a. for copper -- doubly and triply for the chief. we cannot do fundraising and we stay away. we have to be circumspect about the friends that we can hang around with, particularly when they have cases around the court.

we have to be model citizens, or at least try to beat in so many ways, and you and i are probably the only individuals on this planet who have a dark suit and tie on saturday morning. we could not even if we wanted to go out for a while light on the town. -- wild night on the town. those this monastic existence-- does this monastic existence began to bother you and where i knew a little bit? >> i was not known for wild nights on the town before. [laughter] what every think of the confirmation process, it tends to weed out to. as you probably know, it is not as bad as all of that.

i do not wear a dark suit and tie when i got my kids soccer games. i think a lot of us develop particular areas where we have to extracurricular activities are focused and some people do not even know that you are a judge and that is comfortable. no, it has not bothered me that much. you get a great opportunity, if you are going to have a wild night on the town, you can have it at the greenbrier. >> we all get a lot of criticism over our cases and it obviously comes with the territory when you are a chief justice and the importance of the case is that there will be a lot of criticism. in politics, it is so satisfying to be able to fire back if

someone said something that you did not like. you could always pontian them back. -- punch them back. hear someone can miss categorize something you haven't gone and say, "i did a first grader would have written a better opinion than you did come close "and i get those types of letters. i hope you do not get those types of letters. but when i was in a newspaper editing, i got paid to say what i thought, and when i was a judge of got paid to shut up. we are living a life of "no comment" in terms of the criticism that pours in. does it bother you never to be able to respond? >> first of all, a lot of the criticism comes from our

colleagues in a dissent or a response to a majority opinion, but the answer is no. once appreciate that the citizens have a full right to criticize what we do and always have so that is not a new phenomenon. want to appreciate -- once you appreciate you are limited to the four corners of opinion that reflect your view of the law and that you're not supposed to get into the partisan bickering. there is a real difference in terms of perspective. i think a lot of the criticism is focused on a particular moment. judges have a different perspective. why a man little more worried, concerned, focused -- i am a little more worried, concerned about what people with inthink f my work in 25 years.

if there is an immediate response, we have a different stand it. >> let's talk about law clerics, if we may. they are some of the most dedicated young men and women everywhere, yet i think it would surprise certainly the future leaders of our profession and a good many members of the public to know that your chief legal assistance are four 20- somethings. many people would assume they are people with many, many years of experience. some of them are straight out of law school or one or two years

in practice. they are always dismayed about how on experience to they are. in the early 1970's's, there was a constitutional challenge for a garnishment proceedings and we went in to discuss the proceeding and within a few minutes, justice powell discovered that none of his clerks knew anything about the mechanics of garnishment. he buried his face in his hands wondering who th people were around him. he was used to working with junior partners and associates. for all of their intelligence and understanding, does the greenness and lack of seasoning of law clerks trouble you at all? >> no, it does not. i think is a plus. i do want to say that it is a

wonderful institution to have four very, very bright law students coming off of the court of appeals clerkship or a district court clerkship come and spend one year with you. you learn a lot about what is going on in the law schools at that level and you get a new perspective that year. then they go out in public service, private practice, in the law department's a public- interest groups, corporations, and they give you a sounding board there as well. the keep you in touch. they also worked extremely hard. they really do, for which i am grateful and i am sure other judges are. i told my current clerks when they were starting out if they want to know when we are supposed to be here and all that, and i tell them what i was told when i started clerking for a judge. he brought us in and said, "i do

not expect you to work every minute of every day, all you have to do is just be here when i am here." they asked when he was going to be here and he said, "well, i will not tell you that." getting back to your question, i think it is positive that they are green, as you put it, and they do not have years of experience and do not know about garnishment because the idea is for you and for me to learn about garnishment to make a decision. it reminds me, again when i was clerking for justice rehnquist, he had the 10-day rule. whatever assignment you get your law clerks whether it is to grafton opinion, right memorandum, it had at 10 days to do it. i did not care if it was the second version, they had 10

