tor tured, would that be covered by the act? >> no -- >> so if the video producer says citizen anthropoid, they could sell the game to, yes, this is one of the reasons that sex and violence are so similar. these are based on physical acts we're talking about. narrowing calls and california -- narrowing the laws in california -- ?> is that covered a ta

>> the intent of the law is to limit access of those games by minors.ers -- - -- >> thank you counsel. >> that was the supreme court oral arguments from last year. the court ruled today that california's law of banning the sale of a violent games to minors is unconstitutional. the majority of opinion in the vote was written by justice scalia. >> at the supreme court is now

available as an enhanced the book. 11 original c-span interviews with current and retired justices. this new addition has the latest justice. you can watch multimedia clips from all the justices. this is available now where ever e-books are sold. >> in a few moments, representative michele bachmann announces her candidacy for the republican nomination for president. and then a form on the u.s. and india economics relations. then a pentagon briefing. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. the senate armed services committee will consider some military nominations, including

one person to be admiral of a command. he led a services in the killing of zero osama bin laden. -- of osama bin laden. that is on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m. eastern. -- >> now available, the c-span directory. inside new and returning senate and house members. it has to put your addresses, information on the white house, supreme court justices, in the governor's. order online at c-span.org/shop.

>> michele bachmann formally announced her candidacy for president say -- republican nomination for presidency in waterloo, iowa. she is the founder of a house conference. -- [unintelligible] ♪ ♪ ood morning. good morning. is this is so great to be here in iowa this morning, and even better to be here in waterloo where i was born. [applause] i think it is entirely fitting that we are here today act the site that was once the waterloo women's club, so thank you for being here. my name is michele bachmann.

i stand here in the midst of many friends and many family members to announce formally my candidacy for president of the united states. [cheers and applause] i do so, because i am is so profoundly grateful for the blessings that i have received, both from god and from this great country, and not because of the position of this office, but because i am determined that every american deserves these blessings, and that together, once again we can secure the promise of the future for america. because i want to bring of voice, your voice, to the white house, just as i brought your voice to the halls of the united states congress to secure the promise of the future, not only

for our generation, but for the generations yet to come. i often say that everything i need to know, i learned in iowa. [applause] i learned those lessons at hawthorne elementary, at a valley park elementary, and at my home, which is a very short distance from where we're standing today. because this is where my iowa routes were firmly planted. and it is these iowa roots my faith in god that guide me today. i am is descended of generations of violence. and i know what it means to be from iowa. -- i am a descendant of generations of iowans. the values out to make iowa, and my mother called it the breadbasket of the world. and those values are the best of all of us put together, which we must recapture to secure that

promise of the future. waterloo was very different five decades ago when i was here. that elementary school building was much younger then, and i have to admit, so was i. five decades ago. five decades ago when i went to those elementary schools, the halls were literally teeming with young people running up and down the halls, parents who had dreams for their children and for their future, a future with promise, and parents who wanted it filled with even more opportunities than they and my own parents had known. five decades ago, in america, we had less depth than we have today. we had $300 billion or less in debt. a gallon of gasoline was 31 cents, and owning a home was part of the american dream. today, that debt stands at over $14 trillion. i gallon of gas is outrageously

expensive. and unfortunately, millions of too many americans know what it is to have a home that is fine for closure. and so those drains our distant for many americans. times have changed here in waterloo, but the people have not. the people still have the same spirit in waterloo that iowans have always come to exemplify. we work hard. we do not spend more money than what we take in, and we expect to pass on a better life to our children. but the problem is, our government keeps getting bigger, and it makes it tougher for all of us to pass on our values and our lives to our children, and it has cost jobs to go overseas. and they're spending more of our money than we want them to, and that means that we get to keep less. so do not mistake my happy memories of growing up here in waterloo, iowa as pining for the past. i recognize, it is impossible to

turn the clock back and go back to a different day. instead, i want this moment to serve as a reminder of the best of who we are as a nation. and of what our values are and what it is to make america great, to recapture the the promise of the future. i want my candidacy for the presidency of the united states to stand for a moment when we, the people, stand once again for the independence from a government that has gotten too big and spends too much and has taken away too much of our liberties. [cheers and applause] as americans, we have always confronted challenges, and our history is one that has been marked both by struggles as well as by prosperity. my younger days, like so many americans, were difficult,

especially during the years of my mother's struggles after a divorce, but we made our own way. we depended on our neighbors. we depended on ourselves. it was not the government that we depended on. because we trust in god, in our neighbors, and not in government. americans still have that same spirit. [cheers and applause] but government keeps trying to erase that spirit, because government thinks it knows better. government thinks it knows better how to spend our money. government thinks they know how to make a better life for us. they think they create jobs. they even think they can make as healthier. but that is not the case. we have to recapture the founders' vision of a constitutionally conservative government if we are to secure the promise for the future. i am also here because waterloo

laid the roots of my own life in politics. i never thought i would be in public life. i grew up in iowa. my grandparents are buried here. i remember how sad i was the day my mother told me we were going to leave ottawa when i was in the sixth great, because this part of iowa was all i had ever known. i remember telling my mother that we cannot possibly move to minnesota, because we had not even bid to the state capitol in in the morning yet. [laughter] when we lived here, i grew up a democrat. my first involvement in politics was working for jimmy carter's election in 1976. but when i saw the direction that jimmy carter to our country, how big spending his liberal majority group government and weakened our standing in the world, how the decreased our liberties, i became a republican. [cheers and applause]

i remember the date distinctly when i stood in the kitchen of my grandmother's home on at lafayette street here in waterloo. i listened to my dad, who was a democrat, talked to my grandmother, who was a republican, and they were discussing lyndon johnson's great society program. it was my republican grandmother who gave an admonition to my father. she said to him, david, it will not be you who pays for all of these programs for the great society. it will be davy and michele, my older brother and myself, and now my grandmother's prediction has come true. i firmly believe that neither my democrat father, nor my republican grandmother, would have ever condoned the spending and the debt that america is in during today. i had not planned on getting into politics. i loved law.

i went to law school. then i went on and became a tax lawyer. together with my husband, we created a successful small business and jobs for people in our area. and when i saw the problems in our local school district and how academic excellence was being eroded by federal government interference with the local schools, i decided i needed to do more than just complain. i decided that it was one of those i know of values that has been instilled in me, which was to always leave whenever i found as better than when i found it. so i decided to seek public office to make our local school district better. i did not seek public office for power or for fortune, but simply to make life better in our community and our public schools better for our children. and now i seek the presidency, not for vanity, but because america is at a crucial moment. and i believe that we must make a bold choice if we are to

secure the promise of our future. because we simply cannot kick the can of our problems down the road. because our problems, quite frankly, are today. our problems are not tomorrow. we cannot continue to rack up debt and put it on the backs of the next generation. we cannot afford the unconstitutional health care law that will cost us too much and delivered so little. [applause] we cannot afford four more years of failed leadership here at home and abroad. we cannot afford -- [applause] we cannot afford four more years of millions of americans who are out of work and who are not making enough in wages to support a family. we cannot afford four more years

of a housing crisis where we continually watched the value of our homes be devalued in front of our eyes, and we literally see it become impossible for people to purchase a home. we cannot afford four more years of a foreign policy with a president who leads from behind and who does not stand up for our friends, like israel. [cheers and applause] and who too often fails to stand against our enemies. we cannot afford four more years of barack obama. [cheers and applause] as a constitutional conservative, i believe in the founding fathers' vision of a limited government, the trust

in and receive the and the potential of you, the american people. i do not believe these solutions to our problems are washington- century. i believe that there with every american-centric. i believe the most basic, most powerful unit of all, is the family, and the family must be preserved. [applause] we have begun another campaign season, and it almost seems like the last one and only recently ended. but through the rancor of the campaign, let us always remember, there is always so much more that unites us as a nation that divides us. because our problems do not have an identity of party. they are problems that were created by both parties. i think that americans agree. our country is in peril today, and we have to act with urgency in order to save it.

because americans are not interested in affiliation. they are interested in absolutions and leadership that will tell them the truth. the truth is, all of us, we, the american people, are the solution, not our government. because this issue is about big issues. it is not about petty wines. when all is said and done, we cannot be about big government as usual. because then america will lose, quite frankly. and in washington, u.s. of bringing a voice to the halls of congress that has been missing for a very long time. it is your voice. it is the voice of the people that i love and the people that i learned so much from as a young girl growing up here in waterloo. it is the voice of reasonable, fair minded people, who love this country, who are patriotic, who see the united states as the indispensable nation of this world. [applause]

and my voice is one that is part of a much larger movement to take back our country. and i want to take that voice to the white house. it is the voice of constitutional conservatives who want government to do its job and not our job, and what our government to live within its means, not our means, and certainly not our children's means. i am here today in waterloo, iowa to announce -- we can win in 2012, and we will win. [cheers and applause] it may have started small, but our voice is growing louder. our voice is growing stronger, and it is made up of americans from all walks of life, like a three-legged stool. it is made up of strength conservatives, and i am one of those. it is made up of fiscal

conservatives, and i am one of those. it is made up of social conservatives, and i am one of those. [applause] and it is made up of the tea party movement, and i am one of those. [cheers and applause] the liberals, and to be clear, i am not one of those, want you to believe that the tea party movement is just a white bring french of the republican party. but i am here to tell you, nothing -- is just a fringe of the republican party. that is not the truth. it is disaffected democrats, independents, people who have never been political, and it is made up of libertarians and republicans. we are people who simply want to get america back on the right track again. [cheers and applause]

