of the voting rights act. says this is arrogance on the part of this court to strike down a law that has been passed overwhelmingly by congress. the four liberal justices the next day they strike down the defense of marriage act. he calls it job dropping arrogance that we are overturning the decision of the congress and the executive in the defense of marriage act, a very popular law. against thete defense of marriage act? pretty easy in the middle of the 1990s to vote for that. justice scalia is talking, if anyone was there, they say, wait a minute. weren't you on that exact opposite side of that issue the day before? reasoningthe form of

that there is something you should be skeptical about because of voting ask right was ightsd national voting r act was passed. >> justice alito wrote a very interesting dissent on the doma case, but did not announce it from the bench. did that have room for coverage in your stories? did you think it was worth writing about? >> is certainly mentioned it. he stated clearly that he read the majority opinion that the states should decide for themselves the definition of marriage. if that is what the majority was holding, he agreed with that. he said in a very nice and quotable way. >> speaking of justice alito,

you wrote about his behavior while justice ginsburg was writing hearst. -- reading hers. did you get any feedback on that? what made you decide to put that in the store? >> i got a little bit of feedback on that, yeah. [laughter] >> anybody roll their eyes? time keeping ad folk are -- keeping a poker face. he squids and moves his face. you can tell during arguments that he thinks someone is making a point that he thinks is silly. he has a hard time looking ahead. i think the reason that it seemed relevant was that is sort of recalled moments from the state of the union address in which president obama criticized

the citizens united ruling and justice alito thought he was characterized. who doesn't have a poker face. >> speaking of poker face, justice o'connor was in the court last week for some of the decisions. i was able to see her face across the room. she had a complete poker face. euro a biography of her. wrote ahe -- you biography of her. how is she doing? occasion used a cane. she is 83. she keeps a busy travel schedule. she is involved in her work and talks of a condition her husband died of. earlierd a little book

this year. during the reading of the texas affirmative action case were picked up where her michigan ruling left a decade ago, she sat with her hands clasped and not showing her feelings at all. ruling that did not dismantle or hurt her majority opinion. a lot had to play out and how they would interpret it. i try to get an interview with her afterwards. she said, no. [laughter] person whokind of will eventually say what she thinks about it. the of us remember after 2007-2000 eight term when several majority opinions were undercut, she said two months later it that they have dismantled the opinions. how would you feel about that?

i think eventually she will not be able to keep a lid on it. it is a matter of when. >> sometimes when you're justice o'connor speak, we really here joan -- hear joan. [laughter] >> are you picking up a different accent writing a book on justice sotomayor? >> it is more of a political history than a biography the way the others were. tracing how she maneuvered herself to get on the district court in new york and her elevation to the second circuit and watching this ambitious woman. bookame out with her own earlier this year.

it has been very helpful. it has been helpful to follow her around. she can draw a crowd like no other justice can. >> as long as we're talking about books, adam, here is your chance to talk about yours. journal is philosophies. i thought what the world needed word nice 15,000 narrative a looks at the to thelities that led decision made a few years ago -- few days ago. kindle download on your or ipad or other device on july 9. a cost $1.99.

this is a bit longer than a brief. >> and a ton more fun. [laughter] >> anybody else working on a book at the moment? no. turned 80 inurg march of this year. frail, but there was a story in the post a few months ago about her personal trainer that some people in the audience may not have seen. >> she works i think about twice a week with a personal trainer. someone who works at the d.c. circuit and trains a lot of the judges. i think justice kagan works with them as well. justice ginsburg seems extremely dedicated to it. a real regular. i believe that he said that she

can do 20 or quick push-ups. .- 20 perfect push-ups whether that is true or an advertisement for himself, we do not know. [laughter] there was no documentation of it. she takes care of herself after the health scares she has had. the question is always when she will be ready to leave the court and she doesn't give any of us an indication that the time has come. she is very sharp on the bench. when i started there, justin --nnan and justice marshall they sort of sat quietly and rarely said anything. ruth ginsburg, most most every argument should ask the first rushed in and was really sharp with the question. if there are

them and say it. she is always well prepared an extremely sharp in the questions. the second woman on the court. after a while, she was the only one. now there are three. are they a voting bloc? -- block? 36 possible combinations of the night justice is. the three pairs most likely to vote together are the three women on the court. they are in that sense a block. they're not about because they're female, but they are liberal. in the term or the right is splintered in little bit, you saw the three of them very cohesive. any pair of those three women you put together they vote together a percentage of the time. he is the fourth the

democratic appointee of that crowd. >> in a series of fourth amendment cases, he flipped with scalia. scalia becomes the great opponent of the fourth amendment retractions -- fourth amendment dna ourons in taking blood from duis. and frankie the sniff dog. and all of those cases, breyer takes a conservative side. memberad been original of the commission and always had an interest for the law. he helped write a lot of criminal law. this is the term where we saw that background emerge much more than usual. >> do you think there is

anything in his personal life that might have driven that? [laughter] >> i will let someone else answer that. somebody answer that. >> i'm sure it has nothing to do -- justice breyer had the misfortune to have his home burglarized. >> we have talked a little bit about the other two women, but not yet about justice kagan. she finished her her term on the court. anything more to say about her after several years? is she gaining her stride? did that happen two years ago? does she have more influence in the court? >> i think all of us who watch the court and she is terrific. she is a real talent on the law from the very beginning. she asked good questions and has