days. i remember going to justice rehnquist and saying, i could do a much better job if you gave me another week. he said, "john, the idea is not for you to do a better job but for me to do a better job." i will stay in the process if you can give me what did you have in 10 days. i do not need a polished final version. that may make it harder for me to make sure that it is my work. they are extremely bright and i am delighted to have them with me and i am delighted to see them leave after one year. i do not want them to get too familiar with the court or the work that we do because it is supposed to be ours. >> i know the work hard. you had a family member in your chambers and then reported back that columbus day was a federal holiday so they were trying discreetly to find out whether

or not you'd be in. well, should become in on columbus day? i'm told your response was, you have the rest of your life to take of columbus day. just not valid. >> to be fair, it falls within the first two weeks of the term. memorial day falls right in a metal department we are ready to have decisions finalized, so they are happy it is only one year. >> at the end of a long term, everyone deserves a chance to recharge. i think my recollection is right about this, but the reporters were giving justice brandeis a really hard time about the two months in the summer that he took off and did not look at

anything. "how can you justify to the public the fact that you were taking these two months off in the summer?" he gave a classic response. "i can do 12 months work in tandem i just cannot do it in 12." i thought that was perfect. do you have some fun things were looking board were to doing during the summer and some hobbies and you just do not have -- looking forward it to during the summer and some hobbies? what will you be doing, in the tradition of justice brandeis, get completely away from the law? ." -- >> my favorite hobby is sleeping. i am getting ready to do that. people do not realize it is a

very unusual feature of being on the supreme court that you are with eight colleagues and you do the same things. on the court of appeals, you work on different cases. district courts, you have a different docket. members of the bar have different responsibilities within your firm more practice. the nine of us read the same briefs, look at the same argument, discussed the same cases, read the same precedents, understand justice brandeis's point. it is a little more intense. i love my colleagues greatly but it is nice to get away from each other for a little while. of course, i want to emphasize we do not take two months off. hist the process continues -- of course the process continues.

things come up in the middle of the term that we have to address. there is some time off. i do some teaching. i have a two week course in the supreme court and i do that at a different venue every year and take the family with been so we can have -- take the family with me. i like to touch upon reading that has nothing to do with law. we try to make up for the fact that there have been weeks and months that have not been able to spend as much time with your family as you would like. >> it is certainly well- deserved. and now many members of our audience love to ask you questions, and i think we should ask members of the audience to come forward and ask the chief justice question that has been on their minds. dinner required -- to inquire about the specifics of a particular case.

this is your chance, your opportunity to ask the chief justice of the united states a question about the supreme court or whatever is on your mind. >> mr. chief justice, good morning. there is a disturbing trend in washington to close the front doors to public buildings, at the capitol and the national archives and recently at the court itself so rather than a symbolic act of descending the stairs to the couple that they are shunned to the basement to enter. which to comment on that decision and whether or not it may change someday? >> the doors are not closed. they are open. people, tourists, practitioners of leaving from the doors. for security reasons, it was determined it was not appropriate to allow people to come in. i think that is part of what is

behind the closures in some other places as well. it is a sad reality, but based on the information in studies we've received, i could not come in good conscience, believe it was not a threat. people do enter in on the side and go through our exhibits down there and come up to the great hall. we do have state of the year security not only for the usual metal detectors but also for chemical and biological agents. i am happy that we are able to keep the doors open so people can exit. i am very disappointed, as you are, when i was arguing cases and i would like to walk up the steps. it is a very inspirational feature of the court and i am very sad we had to do that. in good conscience, i did not