we're practical people. we know our country can work. we just want it to work again. it is a very powerful coalition that the left fears, and they should. because, make no mistake about it, barack obama will be a one- term president. [applause] in a february 2009, president obama was very confident that his economic policies would turn the country around within a year. he said, "a year from now, i think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress. if i do not have this done in three years, then there is going to be a one-term proposition." well, mr. president, your policies have not worked. spending our way out of the

recession has not worked. and so, mr. president, we take you at your word. [applause] waterloo holds a very special place for me, but it also holds a very special place for our nation. because water will still since its finest young men and women off to fight for america and to protect our freedoms that allow us to gather here together. i honor my father, who served on the u.s. air force. i honor my stepfather, who served in the u.s. army. i honor my stepbrothers, who served and retired from the united states navy. we will never forget the sacrifices of our brave men and women in our military. it is part of our past that we remember -- [cheers and applause]

to secure the future of the promise of america. and is thus values that make our country unique and make us the most powerful force for good on this planet. i believe we are the indispensable nation, and that is the spirit that separates us from those who would give their own life for others from those who sacrificed others, like terrorists, who use little children's lives as human shields. but i think perhaps the valor of our american fighting heroes was never captured better than in the sacrifice made by the sullivan brothers from right here in waterloo. my father told my three brothers and i, when we were little children, this story of the sullivan family, who were like so many other families in the great depression. they were just fortunate to get by. and most of the family worked here in waterloo at the meatpacking plants. when a close friend of the sullivan family died at pearl harbor, the solo event five

brothers and listed in the u.s. navy. but under the condition that they would be allowed to serve together. one of the brothers wrote -- we will make a team together but cannot be beat. born and raised here in waterloo, the five sullivan brothers have always stuck together. however, one cold morning after a long night of intense battles, a japanese torpedo struck the ship upon which they served. it killed most of the crew, and it launched the rest into the water. the oldest of the sullivan brothers was named george. george tirelessly searched the waters for his brothers, but there were not to be found. george survived the attack. but later, george perished at sea. of the 697 brave man of that ship, only 10 survived that attack. the rest gave their lives for their country.

and in spite of the intense pain of losing five sons all at once, the parents of the sullivans' became an inspiration to the rest of the nation. in the midst of their grief, they spoke to millions of americans on behalf of the war effort. so to honor the sullivans, two ships were named for them. the motto of the last ship -- we stick together. [applause] theirs was a demonstration of the holy scripture which sat, greater love hath no man than this but that he laid down his own life for his friend. that is the kind of love we americans have for this great country. we americans stick together. we triumphed together. in the words of daniel webster, who said -- one cause, one country, one heart. that is the kind of commitment

it will take us to face these great challenges that are before us, but i believe that the great people of this country are longing for a president who will listen to them and who will lead from the front and not from behind. [applause] i am michele bachmann. i am running for the president of the united states. together, we can do this. [applause] together, we can rein in the corruption and the waste that has become washington, and instead, we can leave behind a better future for the next generation of americans. together, we can make a better america if we stick together. together, we can bring the promise of the future. together, we can. together, we will. god bless you, and god bless the

united states of america. thank you, everyone. thank you. thank you, iowa. thank you, america. together, we will do this. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ ♪ >> well, she was an american girl raised on promises she couldn't help thinking that there was a little more to life somewhere else after all it was a great big world with lots of places to run to

and if she had to die trying she had one little promise she was going to keep oh yeah all right take it easy baby make it last all night she was an american girl ♪ it was kind of cold that night she still owed alone on a balcony yes, she could hear the cars roll by out on 441 like waves crashing on the beach and for one desperate moment there he crept back in her memory got its so painful when something that's so close is still so far out of reach

oh yeah all right take it easy baby make it last all night she was an american girl ♪ ♪

♪ >> let's win this thing. >> amen, let's do it this time. it is going to happen. thank you. thank you so much. hello there. thank you so much. ♪

♪

>> c-span has laun new website for and the 2012 presidential race. bio information, twitter feeds, andlinks to c-span media partners. visit us at c-span.org/campaign

2012. >> up next, a discussion on u.s. india -- a discussion on a u.s.-india economic relations. then a pentagon briefing. -- on the "washington journal" tomorrow morning, ray lahood previews in his trip to michigan and focusing on transportation jobs. the executive director of the alliance of manufacturing. you can follow in with your questions on energy in the national security with the center for strategic international study. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day.

there are three days of book tv programming. some may be underlined -- ruining the underlying intent of the internet. and sunday, in depth with linda hogan. look for the entire schedule on booktv.org. >> a brookings institution discussion on u.s.-india economic relations. panelists include u.s. treasury secretary timothy geithner. ... this is about one hour.

>> a good evening. two global leaders who have stood out in their astute handling of their respective economies. we touched upon various issues which focused on the economic and financial partnership opportunities between our two countries.

while many industrial speakers, government speakers, regulators, institutions air their views and debated several topics during the course of the day, this was a session that we have been waiting for, to hear our two leaders. and we are honored to welcome them in the midst of this fantastic gathering of had in washington today. and while we welcome our leaders, what we have discussed over the course of the day have posed several issues, and have identified challenges we have in taking this collaboration and partnership forward. we talked about the u.s.-india two-way trade which has grown exponentially since 2009. and india featuring high in the administration costs goal of doubling imports by 2015. we have seen india's ambition by doubling imports by 2014 to $500 billion. -- a $50 billion.

india is looking at the united states in this regard. the possibilities we listed were limitless. also when we talk about india wanting sustain economic growth in the coming years, we talked a lot about the massive infrastructure needs for india. we said in the five years, in the estimates a total amount of investment of $2.50 trillion. several models we have talked about, and several opportunities emerging at how the u.s. would participate in it. we saw new sectors we which -- which have come up where we can partner together.

and so on and so forth. especially, india house financial services sector. there's no one else who can expand at about and give us thought and ideas to take this relationship forward in the years to come. i present to you most proudly secretary geithner and mr. mukherjee. >> let me thank you for bringing this to to get there. thank you for talking about what is our agenda. i want to welcome the minister, and they give for making this a long trip, and we will have the chance to night over dinner and tomorrow to talk about all the great issues between our two countries.

we view this alicia as having enormous potential. we are at the beginning of unlocking this potential, and we will spend our time talking about a list of the list of foreign challenges between us. as we always do, we will start by talking about the global economy, the risks and challenges ahead, and talk about economic to the elements in both countries. our main purpose is to look for ways to expand and strengthen the economic trade, investment relationship. from our perspective, the key thing is the outlook for reform, economic reform. that is true in the united states. fiscal reform is true in india as well. india is reaping the benefits of the past reforms set in motion by a minister in 1990, and india is at the point where future growth will depend on success

in the next wave of reforms, not just in the financial sector, but in many ways the indian economy has outgrown its financial system, and with the huge needs for capital financing and business, the success of the indian economy is going to depend on the success of this next wave of the next generation of financial reforms. we hope to be a significant part of that. we faced challenges in the united states as well. on the trade investment side, we thinking there are substantial opportunities to improve access for indian companies in the united states and for u.s. companies competing in india. indian technology and ideas and talent already plays a major

role in the american economy, and that is only going to grow over time, and we are committed to not just running an open nondiscriminatory investment regime, welcoming indian investment, but we want to find ways to make indian companies have a greater role in our economy. we will talk about things that are important to us in the indian market, as the authorities look for ways to improve the quality of the investment environment. growth requires capital and investment and ideas, and there is a lot of room for improvement. we are working carefully to build a strategic economic relationship. we do that in the budget areas. we have very productive technical working exchanges under way on things like that

management or how to build a more effected -- regime, a whole range of issues. we work closely together and all the major international economic and financial furm, an indy g-20 in particular, not just because of the credibility experience of indians economic leadership, but india is a model for how to produce for based income growth with a more balanced strategy for growth. with a more balanced system. a good example for the rest of the world in that context. that is one reason india plays such an important role in the g- 20 process to bring the emerging-market economies it together on things that are good for growth. that is our agenda. it is a personal privilege for me to take part in these talks. i spent a large part of my youth in india growing up. i think i spent more consecutive years in india than any other country by the time i was 20. it had a huge impact on my view of the world and that makes it a particular privilege for me

to have the chance to work to build a much stronger economic relations. i look forward to our conversations. >> thank you. i would like to express my deep appreciation to the brookings institution for organizing this conference. in particular, secretary geithner. i will have the opportunity of discussing with him in detail not only how to respond between india and the u.s.a., and also there are issues on which we share common perceptions. one of the fundamental

principles of our relationship is we share many common patterns. we have now engaged not only in strategic partnerships but also to expand the relationship in various international forums, particularly the g-20, as an important forum to address the problems [unintelligible] it has developed into a major financial crisis. the weaknesses inherent in the system, and too much dependence on market results. effective regulations point out the weakness in the system.

-- we have taken certain measures in this forum and a full cup summit, the latest one, which has clearly outlined the measures to be taken by the various countries to ensure that there is a proper and orderly development on a sustainable basis. i would like to share with this audience the problems and

prospects of the indian economy. many economies were badly hit, but not to the extent that many others suffered. one simple fact will point out the depth of the problem. at the beginning of the year to designate, our economy was growing almost at the same pace with the previous year, that was around 9%. but with the growth scenario, we noticed -- in the last quarter, and indications were it would be as low as 5.8%.

therefore we had to step then, and like many other countries, we had to provide the fiscal based by injecting a stimulus package, almost 3% of our gdp, but it had its cost. the fiscal expansion literally created a distortion that we prevented the [unintelligible] of the gdp growth and we had modest growth of 6.6%. the next. -- with 8%, and in 2010 it was 8.5%. of course in my budget, when i presented the details are

predicted the 2011 level would be around 8.5 to 8.75%. but that does not mean that we are coming back to the path of higher growth scenario without any problems. one of the problems is inflation. inflationary pressure is putting a serious constraint. if we can have a moderate rate of inflation and a reasonable level of growth, the monetary and fiscal policy must move in tandem.

in india, where growing slowly. therefore, the point i would like to emphasize is that india, the growth potential is there. the rate of savings and the rate of investment is reasonably high. the various -- it will insure there is investments that can attract investment from different parts of the country. sometimes questions have been raised, looking in the short term, in the initial months of the current calendar year.

the question was raised, almost every year in the past few months of the calendar year, there is a slow down, but in the latter part of the year, it makes up. this is not in one year, but it has happened in the past. as i was mentioning, inflation is an important constraint that

we will have to tackle. to be very frank, a tolerable level of inflation is difficult to define. but in our economy, we have seen that if we cannot give the inflationary pressure -- keep it within 5% to 6%, it would have been ideal. this year i hope it will be a little more, not because of real supply constraints. we have substantially address that by taking appropriate measures.

but the international commodity price is causing serious concern. we are appreciative of the 60 billion barrels for the month of july, but when i look at the $90 billion, the 2 billion barrels is not very significant. nonetheless, it has had its impact. the prices have started coming down. we have adjusted the price of oil and also by providing

[unintelligible] appealing to the provincial governments. i hope it will have some impact. this is going to be a major problem and it will have its impact on our world. we have taken certain steps, as i was talking of, we have recently finalized the guidelines. we have also decided that all

investment of policy to be more friendly -- more user-friendly. it has been consolidated into one comprehensive document that will be reviewed every six months. we have gotten the specific intent of our policy. it has been clearly defined in this regard. [unintelligible] certain important legislation like reforms of the banking regulations act, the

announcement on the insurance sector [unintelligible] these three important legislation as i have introduced in the last session of parliament, and i do hope it will be possible for us to get these legislations past, but i will -- as i was mentioning to secretary geithner, in our system, we have to have the consensus from the other party because we do not have that simple majority to get the laws passed in our parliament. the talks about the consensus are going on and i hope it will be possible, with the help the parties concerned, we will be able to get these decisions

past. we have undertaken two major reforms. in that area of taxation, we have allocated new reforms. i hope from the next financial year we will be able to operationalize it. the goods and services tax, we are trying to evolve a consistent as part of our -- consensus as part of our constitutional practice. there are areas of taxation which the constitution has authorized the federal government and provincial governments to enforce taxes.

it will be on certain items. unless the state agreed and a solution is introduced fast, this is not possible to make it effective. for that constitutional amendment, a special majority and 50% of the provincial government. the consensus among the major political parties, we are working on that to get this legislation passed. [unintelligible] we have decided to allow the internal cost to directly

affect the investment from foreign investors who meet the guidelines with a view to facilitate investment opportunities in india. only to the foreign institutional investors. there have been stages of investment into corporate bonds. it has been enhanced considerably from the existing $15 billion. now $40 billion. the original limit being available for the bond offerings. for this announcement also there will be a lockout. three years. this will be in the interest of the faa of increasing their

indian counterparts. introducing this subject, during the next five years from 2012 to 2017, our infrastructure investment will be very substantial. is about $1 billion u.s. 50% of that is to come from the private sector. we do expect that these immediate measures including the recent guidelines which we have issued, it will be possible for the present sectors to come and make investments. in order to make it successful, we are providing a funding mechanism which is quite

effective. the last point i would like to emphasize, as i mentioned at the beginning of my observations, that in order to prevent the dissolution of growth, in 2008 we had to lessen the fiscal expansion. today with the problem of fiscal consolidation, while presenting the defense budget, with the mandate of the people, i declare that we shall come back to this sooner than later. i am happy to inform this this thing which gathering that we

have been able to do so. for the year 2010-2011, i predicted that the fiscal deficit would be 5.5% of our gdp, but we have been able to manage it to four 0.7% of gdp -- 4.5% gdp. for the next year we have predicted 4.6%. i hope in the next couple of years it will be possible for us to come back to the fiscal deficit to the level which we had before the crisis. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i have taken more time that i intended to. [applause]

>> thank you, mr. minister. thank you, mr. secretary. we will now join our discussion session. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure and an honor. perhaps the first question to secretary geithner, i know that you and the obama administration or admire in india's growth rate. >> and fiscal deficit. [laughter] >> but there is some time of feeling in the advanced countries in europe and the u.s. that this growth rate somehow subtracts from progress in other countries. how do you explain, how do you elaborate on the interdependence of economies on how, in fact, wrote in the emerging market economies, particularly in india, in some

circumstances is actually quite beneficial to the u.s. economy and u.s. consumers and investors? it is sometimes a hard thing to really explain and get the message out. maybe you can take this opportunity to say a few words on that. >> it seems self-evident to us, but it is not necessarily accepted immediately by anybody. the way i think about it is this. if you look at the american economy today, the most rapidly growing and strongest parts of the american economy are those most able to benefit from the rapid growth we are seeing in india and other parts of the world. export growth has been good in the early stages of recovery. if you look across agriculture, high technology, manufacturing, the most resilient and dynamic

parts of the american economy are those most exposed to the growth opportunities we see in india and the emerging economies. with that export growth, you see more jobs, more opportunity, you can demonstrate to the average people why we have such a strong taken this relationship. growth in india is good for the united states. it is no threat to the united states, and the more successful they are in putting in place reforms to help a lot future growth, the better it will be for the united states, just as is true that we benefit greatly from the sheer scale of indian talon we have operating in the u.s. economy, the ideas and innovations they bring is good for our economy. as president obama was so

successful in doing in india, you can point to the tangible benefits that come from more investment opportunities and they understand it better. >> this morning there was discussion on the world economy on current account deficits and so on. one point that was made by several speakers is that india contributes to world a man. -- to world demand. >> as do week. >> as do we. [laughter] >> in terms of absolute size, maybe you want to reduce your as a little bit. your current account deficit. >> you are right. let me step back and make a general point. for the world economy as a whole, to grow at the kind of highest, most sustainable level possible, we need to see more balance across the economy as a whole. we need to see more modest

deficits over time in countries like the united states but you need to see more modest surpluses over time in countries like china. if you are not able to achieve that, the risk is that future growth will be more volatile. you see more volatility in exchange markets they can put pressure on governments trying to develop. for the united states, that means that we have to see the basic pattern of growth shift dramatically from what we saw in the last decade. it was an expansion built on a more tenuous foundation of consumption fueled by borrowing and a substantial decline in savings rates.

to be successful in the future we need to see a growth strategy were driven by investment and export growth, and we need to see a shift to more responsible saving pattern, not just by the average american, but by the government itself. we are seeing that pattern start to take shape in the united states. >> these are the questions much debated in the g-20. india is now a member of the g- 20. it is a wonderful development to be emerging economies like india. how do you see the role of india in the g-20 and cooperate -- cooperation with the u.s.?

exchange-rate policy issues -- how would you about your weight the discussions and the progress made at the g-20? -- how would you evaluate the discussions? >> the establishment of the g-20 has clearly demonstrated the -- 85% of the world economies are represented by the countries of the g-20. it is because of the g-20, [unintelligible] to prevent money laundering and to counter terrorist activities, the positive contribution made is the contribution of the g-20 to ultimately [unintelligible]

it compels the jurisdictions to cooperate to prevent money- laundering effectively. they share banking information and other information. i am just giving you one example. india at is co-chair of that group with canada. there is a sustainable framework as you look for sustainable development. without taking into account [unintelligible] but we are basing the current crisis by providing resources and there is an important ingredient in that some that is

an important contribution. the most important piece, the free and frank discussions which take place. at least that is my experience. the secretary will agree with me, in most of the issues, we arrive at consensus. this practice should be encouraged at all times. i think the g-20 is doing well and we should encourage it to play a more effective role in the coming years as we reach sustainable growth.

>> there is sometimes a simplistic view that says in the g-20 you have the old d-7 and then there are the developing countries. there are quite a few issues. india is closer to the u.s. than some of the emerging markets. on some issues, maybe it is closer to the emerging markets. would both of useppa few words -- both of you say a few words on the dynamics of the g-20? are there two separate groups, where is it much more intact and flexible -- would both of you say a few words on the dynamics of the g-20? it goes across that line of emerging markets. >> it might be cultural, there will be convergence in india.

there will be divergence. one of the characteristics of in the yet, we say there is community in diversity. therefore, when we meet in the g-20, there are countries having different perceptions, different culture, different values, but having a common approach of approaching the issues that affect all of us in a consensual way. there is a convergence of views in certain issues in all of the emerging economies, whether g-7 or g-10, all are converging into the g-20.

the divergence will be narrowed down. convergence will take place. >> i agree, there for coalitions depending on the issue. one of the things we have done together over the last few years was to build consensus on reforms to make the governing structure of the international financial institutions more balanced and open and legitimate. in that context, many of the europeans have a somewhat different view. our position was closer to india than to them. there are lots of other issues.

we all recognize that for there to be better economic outcomes for the world as a whole, we have to find a way for countries to work together more carefully to make sure they take into consideration the external effects of our policies. think about international financial reform. you cannot create a more financial -- more stable financial system by leaving the design of capital requirements assembly to national -- simply to national authorities. if you do that, you will just raise them in one place but shift all the risk to somewhere else. we saw that happen in the years before the crisis. there is a compelling compared to for closer cooperation because we are more integrated now. the g-20 is doing a good job of building a foundation to take advantage of that natural interest we have together, mutual interest in negotiating better, and outcomes. -- better, and out comes -- better common outcomes.