have a choice in terms what the recommended. >> good morning, mr. chief justice. i knew from columbia, south carolina. what we read this summer? >> the first book is a book about florence which has been recommended. i will do my teaching in florence and that, i am told, is a good introduction. that is first on the list. >> been morning, mr. chief justice of. i am from durham, n.c., and the comments about the use of your law clerks, judge edwards suggests that our judiciary coverall all levels are to disconnected from our academies. i want to know your thoughts on that, whether or not you agree or whether you take the relationship between the practicing bench and our

academies are fine or whether or not there is an impact on the future of our profession? "judge edwards is a great friend of mine. he helped me greatly. he was a model for me how to judge. he came in the very first week i was there and said he was going to teach me how to use laptops and you'd be a great thing to benefit. i told him, "thank you very much, judge, but i am not up to speed on technology and i would rather not worry about." he said, "i did not ask you if you wanted to come i told you you were going to." he was tough to argue in from to

when i was arguing cases, and i am glad he did what he did. it's sort of helped bring me up to speed. we are on the same page on that point. there is a great disconnect between the academy and the profession. pick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be the influence of the manual can -- emmanuel kant on 18th century bulgaria but that is not much help on the bar. i do not think there is anything wrong with that, but at the academy wants to deal with the legal issues in an abstract and philosophical level, that is great and that is their business, but they should not expect it would be of any particular help for interest to the practicing bar or judges. at the same time, we are not

looking corp. for vocational guidance. this is how you fill out a form for an entry of appearance. i do think the academy is interested in having an influence on the practice of law, the development of law that they would be wise to sort of stop and think if this area of research will be of any help to anyone other than the other academics. it is their business. people ask me what the last law review article i read was, and i have to think very hard before coming up with one. >> when we talk about the different segments of the profession, where do you sometimes hear is that a hot bench is taking over from the bar in terms of oral argument. "there are seven questions from the bench that lawyers rarely

get a chance to speak. with nine people wanting to get in their questions, as the oral argument squeezed the lawyers? studies have indicated that over the years, and the time that the council gets to speak has diminished and the questions from the judges have increased. is this a troublesome trend, in your eyes? >> my view on this has changed. [laughter] no, -- well, we are in our office on the bench. we are working hard to get answers to questions that we think are important to us, and there is a limited amount of time to be had. frankly, i do think we have gone a little too far.

there have been moments particularly in this last term when i felt we were not being fair to the lawyers, not necessarily be unfair to our colleagues. to many times when i was would add a question, the lawyer did answer, and we would jump in with what we thought was a good perspective, or just to change the direction of the dialogue entirely. there are some areas where we are trying to do things. for example, i do not think it is quite appropriate -- we have a light that those are my new have five minutes left for rebuttal. it is not fair for us to start asking questions to eat into their rebuttal time when it wanted to save it. why improbably one of the prime offenders, but i think we do need to make little bit more of an effort to give the lawyers time to give us some kind of answer and make sure we are not stepping on our colleagues questions.

part of it requires a very expert counsel. someone who is good can find a way to purchase the court's attention to where they want to go -- a way to focus the court's attention and when they are bombarded with questions, allows them to take control of the argument. i remember when i was practicing before the court when justice stevens asked me a question and before i answered another justice, then another one. i answered the most recent question. i was very proud of myself that i remembered where it went justice stevens, i would like to return to your questions. he was smiling the the it was a great thing. suddenly, i realized i did not remember what his question was, so it was a good idea but it did not work out. i think we need to do a better job of letting the lawyers

participate in the dialogue. we have an extraordinary process. >> it is a difficult thing when lawyers are trying to pick between which justice to answer when the questions come simultaneously. >> right. it is a challenge in part of the practice. >> further questions? [no audio] >> i do a lot of work in my chambers orally which i think is a holdover from my practice. how do not have them do bench memos. they read the brief, i read, then sometime we will sit down and bounce ideas off of each other. i take one side, they take the