>> the projections in india, very convincing projections for growth of to 10% in a couple of decades. china may go down a little bit, but growth is more likely to be rapid. we hope the u.s. will grow at 3% in the long run, it seems possible. all this when you add it up, given the bigger weight of this rapidly growing economy, adds up to world growth that is unprecedented. are there any worries about natural resources, environment, climate? how to manage an economy that grows so rapidly and provide so many new benefits to billions of people, but do we have the natural resource base, are we investing enough in new technologies to allow this to be sustainable from an internal point of view?

>> i do feel there are areas of cooperation. many of the countries, including india, require technological support. the cooperation we are having with a usa, education and development, in our concept of sustainable development, the climate is most important ingredient. we cannot allow all the internment to be disturbed further. -- the environment to be disturbed further. enough damage has been caused. it will have to be preserved but essentially there is no confrontation between environmental protection and development. we will have to synchronize it

in such a manner that development takes place, maintaining the environment as required. sustainable development, the most important ingredient is maintaining the environment. >> the world at the moment is such an interesting mix of huge promise in terms of the growth trajectory of the emerging economies, not just india, and much of the rest of the world still digging out of a crisis that could have been a second great depression.

there is huge promise in the growth potential of emerging economies. that will help the world heal the damage caused by the crisis more quickly. it will bring tremendous pressure on resources, and demands for capital, and a lot of pressure on the system as a whole. that is why it is important that we build a better framework for cooperation so we have a better capacity to manage the inevitable tensions that come with that growth. >> we will have to request is. you'll have to tell me when we are out of time but want to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity. i have to give someone in the back the first question. >> i have a question for each of you. what do you perceive to be the biggest obstacle to greater u.s.-india economic and financial partnership?

>> clearly there is a different in the perception, but for discussions and negotiations, we have been able to remove the obstacles which were there. for example, after the visit of president obama, the restrictions on exports in the entities from the list of the u.s.a. is a major step forward. of course the cooperation agreement is an important landmark. therefore, i do not think there

is any big hurdle. sometimes there are concerns to be addressed and we will be doing exactly the same. >> i cannot improve on that. i think if you look at this relationship, one of the things that is so encouraging is the relative absence of trauma -- of drama. there is a complementary interest that the private sector has ample room to take advantage of but there are a lot of things that stand in the way of that. we will try to work through some of those things.

>> i think we can do with a less drama in some parts of the world. we'll take to questions as a group and then go back to the ministers. >> in the context of the u.s.- china relationships, secretary geithner laid out exactly what the u.s. wants from china and what china wants from the u.s.. despite the notions of generic cooperation, do you have a similar specific list for india? i would be interested in mr. -- minister mukherjee's views. >> i am really happy to be here because i have a slightly

different view on the economies. i have lived both in india and here and identify with both equally. what i am trying to do is add a little bit of drama, but it will depend on your answer. you talked about strategic bought -- partnerships and there is definitely room for collaboration and mutual benefit. one industry i am curious how this applies to is the outsourcing industry. obviously, india faces inflation or if they are able to cope with inflation, it has an impact on the u.s. economy. i would love to your boat your views on that. >> i will talk about our side of the ledger, our objectives. from our perspective, the most important things we would like

to see our progress on financial reforms that provide a deeper, more liquid market for corporate debt, infrastructure financing that allow more access to american companies. our interest are pretty complementary as a whole. we are working with the grain of the reform imperative as well, which is the only way to make progress. i do not see any conflict between our interest or objectives there. that is where writer at a good motors -- most of the near-term emphasis. -- that is where we put most of the near term if this is. if you look at what is going to happen to wage costs, the cost of doing business, in india and in china, to, they will be increasing more rapidly over the next decade or so.

what that means is the economics of the decision about where a u.s. firm may decide to produce or build something is going to change. it is tilting back in the direction of investment in the united states. you can hear more people talking about reintegrating the supply chain, bringing some things back. i think that is encouraging for the long-term competitiveness of the u.s. manufacturing industry, but it creates no risk for india. most of india's growth is going to come from the natural dynamics of an economy that has a huge amount of room. that will not be affected by this modest shift in the relative competitiveness of where some services locate going forward.

it is good for us at the margin but i do not see any risk to india's growth and development agenda. >> i would like to clarify one point, that india's growth is essentially [unintelligible] exports play an important role, no doubt. last year, our export was $245 billion. a 2014 we have a $500 billion. that is our target. but still, the momentum coming from domestic demand, and our inflationary problem, apart from high oil prices and international commodity prices,

it is the supply constraints. from the demand side we hit take appropriate measures by adjusting the crucial rate and controlling the demand side. appropriate steps have been taken. from the supply-side constraints, i mentioned my observations that it was largely related to the bottle neck and supply constraints which have been addressed. [unintelligible] last year, agricultural growth was substantial. the components of growth for agriculture, service, and manufacturing. it all contributed and this trend is going to continue in

subsequent years. secondly, even the growth in highly developed countries is slow down as far as expanding our cooperation. we did not have any defense cooperation with the u.s.. it has started within the last couple of years. it is expanding very fast. therefore that areas of cooperation whether it is in the area of technology, knowledge, education, agriculture, you can have cooperation.

growth, inflation, these are temporary measures to be tackled, but let us not stand in the way of long-term cooperation and understanding. thank you. >> is there anybody from the press? >> both of you touched on the importance of the g-20 meeting. it is clear that for the past two years, one important point of the g-20 was to reform the international institutions to ensure [unintelligible]

tomorrow there will be an executive board meeting to decide the next managing director. that is of the imf. it has been reported that china has already expressed their support, and it is an important -- their support for ms. lagarde. it is an important opportunity for both countries to express your views for the future of the financial institutions. how are you going to cast your vote tomorrow? [laughter] and based on what kind of thinking. >> one more from the press. >> secretary geithner era, banks were too big to fail before your bailout, and now there are even bigger.

when you talk about financial for -- reform, what do you think of that? it is widely regarded that you have not had the political will to push through reforms. the thing that is true, and if so, are you going to change that action? >> we will go back to the ministers for their final remarks. who would like to start? >> i would like to answer the question about the internal institutions, [unintelligible] -- the future of the international institutions. those of the bretton woods institutions, imf, world bank,

etc. are not states. i must say that the institutions when they are established in a particular context, and when that context no longer demand irrelevant, new institutions are to be formed. that is something that is happening in the imf and the world bank. the world has undergone a major change since 1925. -- 1945. new realities have yet to be reflected in the composition. this is in the process of these institutions. at the same time i am quite confident that these institutions will be in default. -- will be evolved. other institutions have

attempted under similar pressures, but it did not materialize. after 30 or 40 years, we could establish [unintelligible] -- 40 years after the establishment of the bretton woods institution in 1944, we could have formed another organization. therefore, institutions ought to just -- ought to adjust. there is a reality prevailing at that time. if one is a continuing one, there need to be further reforms. the point is a continuing one. [unintelligible] in india we are going to work continuously for those reforms. in the initial stage of our reforms in the early 90's,20 years ago, it was to deregulate, and that process was complete.

we had to make reforms in other areas as required. most of it has been done, but most new reforms, it is a constant exercise. the structural differences, i have given some examples as my colleagues have stated. we shall have to consolidate. we shall have to expand. that is a constant exercise, and we are doing so. my colleagues, during their days of deliberations --revolt in the

bond market, rabat -- reforms in the insurance sectors, the banking sector, pensions, the necessary legislation have been introduced to ensure its passage. there has to be a consensus and get support from the others. there are stakeholders and other political parties. they will have to carry on the process of default. >> on the first question, i have no interest in announcing our position to you right now. [laughter] i do think we are on the verge of having what i felt is necessary, which is an open, contested process two excellent candidates and a quick resolution.

i am sure we are on the verge of having someone emerge that will be able to command. that is important when there are challenges, especially in europe. it is a time when you need strong leadership. on the question about the u.s. financial reform, let me sell you things quickly about this. if you look back at the top 20 financial institutions in the united states before the crisis, almost half of them no lumber exist today as independent entities. we had a huge restructuring of the american financial system, huge amount of failure of very large institutions. the ones that survived had to meet a market test. could they raise enough capital on their own so they could exist going forward? the surviving institutions today are on average, much better capitalized than their major international peers. but is better than that. if you look at our system in

comparison to that of any other major economy, it is a much less concentrated banking system. look at the shares of the top five u.s. firms compared to the top two banks in most of the other major economies today. our banking system is smaller as a share of gdp. banks at the root in the united states together are only about one times r annual gdp. a comparable number is about five times gp in the u.k., eight times in switzerland. despite the fact that we had such a lot of restructuring or because of it, we are less concentrated and there is a much better capacity to withstand the risk of failure of a major institution because there's more capital in the system.

one of the great strengths of financial reform in the united states was that we took away the ability of the executive authorities, regulatory authorities, to intervene, to sustain nonviable institutions and give them a chance of living again. women did that discretion because of the moral hazard risk -- we limited that discretion. having institutions exist with a presumption that the government will save them from their mistakes in the future. we are at the early stages of preparing reforms, but we have a lot of work to do. i am confident we will have a much more stable system and better capacity to withstand shocks in the future and to insulate well-managed institutions from the barriers and mistakes of the less prudent. >> thank you very much. the way addressed in a very

substantial way and an open way the questions that asked and engaged with the audience conversation was wonderful. i would like to add my hope that these two democracies will cooperate together and both will contribute to the rest of the world economy for the many countries that will benefit from the good performance of both the american and indian economy. i will turn over to our chairman. >> it has been an expanding -- outstanding session by the two leaders today. thank you for your time and giving us this honor and this interaction. it has been one of the most outstanding sessions in the recent past that we have had between the united states and india. we saw several opportunities as we discussed the challenges throughout the day. the outstanding team from india, including the chairman, the

chief economic adviser, and the deputy governor of the world bank. also a very strong team from the indian industrial. it has been an outstanding day and thanks to both of you we get so much on the table. the support we have received from the indian embassy and the u.s. treasury has been exemplary in making this conference a success. thank you so very much. [applause] >> thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the house recently debated and voted on two measures related to u.s. military involvement in libya. both will continue debate in the house and senate at c-span congressional chronicle. find video of every house and senate session, daily schedules, committee hearings, and information on your elected officials access c- span.org/congress. >> in a few moments, monday's pentagon briefing. in a little more than an hour, the supreme court oral argument

in the case banning violent video game sales to minors. the court ruled it violates the first amendment and is unconstitutional. a panel of lawyers refused the major decisions this term. -- reviews the major decisions this term. live events tomorrow morning. the senate armed services committee will consider several military nominations, including the general and commander of the special operations command. he led the operation that killed osama bin laden. the will also consider the nomination of a marine corps general to replace general david petraeus as commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan. that is on c-span 3 at 9:30 eastern. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c- span, senator john kerry chairs a hearing of the foreign relations committee, looking into whether or not the war powers act applies to military

action in libya. >> my name is michelle laughlin. i stand here in the midst of many friends and family members to announce formally my candidacy for president of the united states. >> a field of republican presidential candidates continues to take shape. all the announcements and look back on their careers on line click on the campaign 2012 tab. it is what you want, when you want. >> the final briefing as pentagon spokesman was held monday afternoon by the former -- along with robert gates. last week, leon panetta was confirmed by the senate to be his replacement. this is a little less and a half hour.

>> very clever. do i have a pink one? i am a dandy. i do not know about that. what about stocks? -- socks? good afternoon. it is great to see so many of the pentagon press corps out in force. thank you for coming to my final briefing. thanks to sell many of my colleagues for showing up. what a treat. even my family is here. it is an honor to have all of you here. i will have to be on my best behavior this afternoon. both my mother and mother-in- law are here. my wife unfortunately is stuck on the subway, but she should be here. it is a long opening statement. perhaps she will be here by the end. it may be a disappointment to those of you who enjoy the

sparring here. i am not planning on this being a very news for the news conference. i have a few scheduling announcements to make. i want to express my appreciation to many of you. as you know by now, this is secretary gates's last week on the job. there are quite a few farewell events planned, culminating with the armed forces tribute. the special ceremony, to which all of you are welcome, includes reports by chairman mullen and secretary gates. the secretary is under that president obama is also scheduled to attend and make remarks on thursday. the secretary will fly home to washington state, where he will once again try his hand of retirement after a couple of notable failures. he assures me he is determined to succeed this time. friday marks the beginning of a new era at the pentagon. leon panetta will be sworn in as

the secretary of defense. that is expected to take place in a small private ceremony in his office that morning. with the new secretary should come a new press secretary as well. my plan is to relinquish my responsibilities on thursday. i will leave in july to focus on what comes next for me and my family. you will be in excellent hands with the team here, led by doug wilson and a yet to be announced pentagon press secretary. at this time, i would like to offer a few think years. today and bartlett and nicole wallace, i cannot thank you enough for recommending me to your boss. i would like to think president

bush and president obama to have confidence in may. i have been able to work closely with one of the great statesman and public servants of our time. you have gotten to know secretary gates very well, especially those who travel a lot with us. it has been an honor and privilege to be part of his team as he has dealt with some of the most challenging and consequential security issues of our nation has seen. i am thankful for the faith he has shown in me and the wisdom he has shared with me. i am appreciative of the long days at the office and long trips around the world. i am just as honored to be able to work closely and develop friendships with men and women in uniform. some of you may remember i arrived here in june 2007, full of excitement and ready to go,

but overwhelmed about all i had to learn about the military. to my surprise, despite the fact i had been a reporter and never served in uniform, the troops welcome me from the get go and bent over backwards to help me learn everything from their distinct culture and traditions to a military strategy and weapons acquisition. it has been my honor to help explain their mission, and give voice to their concerns, and fight for their cause. i have been blessed to do so with a tremendous group of civilian colleagues. they of tutored me over the years list and make a mistake that makes their difficult jobs even more so. no one has been more helpful to me in that regard than public affairs professionals the work in this department. they have kept me on top of the issues and largely out of trouble. i cannot thank them enough for their support, their patients,

and their friendship. i could not have succeeded without ms. harrison. she is the mvp of our team. she is unfailingly pleasant, patient as a saint, and more capable than most people twice their age. my wife does not know what to do without her. i may take her with me. i would like to thank all of you. collectively, the reporters who cover this building have been considered the best in washington. i believe that is still the case. your commitment is without parallel. their ethical standards and professionalism are the best in the business. your dedication to covering the wars we are fighting is appreciated by all americans, chief among them those in uniform. you travel great distances,

indoor long separation from family and friends, work in extremely difficult conditions, and do so at extreme personal risk. we have not always agree on how stories regarding this department should be covered. and want to take the opportunity to thank you for covering them, particularly during difficult times for the news business. i know i have been tough, even combative, in my dealings with you all, although it was usually motivated my my desire to ensure accuracy. i apologize if any of you took offense at my directives. i believe we have had a productive working relationship. as a former reporter, i worked hard inside this bureaucracy to help you get it. however, i quickly discovered i would never be as expert in military matters as those who work here. understandingar

of where the secretary was leading this department. i set out to help you get to know him better, whether here in the briefing room or on our many troubles together, including more relaxed settings. i have tried to expose to as much as possible to the man i know. as my wife can attest, i have tried to sow -- make myself available seven days a week, providing everything from colorful quotes to off the record guidance. i have always tried to be a straight shooter, telling you when i do not know something or that i cannot help because an issue is too sensitive. in these ways and many others, i hope i was able to provide as much value to you as a pentagon press secretary as i have tried to. i leave this job with the utmost respect to all of you.

i expect to get an e-mail or two with the thought about what i thought could have been better. it is only because i care. i would be happy to take a few preferably non-substantive questions. you over there -- you will not be recognized for any questions. we can cut the cake. >> i have one substantive question. how will the rest of the staff be staying after the secretary leaves? >> i think those are decisions to be made by the incoming secretary. the outgoing secretary has no plans to make changes to senior personnel. i do not know what secretary panetta plans with regards to his team. i have not heard any plans. >> you came in as a reporter. four years later, can you give a

sense of whether this building, the cult of secrecy, is too great and they need to loosen up? >> when i took the job and met with my predecessors and, the late ken bacon or others, they had one shared bit of advice. that was to retain your reporting skills, because the information does not naturally flow to this position, ironically. you really have to work the phones and get what you can on your behalf. i think that is true. i think this building is at one time very difficult to crack, yet somehow you have done a beneficent job of finding out lots of things. we sometimes have this both ways. i know the secretary laments

leaks that sometimes jeopardize what you are trying to do. he commands you all, as he did with the usa today, with the fact that you all exposed them for their outpatient care at walter reed. he could not have enacted the changes that would have benefited -- that would come to benefit all of our troops. i think there is a nice, healthy tension that exists between this building and the press corps. we try to be forthcoming with what we have and do it in a more timely manner than we do. there clearly is a need for operational secrecy. for us to do all the things that the american people want us to do to keep them safe at night. >> we appreciate the hard work

you have done of the last four years. we all appreciate the access and the things you have done. we hope the next secretary keeps this up. >> thank you. i do not think you will have a problem with secretary panetta. he knows many of you and enjoys engaging with all of you. >> and of the country is pursuing a number of these libya resolutions in congress. can you talk about what impact any of these may have on the operation itself, and whether or not the secretary or any other people here in those departments are engaging members on the hill to talk about what impact these may or may not have, particularly discussions about hostilities? >> the secretary has been on the record on this issue a number of

times in a number of places. he is on the record on that issue, so i will not elaborate. an amendment that would have de- funded the operations -- i think i first spoke out against that at shangri-la several weeks ago. once we are committed to a military mission, it is not wise when you pulled the rug out from under our forces by removing funding from the operation. it was counterproductive. he is opposed to that. i suppose there have been senior level communications up there. thankfully, the resolution failed in the house. but i do not think the secretary himself has made any calls on that matter that i am aware of.