other, i will have questions about the record. but usually as a result of that coming additional questions will, and we will do -- will come up and we will do further research. i do have them draft portions of the opinion and they will have 10 days. then we will have a very extensive editing process. we usually go through about 20- 25 draft of an opinion, a change in one part here, changing that part there, looking at that before we send something around to the other members of the conference. they spend a lot of time on the search process. i do not read every one of the 8000 petitions that come in. they participate in a pool with most of the other justices and will write a memo that is shared. in that respect, i will ask for

a little more work occasionally on one petition or another and will ask to see the actual papers. throughout all of that, they work pretty hard. >> this gentleman has been standing up. >> good morning, mr. chief justice. i am from winston-salem, n.c. one thing we are grappling with is social media. it impacts ethical obligation that we have, client confidentiality issues. i figure if we are grappling with those issues that it is probably more acute in the court system. i was wondering how the supreme court has dealt with this phenomenon. i have this image of one of your clerks tweeting about what is going on. is the daughter of a justice by

justice basis? do you have certain policies enacted on that area? -- it is its enacted by justice by justice? >> i sit down with each of the clerks and go through a number of things they need to be aware of. i tell them that they should obviously not be tweeting about what they are doing. a lot of it is inadvertently. we are working very hard on an opinion this week, getting ready, and discerning people can look at what they are saying and put two and two together and figure out what their boss is doing. even unintentionally, they can sometimes reveal confidences and that is very dangerous. it my advice is to put that all on hold. i appreciate that it is a generational than in the idea of "not being connected" can be

problematic for them. the different members of the court are more adept at others. i do not think any of us have a facebook page or tweet, whatever that is. tetralogy is making inroads. when we travel, it is easier to have some of us briefed on some of the products where you can have them electronically available and carry them around. different people have different comfort levels. in the courts in general, i think it is a challenge in a lot of areas and it is just something that we will have to deal with it is not limited to

that. the impact of the new technology on subject of law it is really quite significant. whether what does it mean in antitrust law to have technology gateways that are different than what we are used to, but that, too, is nothing. we think of the supreme court's dealing with the wiretap cases when they were a new thing. of course that is not covered by the fourth amendment. it reversed itself. it will be a great challenge in a substantive area and for many of us to try and keep up with technology. it is one of the great things. they come in and they know how all this stuff means. they are a resource for educating those of us who are a little behind the curve. >> the theme of the conference has been accessibility of the courts, transparency, and one of the things that keeps coming upper our television cameras in

the courtroom. the supreme court has made proceedings much more available through audio recordings, but you have some thoughts on television in the courtroom and in the supreme court for arguments? >> welcome and we are having a pilot project right now under the guise of the judicial conference in terms of the lower courts and experimenting, again, on a pilot basis with television on the court of appeals. we will see what the results of that are. the judiciary, supreme court, the judges, we tend to move slowly. those of you who have been to the court know that one of the architectural motifs at the

base of the posts is a turtle to indicate we move slowly but surely ion a stable basis. now we released transcript of arguments, and now we release them within a half-hour. it used to be that the audio recordings were released at the end of the term, now they are released at the end of every week. we are moving in a particular direction. cameras present other challenges that these other areas do not. i will not go through the whole debate. it is a fairly common one. we worry about the impact on lawyers. i worry about the impact on judges. i do think the consideration is different. >> do you think judges will ask

even more questions? >> i do. that is exactly it. unfortunately, we fall into grandstanding with a couple hundred people in the courtroom. i am a little concerned about what the impact would be. we talk about it from time to time. it is something we consider. other courts around the country have had experience with this. it is different domestically but in terms of its impact worldwide. i will be very interested in what the results look like and we will take those into account and consider whether or not we need to move forward. that is the nature of the court. if you do not want is jumping into things until we have given it a lot of thought and deliberation. i am told that things really do

not happen unless you can see them on tv, but the supreme court is different. i have spoken to people who have been on the senate, and they think televising the debates ruin them. you can go see a senate debate and it is always one person standing at the podium and they say it used to not be that way. >> you think about the great speeches that daniel webster gave, and these great speeches that abraham lincoln gave come and they lived through the ages but they were never televised. it did happen. >> people say other government institutions have been opened up, but it would be interesting to see what they think what government institutions function better. we of the most transparent branch of government. everything we do is done in public.