>> on housekeeping, if the new secretary is flown in friday morning, for purposes of continuity of government, is that when the transfer of authority happens? or does that happen sometime on thursday? >> i believe it is when he is sworn in. that is why he is flying out on military air. he still has responsibilities that day. not until secretary connected is sworn in will he be through. >> on thursday, he will be with full military communications? >> correct. >> what have you heard the secretary say that since the president spoke about the austan? now that we now general petraeus and admiral mullen say it was more risky than what they would have wanted and proposed, what is the secretary's view on that, especially in light of his

remarks to newsweek that he has a sense the u.s. is headed to not be automatically preeminent force any more? "i think he said that is a possibility, when he hopes does not happen. we have done a lot of these exit interviews. you have heard more interviews from the secretary than you ever heard from him. i think he has been clear that this is a subject that was driven not just by conditions on the ground, but was also a political. there is a world -- a war weariness in this country that needs to be recognized. whatever decision the president needs to make in order for this to be a sustainable mission. all those things were factored in when this decision was made. the secretary is very important with the fact that we will get basically three-quarters of a

second fighting season with the preponderance of the search force, the 23,000 additional forces. that will mean this surge in all is almost a year longer than the surge in iraq lasted. he is comforted by that fact. he also recognizes that we need to show a dividend for the success we have. after 10 years of war, the american people want to be able to see we are making progress, but also that progress involves bringing some of our troops home. the president has said this must not only be driven by conditions on the ground, but the strategy has to be politically sustainable. he understands the president has to decide how you keep the american people on board,

especially during a time of enormous fiscal pressure. you mentioned the chairman. those are circumstances that they should not be considering as commanders or military advisor is. the secretary is the civilian head of the department. he is cognizant of what it takes to keep this mission going. [unintelligible] >> for the november elections, they want people second funding? >> he suggests that it will be driven by the electoral side. there is a political sustainability that the

secretary teams that is more than important. we have to keep the american people on board. we are spending upwards of $10 billion a month in afghanistan. that is a considerable sacrifice to the american people. we will spend almost $110 billion. we will check on that. >> has there been any more discussion in libya about lethal aid -- about the u.s. providing legal aid? >> not that i am aware of. >> on afghanistan, can you clarify for explain the secretary's role in discussion whatever of theiver racetrack

final decision in the deliberations? >> i think he was asked directly about that last week. i think he backed off in entering that. i will not take the bait either. >> now we have these stories with some of the republican lawmakers. , does that raise alarm bells -- bells or mathematical cuts there? >> i saw that story. to become i did not see anything

alarming in it. i did not see any number targets for any suggestions that it should be done in an unwise fashion. the reality is that secretary gates said -- he started seeing it form on the horizon many months ago. he went to abilene, texas and gave a lecture at the library about how we have to do some internal work to make sure we are best prepared for the fiscal austerity that we are likely to face in the future. i think he is aware of what the climate is economically and politically. we are now being asked to find billions of dollars in this department over the next year. it is a significant amount of money. if it is not handled carefully it can be very devastating to

the department. he is determined -- he has set a process. he has done it in a very measured and delivered -- deliberate careful way. -- from what i understand is that director leon panetta is very much on board with that process. he shares some of the same concerns with the secretary in this regard. they will have to work this out in the next coming weeks and months. >> thanks for being responsive to all of us. [unintelligible] [laughter] on pakistan, secretary clinton said there could be a reduction in military aid in pakistan. you talk about political sustainability.

you talk about it being clinical sustainable in the aftermath of the osama bin laden killing. are they preparing to reduce aid to pakistan? >> i have not heard the secretary in the last few weeks since the osama bin laden raid about the levels of aid. i think what he said he continues to believe is that we need each other. it is a complicated relationship. it requires effort on both of our parts. we both have a huge interest in the outcome of the terrorist problem on the afghanistan and pakistan border. we fundamentally believe we have to work together. i have not heard him at be an advocate for reducing our level of involvement or commitment to pakistan. he obviously shares some of the frustrations that secretary clinton and others have mentioned.

and ultimately, he was there the last time. he saw the tragic consequences of that. i think he has been consistent on this for the past four years that we cannot repeat the same mistake. i know that is not precisely what you were looking for from me. >> all right, two more. >> wherever it is you may go on your next endeavor, argue going to remain here with us -- are you going to remain here with us? >> he comes in after the opening statement. [laughter] [unintelligible] i have to impress my family. what are you talking about? i mentioned that i have to figure out how to live without her or take her with me. i have to figure that out during the month of july. [laughter]

cornyn? >> -- courtney? >> thank you for your words. if i can ask you one last time, how time [unintelligible] have you deployed? [laughter] >> we bought 27,000 of them, right? >> to you bought them. -- you bought them. thanks so much. it has been a true honor to work with all of you. i hope we can stay in touch and work together in the future. take care. >> in a few moments, the supreme court oral arguments in a california law banning the sale

of video games to minors. the law violates the first amendment in this unconstitutional. review the boyer's supreme court's major decisions during this term. -- lawyers review the supreme court's major decisions during this term. later, michele bachmann announces her republican nomination candidacy for president. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, ray lahood previous his trip to michigan and ohio, to discuss transportation jobs. we will discuss policy with scott paul. and you can call in with your questions about energy in the national security to davis pumphrey. "washington journal" is live on

c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> blackberry users, now you can access our program in a time with the c-span radio audio app. it is all commercial free. you can also listen to our signature interview programs each week. it is all available around the clock, wherever you are. download it free. >> the supreme court ruled today that california's law banning the sale of violent video games to minors violates the first amendment and is unconstitutional. the law, passed in 2005 but never enacted, prohibited the sale or rental of violent video games to anyone under 18 years old. it fined retailers for each video game sold to minors. the supreme court affirmed a ruling but said it was too vague

and violated free-speech rights. up next, last november's oral arguments in the case. >> -- california is no less concerned to the level of access of the violence presented in certain categories of videogames that can be no less harmful for the development of miners. when they crafted a will of -- minors. when they crafted a rule of law,

they did so for two important reasons that are important for the case this morning. parents claimed the authority in their own household to direct the upper wing and the development of their own children. it promotes the state's -- upbringing and development of their own children. -- california asked this court to adopt a rule of law prevents children from purchasing deviant violent video games that can be harmful -- >> what is a deviant violence video game -- violent video game as opposed to a normal pilot of video-game? >> it would be departing from established norms. >> are there established norms of violence? some of the grim fairy tales grimight grame quite

. are you going to ban them to? >> -- too? >> not at all. >> what about films? what about the comic books? and details? why art videogames -- and fairy tales? why are videogames selected? >> it is not just deviant violence, but violence that meets all three of the terms that -- >> i think her question was why

just video games, why not movies? >> the california legislature was presented with substantial evidence that demonstrates interaction with an violent video games where the young adult is the aggressor, is the individual acting out of this obscene level of violence, if you will, is especially harmful to minors. >> do you have studies that show that a video games are more harmful to minors and movies are? >> some regard videogames as teachers. they are not only exemplary teachers of pro-social activities, but also teaches aggression, which is a fundamental concern of the california legislature in enacting this statute. it appears that studies are being released every month. >> suppose a new study suggested

that movies are just as violence, then presumably california could regulate movies and just as it regulates videogames. >> there is scientific literature out there regarding the impact of violence literature on children. the president, congress, ftc, parenting groups have been uniquely concerned with the level of violent media available to minors that they have ready access to. >> the andersen study says the fact of the violence is the same for a bugs bunny episode as for a violent studio. can the legislature now, because it has that study, you can outlaw bugs bunny? some say that the cartoon has very little social value. >> i am not suggesting -- to me,

it is not entertainment. that is not the point. >> cartoons do not depart from the established norms of the level of violence to which children have been historically exposed to. we believe the level of violence in these videogames -- >> that same argument could have been made when movies came out. they could have said we have had a grimm fairy tales, but we have never had it live on the screen. >> i think that is the beauty of incorporating the three prongs of the miller standard into california's law. it ensures that only a narrow category of material would be covered. >> how is this different than what we said we would not do where we said we do not look at a category of speech and decide that some of it has low value. we decide whether a category of

speech has a historical tradition of being regulated. other than some state statute that you point to, some of it is very clearly the same -- where is the tradition of regulating violence? >> california submits that when a minor is at issue, the standard should be more flexible. the constitution should recognize that when an audience of miners, the same standards should not apply. the question should not be whether violence has been regulated, but whether it guarantees a minor the right -- cracks have been seen some of the rap music? have you heard -- >> have you heard some of the lyrics of rap music? some of the aboriginal violet songs about killing people and about other -- some of the

violent songs aboutnt song killing people. ? >> we know that the violent material like sexual material appeals to a base in st. -- instinct, especially in minors. >> what age group are you talking about? what age of a child should a manufacturer have in mind? >> your honor, i would submit that just like in the obscenity context for minors. i would submit that the jury

would be instructed to consider minors as a whole. in california, that is under 18 years old. >> how can they do that? isn't the likely perversely -- person to think that what is appropriate for a 17 year old is not appropriate for a 10 year- old? >> i think juries and judges do that every day. >> california does not do that. it has in big letters, 18. it is not, is it ok for a seven- year old, or a 10-year-old. labeling these videogames is no. 8 team. -- number 18. >> i think a jury would be charged with perhaps a standard

of what the community believes an average minor. >> is that halfway between zero and 18? [laughter] >> fair point, justice scalia. i think it could appeal to the typical minors playing this game. >> a video game that appeals to the morbid interest of those 18, and is not suitable for those in the community of 18. at least for those, you cannot sell its witho without of the pt

buying it. you cannot sell to a 12-year- old without it being acceptable for an 18 year-old to buy it. >> can i take you back to the original question of just a -- justice scalia, which is a morbid or deviant of violence. i read your brief all the way through. the state cit -- the statute applies to more than one videogame. how many videogames, the kind of a video games? how would you describe in plain english what more bit of violence is, what do you have to see in this video game for it to be covered? >> i go back to the language of the statute. there were a range of options available to the player, naming,

killing, sexually assaulting, and those types of violence. i would list a games of -- >> any game that has -- that has that kind of violence? >> no. >> how would we separated violence covered and violence not covered? >> i think a jury could be instructed with expert testimony with the video clips of games played to judge for themselves -- >> i am not concerned about the jury judging but the producer of the games that has to know what they have to do to comply with the law. of course a jury can make up its mind. i am sure. but the law has to be clear. how is the manufacturer to know whether a particular violent game is covered? is he to be his own jury and

tried before -- i really would not know what to do as a manufacturer. >> i am convinced that the manufacturing industry will know what to do. they base their judgments every day on the level of violence. >> what does this statute cover? >> i believe some amateur-rated games would be covered, but not all -- mature-rated games would be covered, but not all. >> it seems to me a great majority of questions today are designed to prove if this statute is bigger. he said, the beauty of the statute is it utilizes the categories in the obscenity

area. there is an obvious parallel. for a generation, there has been a societal consensus about sexual material. sexual violence has been around for a long time. there is a societal consensus about sexual material and there are judicial discussions about it. those discussions are not precise. you could have had the same discussions -- questions today, and we would have said with references to obscenities, there are certain materials that are not protected. those rules are not precise at the margins. you are asking us to go into an entirely new area, where there is no consensus.

this indicates to me that the statute might be vague. i just thought you might like to know that reaction of mind. [laughter] >> justice kennedy, as with sexual material and obscenity, we have been somewhere. california is choosing to start now. we can build a consensus as to what level of violence is offensive to minors, just as the case law has developed over time with sexual depictions. i believe the key with similarities that violence has with sex. >> excess of glorification of drinking, of movies that have too much drinking, doesn't have an affect on minors? i suppose so. i am concerned with the first

amendment, which says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. it was always understood that the freedom of speech did not include obscenity. it has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence. you are asking us to create a whole new prohibition, which the american people never ratified when they ratified the first amendment. they knew obscenity was bad, but what is next after violence? drinking? smoking? movies that have smoking cannot be shown to children? are we to sit day by day to decide what else will be made an exception from the first amendment? why is this particular exception ok, but the other ones that i just suggested are not

ok? >> justice scalia, i like to highlight the fact that the material in ginsburg was not a theme. under no definition of obscenity was the fact that the court could regulate a state access -- >> [unintelligible] [laughter] does he enjoy them? >> i want to know what to james madison thought about the violence. was there any indication that anybody thought when the first amendment was adopted that there is an exception to it for speech regarding violence? anybody? >> as to minors, i believe looking at some of the historic statutes that have been enacted in the past, there was social recognition -- >> what is the earliest statute of how much enforcement?

>> your honor, i do not know the earliest statute of of the top of my head. i believe they go back to the early 1900's, perhaps later. >> it has been quite some years since this court has held in one instance the the country legislatures can regulate. they are fighting words. we regulate fighting words, don't we? they provoke violence. the american psychological association and american pediatric association have said certain kinds of video games here create violence when children are exposed. there are 80 people that think the country. some think it is not to the -- and to think contrary. some think it is not contrary.

>> i know of no historical evidence to suggest that our funding father's intended to guarantee -- founding fathers intended to guarantee videogames -- >> discord, with respect to fighting words -- this court, with respect to fighting words, -- there is not spillover potential. your analogy is to obscenity for teenagers not fighting words as i understand it. >> with regards to fighting words, the interest in preventing an act of

>> ky make sure i understand. the state has given up its argument -- going out and committing violent acts. that the state is not saying that is the interest in the law. is that correct? that the state is saying the interest in the law is in protecting children's moral development? >> justice kagan, we welcome that. but the primary interest was the internal intrinsic harm to minors. that is what the state of california is concerned with in this case. >> i have a point of clarification. justice ginsburg talked about the labels portion of this act. the circuit kurt struck those portions of the act. you have not challenged that ruling. there are two sections to the act. one is a criminal act for selling to a minor, and the other is a requirement that you label in a certain way each

video. the district court -- i think the circuit court said both were unconstitutional, correct? >> yes. >> and your brief has not addressed the legal requirements at all? >> we didn't, your honor. in striking down the body of california's law, the restriction on the sale, the court found since it is not illegal to sell these games to 18-year-olds, that the governmental purpose was misleading. so under case law regarding lawyers' advertising of services, the government can require a labeling so long as it is necessary to prevent misleading the consumer. the 9th circuit found that because they struck down the body of the law, the label

would be misleading. >> that is an interesting concession on your part that the labeling doesn't have anything separate from the restriction on sale. i would have thought if you wanted a lesser restriction, that you would have promoted labeling as a reasonable scrutiny restriction to permit the control of sale of these terms to minors. about you seem to have combinch up that argument all together? >> justice sotomayor, i did not intend to concede that the 9th circuit's opinion was correct in any sense. >> well, you have conceded it by not appealing it. ok. your case on labeling rises and falls on the sale to minors. >> at this point i would agree, your honor. >> i gather that if the parents of the minor want the kid to watch this violent stuff, they like gore, and they may even like violent kids, then the

state of california has no objection? so long as the parent buys the thing, it is perfectly ok? >> under ginsburg they are entitled to bring up their children in the manner they is he fit. it is important that the parent involve themselves in this important decision. >> so that is basically all this is, a law to help parents, is that right? >> it is one of the two fundamental interests that are serbed by this law, yes, ensuring that parents can involve themselves on the front end. california sought to enact a barrier between minors and violence just as we block sexual material. california sees the developmental harm to minors is no less significant than that under ginsburg with minors exposed to sexual material.

>> i don't think there is any barriers in california to minors' access to sexual material? >> california has a law, penal section -- >> california has a ginsburg type law. >> yes. >> do you spend a lot of time enforcing that? >> i am not aware, justice alito. there is a warning saying harmful to minors. california's act in incorporating the three bronx of miller goes further be the ginsburg law at issue. >> you have been asked questions about the vagueness of this and the problem for the seller to know what is good and what is bad. does california have any kind of advisory opinion, an office that will view these videos and

say yes, these belongs $belong to keefyent violence and just violence? is there any kind of opinion that the seller can get to know which games can be sold to minors and which ones can't? >> not that i'm aware of, justice ginsburg. >> you may consider one and call it the california office of censorship. it would judge each of these videos one by one. that would be very nice. >> we ask juries to judge sexual material and its appropriateness for minors as well. i believe if we can -- >> you let the government do that? juries are not controllable. that is the wonderful thing about juries, also the worst thing about juries. but do we let government pass

upon a board of sensors -- censors? i don't think so. >> california is not doing that here. the standard is quite similar to that in the sexual material realm. california is not acting as a censor. it is telling manufacturers and distributors to look at your material and to judge for yourselves whether or not the level of violent content meet the pronging of this definition. >> even if you get past the difficult questions of vagueness and how to interpret the law, isn't there a less restrictive alternative with the v-chip? >> i believe you are referring to the parental controls available on some of the new machines? >> yes. >> as we submitted in our briefing, a simple internet search for bypassing parental control brings up video clips

instructing how to bypass. >> the v-chip doesn't work? >> i believe it is limited to television. if i could reserve the remainder of my time? >> thank you. mr. smith? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, the california law at issue restricts the distribution of expressive works based on their content. california does not seriously contend it can satisfy the usual first amendment standards to play to such a law. it is asking this court to grant it a free pass, a brand new ginsburg-like exception. i submit not just videogames, but necessarily, movies, books or any other expressive work that describes or portrays violence that some court would see as deviant and observive.

>> what about the difference where the child is doing the killing, the child is doing the maiming? i suppose that might be understood to have a different impact on the child's moral development? >> well, it might. the state of california has not marshalled a sled -- shred of evidence to say that is through. >> what was the state of the record? >> the state of the record was they were aware of science on both sides but made a judgment that as a matter of common sense -- >> so the court acted on the basis of common sense? >> yes. but in that particular area, examination is an exception that goes back to the founding, they felt it was proper for them to adjust the outer boundaries -- >> but the material wasn't obscene. therl girly magazines.

i would imagine to today's children they would seem rather team. but they were not obscene with respect to adults. >> true. but one of the important things to recognize is they didn't pass on the material before the court. they said is this somewhat larger definition of variable obscenity going to be acceptable. >> talking about common sense, why isn't it common sense to say if a parent wants his 13-year-old child to have a game where the child is going to sit there and imagine he is a torturer and inflict torturing violence on small children and women, and do this for an hour or so, and there is no socially redeeming value, why isn't it common says for a state to say parent if you want that for your 13-year-old, you go buy it it yourself? which is what i think they are

saying. >> the state has to have a reason -- >> it does. i have looked at the studies, perhaps not as thoroughly as you. but it seems that dr. ferguson and dr. anderson are in a disagreement, they aren't in that much of disagreement. they have looked in depth at videogames -- not movies or anything else. and both grooms come to the conclusion that there is some tendency to increased violence, and the mike psychological association and the american pediatric association sign on to a long list on the anderson side that this does hurt children. i have to admit that if i am supposed to be a sociological expert, i can't do it. >> there are two aspects of harm. the one i was about to address is whether parents need additional help in exercising the role they have played --