you see are worked in public on the court. the only impact we have is on the arguments. you see the material we look at in the briefs. what is not public is our internal discussion and argument. the long and short of it is that it is being looked at and we will see how the pilot program does. but does raise concerns, and i have been sharing my views and not just those of my colleagues. >> chief, i'm want to thank you so much for being here. it means a lot for us to have you as our guest and to have this conversation to begin our supreme court review. i hope you will return every

time before the circuit has a conference, because you are always our number one guest and it makes a wonderful occasion for us. >> thank you very much. perhaps he will not be surprised, but i will not sit around for the review of our term, particularly after this. these are not the economics writing about this, so maybe -- these are not the academics writing about this, so maybe they give us a break. thank you for inviting me again. thank you very much. [applause] >> i will now ask our long time moderator, my dear and personal friend, dick howard, to assemble his panel to review the supreme court term. we have a wonderful panel for

you and some of the leading academic, and tears and students of the courts in the entire country. -- dick, could you assemble the panel?

>> summoned the comments from chief justice john roberts. they will be getting here momentarily to do a review of some of the major supreme court decisions from this past term. the supreme court session ends on monday, and in an article from "usa today" when asked if they would start writing shorter opinions, chief justice robert said it would leave earlier in the spring than the summer. he said that was not really true, but it would be harder to write shorter breaks. you can read that interview with the chief justice. you can find it on mine on law prose. this is when they finish some of the tougher cases that have been

pending since early fall including a dispute on the band of a violent video games to minors in california. the decision is expected on monday in that case. the supreme court could radically change the status of video games in the u.s. issuing a ruling on the california law which make it a crime to sell extremely violent video games to children. the name of that case is brown versus entertainment merchants association. but if the court rules for california, they will be overturning five years with the decisions in lower courts that the the california law violated the first amendment protection of the freedom of speech. again, we are the waiting for the review of some of the major supreme court decisions to get under way here at the resorts in west virginia.

>> good morning couple once again, to everyone. i am happy to welcome all of you to the supreme court review for the fourth circuit. our plan is that, if you have

been here before, you are familiar with it. we propose during the morning to take a look at some of the significant decisions of the most recent heard of the u.s. supreme court -- term of the court. we are being very selective. we cannot be comprehensive. not even all of the important cases will be talked about we hope we're picking enough of them to give you a sense of what the court has done this year. we will try to bring the train in on time. a half and a lot of you will be checking out to get on the road. we will conclude hopefully by noon. we did very distinguished panel and i am very delighted to have with us heather gerken from yale law. she is nationally known for her work on it democratic theory. we also have michael mcconnell, professor from stanford law

school. as many of you know, he is the former 11th circuit court judge and served in that capacity before he returned to the academy. also a former law clerk to justice brennan. neil siegel, professor of law and political science at duke university law school. he is a member of our family, in a way, because he served as a law clerk to judge wilkinson before he went on to clerk for justice ginsburg. finally, we have adrian verm eule from harvard who is also a former law clerk who clerked in the d.c. circuit and for justice scalia. we want to think the fourth circuit for their hospitality. you could not have been more hospitable or gracious.

we are grateful to you. let me take a few minutes, as we begin our discussion, to try and set the context of the roberts court. it has now completing, as of this weekend, its sixth year. i was the key about the time that past from the year that girl born in 1953 became chief justice -- earl warren in 1953 and wehehen the court came of ae 9 years later. it was in the mid 1960's that they handed down their major decisions coming gideon, miranda, then is like that. about the same period of time passed between the time when rehnquist became chief justice in 1986 and the time in which the rehnquist court came of age, the rehnquist court came of age, roug