>> they need additional help because many parents are not home hen their children come home from school. many parents have jobs, we hope. and when their children are there, they do what they want. all this says is if you want that gra due tuesday torture of babies, making it as bad as possible, parent, you do it? what is the science of that? >> with respect to parental controls there, is a whole series of things that parents have available to them and are using today to deal with any concerns about dealing with what is appropriate -- >> any 13-year-old can bypass parental controls in about five minutes. >> that is one element of five elements. there is the ratings. parents are doing the purchasing 90% of the time. even if the child purchases is,

the they bring the game home and they can review it. the game is played on the family division or computer. any harm that is inflicted is supposed to take place over years, not minutes. parents have the opportunity to exercise supervision. plus there are parental controls, which are the same thing the court has found to be significant. >> how much do these videos cost? >> in range of $50 to $60 new. >> not many 13-year-olds walk in with a $50 bill? >> if there are kids out there buying games without parental pgs, they are in the 16-year-old category. >> you are away from the common sense. what common sense is there in having the state with a law where the state can forbid and says a 13-year-old cannot go in

and buy a picture of a naked woman, but the 13-year-old child can go in and buy one of these videogames as i have described. i have tried to take as bad a one as i could think of. you can't buy a naked woman, but you can go and buy that you say to the 13-year-old. what sense is there to that? >> there are various aspects important to understand. violence has been a feature of works we create for children and encourage them to watch throughout the country. >> love is not something that people have tried to encourage to know about? what is the difference between sex and violence, if anything? >> there is a huge difference. >> thank you. [laughter] >> the difference is we do not make films for children in

which explicit sex happens. we do make films in which graphic violence happens. >> we do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch things where they are hitting kids in the head, shooting people in the leg, i am reading. pour gasoline over them, set them on fire and your nature on them. we do not have a tradition in this country. we protect children from that. >> and parents have been doing that since time began. the question before this court is whether you are going to create an entirely new exception under the first amendment. whether parents need it, and if you could figure out what the scope of that is? >> i know this is a fascial challenge. is it your position that the first mendment could no

prohibit the sale to minors of the game i described? >> my position is most people would think this is inappropriate for minors. >> you are avoiding the answer. does the first amendment protect the sale of that video to minors, a minor? >> my opinion is there is not a violence exception for minors and should not be. >> so your opinion is the first amendment -- that the state legislature cannot pass a law that says you may not sell a video to 10-year-old in which they set a 10-year-old girl on fire? >> there is no way to draw up an exception of the first amendment -- >> what if the state of california passed a list of videogames that your association rates as mature and said there is a civil penalty -- you don't want vendors

selling those games to minors? >> exercising our first amendment rights -- >> you don't want that. and california says there is a civil pent attached that to that? >> that would transform the private voluntary system that exists into the censorship commission that this court struck down. when the government does that, and you have to go to them for permission to allow kids into movies or play this game is a prior restraint. it is a licensing authority that the mirs amendment doesn't allow. >> you seem to argue that there is no good reason to think that exposure to really violent videogames is bad to minors. >> i think there is something between harm and appropriateness. families have judgments they make about their children at different ages.

>> is there any showing that the state could make that would satisfy to you that says yes, this is a sufficient showing for this law to go forward. i understand you think the current studies that suggest anything about harm? >> no. >> would there be studies that would be enough? >> studies that could transform 75% of the people who experience it into murderers. that is not the way the mind works. the doctor testified in the illinois trial that the majority of people growing up playing the games would be fine. he acknowledged they are not different from watching violent cartoons or violent packages in the pible. >> you don't want to argue the case on that ground. you don't think abridging the freedom of speech except those make sense.

>> my main ground is exactly that. that it doesn't have a free wheeling authority to create exceptions to the first amendment after 200 years based on a cost benefit analysis. >> we have here a new medium that cannot possibly have been envisioned at the time when the first amendment was ratified. it is totally different. it is one thing to read a description, as one of these videogames is promoted as saying what is black, white and red all over. perhaps the answer could include disposing of your enemies in a meat grinder. reading it is one thing, seeing it graphically portrayed is another and doing it is a third thing. this is something that could not have been contemplated at the time the first amendment was adopted.

to say descriptions in a book of violence were not considered a category of speech that was appropriate for limitation at the time when the first amendment was written is entirely artificial. >> we do have a new medium, but we have a history in this country of new mediums coming along and people vastly overreacting to them thinking it was going to turn children into criminals. it started with comic books in the 1950's. social scientists came in and said to the senate that half the juvenile delinquency was caused by comic books. we have television, we have rock lyrics. we have the internet. >> mr. smith, do you think all videogames are speech in the first instance? you could look at them and say they are the modern day

equivalent of monopoly sets. they are games, that people use to compete. the first videogame was pong. it was playing tennis on your tv. how is that speech at all? >> the games we are talking about have narrative events that are occurring, characters and plot. that is what the state has set out to regulate. it says if there is violence, one person is hurting a human being as the victim, doing it in a way they find offensive in some way, we are did go to regulate it. >> so we are going to separate videogames into narrative videogames and non-narrative videogames. >> you don't have to as long as the law is limited to narrative. if the law said you shouldn't play games that have red images in it or somehow non-content based, that might be a closer case -- >> what about a law that says you can't sell to minors a videogame that doesn't care what the plot is, but no

videogame in which the minor commits vie anti-acts of maiming, killing, setting people or fire? would that be regulating speech? >> well, of course, your honor. >> it is not speech. you are saying you just can't let the kid maim, kill or set on fire. what the law would be directed at is not the plot, not the videogame itself, but the child's act of committing murder, maiming and so far. >> the events in a videogame, what happens in the plot is combination of what the game gives you and what the player adds to it. it is often referred to as a dialogue between the player and the game. i would submit both are protected by the first amendment. >> the child is speaking to the game? >> no. the child is helping to determine what is happening on

the screen just as an actor helps to portray what happens in a play. you are acting out some of the elements in the play and contributing to the events that occur and adding a creative element of your own. that is what makes them different and wonderful. >> mr. smith, your challenge is a fascial challenge? >> yes, sir. >> so if there is one or any applications that would satisfy the constitution, the fascial challenge fails? >> very clear under the law that those tests don't apply in a first amendment context. >> i thought we referenced them last year in the stevens case, and they didn't aplay because we adopted an approach that said this statute was over broad and specifically decided it didn't apply to the videos. >> there is no argument here -- if you can find one game out

there to where this could be constitutionally applied -- >> the tenor of much of the questioning, i think is there -- is there may be a less violent game sold to a 17-year-old, and perhaps that vie lentz -- violates the first amendment. the way we approach the issue in stevens, where we had hunting videos and crush videos would say it is too broad and strike it down, but leave open the possibility that a more narrowly drawn statute might pass muster. why is that not a good approach here? >> you certainly could. the key thing is you strike down this law because this law is much broader than any one game. there is no way anybody is going to come back and draw a statute that gets to what they claim because the english

language is not susceptible. >> throughout you have been arguing your point, which is fair. you have some experts which favor you, and you make that point strongly, and it is a serious one, that it is hard to draw this line under traditional first amendment standards. but i would like you to deal with their point for a moment. their point is there no new first amendment here. there is a category called an x which really are involving things like torturing children, et cetera. maybe you don't like to sell them to anybody. you have an x or some special thing. but they exist, and they fit within a miller type definition. they are much worse than the simple girly magazine that was involved there. and they will use traditional first amendment tests. that is to say there is speech at issue. that speech is being limited.

it is being done for a good reason, compelling interest, namely this problem with the x videos and the torture and living it through. and there is no less restrictive alternative that isn't also significant less effective. so i want you to deal with that directly. because what you have been doing for the most part is saying we would have to be in some total new area, et cetera. but their argument is you don't have to be in some totally new area, et cetera. apply traditional first amendment standards, and we win. that is their argument, and i would like to hear what you have to say about that specifically. >> your honor, they do not suggest that there is any existing exception to the first amendment that would apply -- >> this is not an exception. it is the traditional strict scrutiny first amendment test. >> well, they make a feint as trying to argue that -- >> to get you to focus on it, i

will say i have made the argument. >> there you go. i think if you apply strict scrutiny here, they don't come close to the kind of showing required under the first amendment. they have not shown any problem, let alone a compelling problem requiring regulation here in a world where parents are fully empowered already to make these calls, where crime, including violent crime since the introduction has witness plummeting in this country. in a world where parents are fully aware of what is going on in their homes, aware of the rating system and can use the tools we have talked about. >> why couldn't you make the same arguments with respect to the obscenity statutes? >> because obscenity doesn't have strict scrutiny applied to it. >> why shouldn't violence be

traited the same as obscenity. >> first, there is no historical pedigree to that kind of exception. as i was suggesting earlier there, is a fundamental difference factually. ginsburg works well because we take everything that is sexually explicit and say it is not appropriate for minors. violence would require you to draw a much finer line between exceptable protected violence and unacceptable violence. >> the court has struggled for many years with obscenity. they came up with what we might call the miller standards, and the state has said this gives us a category that we can work with, with reference to violence. >> if you take the miller standard, take out of it scomplitsit section and nudity,

what do you have left? you have a structure with no apparent meng. there is no way to know how a court would apply a standard like deviant violins, morbid violence, let alone deciding which game has a redeeming value. the value in the game is completely in the eye of the beholder. >> you could make all those arguments with reference to obscenity. >> except that you know -- we know, we all know, at least with respect to ginsburg. adult obscenity i would acknobbling is -- acknowledge is a difficult line. under ginsburg, if it has naked people having sex in it, you don't give it to minors. you don't have a lot of cases about that. >> you started ginsburg with something that is proscribeable even with regard to adults. you know there is such a thing

as obscenity which can be proscribed even as to adults. whereas in this case, i don't know there is such a thing as morbid violence which would be eliminated from ordinary movies. >> i think a little history is helpful here. this court has twice dealt with laws attempting to regulate violence. one was winters applying to magazines and books. one was in the 1960's. the city of dallas had an ordinance where there was going to be a commission and review each movie and decide if it was appropriate for children. >> your argument is that there is nothing that a state can do to limit minors' access to the most violent, sadistic, graphic videogame that can be developed? that is your argument? >> my position is -- >> my position is -- >>