a great sense of timing as to when to ask a question. terrific writer. she is as good as it gets. whether a dissent or majority, she writes clearly and. she is quotable. we are always anxious for anyone who is quotable. [laughter] she is terrific. >> she's a very good shot. hunting in wyoming. took down a dough with a single shot. >> i like that justice scalia said she could've done that in his driveway. she is an amazing speaker. she likes the dramatic form. and chief justice roberts recently in indianapolis. the chief would be the keynote her and she was there to deduce him. superb speaker -- the chief

would be the keynote speaker and she was there to introduce them. superb speaker. her and said, i have to follow that? that was really revealing. example with justin kagan's terrific writing, there was a case that did not get much attention on the 24thf june. it was a case versus the united states and how to categorize prior convictions. she was talking about the subcategories of crime. include --d to the think of colonel mustard with the candlestick in the

this is not what usually get in the supreme court decision. [laughter] dissent. the in footnote where he disagreed with her interpretation of clue. the boardgame clue does not pronounce sound or legal guidance. [laughter] whethergame it matters colonel mustard did it. in real life, the colonel would almost certainly not escape conviction simply because the jury could not agree on the blunt instrument he used to commit the murder. funny.nse to a >> he was going along. that was the written equivalent of an eye roll. >> she slipped another one into an opinion.

i wonder if any of you caught it? preemptionse about of local los angeles court regulations. one of the regulations was a truck has to have a lacquered wi a phone number for reporting environmental safety concerns. she put "you have seen it. how am i driving?" i see some smiles in the audience. i watched it on youtube. is a is a song i am told 5309. band called 867- >> two different things. >> who thinks justice kagan knew this?

who thinks one of the law clerks looked at him? -- who thinks one of the law clerks slipped it in? >> i think one of the law clerks slipped it in. she pointed out how she brought for an oralmbat argument on video games. she disclosed that she asked one of her clerks that she was going for in oral argument. i need a violent videogame. one of them volunteered that to her. i'm not sure how much a clerk helped her out on that. >> she is the youngest justice. things -- signs of for they have gotten into an opinion 30 or 50 years ago at all? not totally different. 50 years ago you

would have to have asked -- [laughter] >> thanks. >> we talked about good questions justice kagan and justice ginsburg asked. justice robert did say something one morning. they created quite a firestorm in the press. , are you up to date on that? in a press down larry, we looked at each other. did he really say something? -- i remember we were in a press gallery. we looked at each other. did he really say something? it was quick in passing. he leaned toward the microphone. it seemed he intended for it to be heard. that ended upe

getting dismissed. it was about the appointment of counsel in a capital case. there were some discussion about the quality of the council. justice scalia said something , i see the defendant had a lawyer who graduated from harvard and yell. this is great. yale.m harvard and that is great. he said, he did not provide good counsel. red as at, this was sort of job at -- read as a sort of jab at yale. more interest.en

tryingkind of went crazy to report this and figure out what he actually said. pathetic, but true. [laughter] this is supreme court reforming that's reporting we do for fun -- this is supreme court reporting that we do for fun. council, provide the that is like the third iteration of the corporate construction thescript -- of reconstruction transcript. transcript, it was incomprehensible. a i think there is still dispute to this day whether it

was harvard or yale on the end of that joke. i think some say it was harvard. >> i think it was a general ivy league stance. this is what passes for humor at the courts. yale.re all harvard or scalia went to harvard law school. justice thomas has this complicated i hate yale, his alma mater. justice kagan was speaking at a synagogue and she happened to make some jokes about all of the ivy's and referred to the joke justice ginsburg started at harvard and transferred to columbia.

she worries that some people took offense. it was a joke. this is what we are talking about. if anyone is going to take a step over the harvard and yale have come it will be columbia. -- over the harvard and yale path, it would be columbia. >> it focus on trivial incidents that will get played up on jon stewart. take the most trivial thing. .his is a good example it was the most trivial thing that became the story of the day. did he try to speak? did he say anything? any words come out? [laughter] it seem like a modern matter. >> questioning something that has happened that they all sort of talk about, but there are a lot more questions asked and rapid fire lawyers who come up

before the court that have a out time getting anything before another question comes. all of us have seen a number of can sayen the lawyers anything before there is a question asked. the justices are starting to take notice of that a little bit. the other thing i would say since you're trying to get me in trouble with justice alito is that when you talk to lawyers who practice at the court and werehem which questions they worried about, i find that those who are arguing from the conservative point of view say that they are worried about justice kagan questions being the hardest and those arguing the liberal side talk about thatce alito's questions

goes for the soft spot in their argument. it is interesting. the two of them sit next to each other. that is what lawyers worry about. >> do you think this court is starting to take notice of the fact that they dominate the argument with her questions? will they do anything about that? >> not really. it is an issue. like to beat it is cut off so quickly. especially in a rebuttal. there is a last chance to save the core of the case. some justice jumps in and it is inevitably justice sotomayor jumping in at those moments. havehief justice tends to a face that does not reveal much.

i know that has been an issue for him many times. >> one thing that he tries to do is a band-aid. in that situation where someone is eating into the rebuttal time , he will let the argument run longer. there was a fourth circuit conversation -- this is not a chief justice and an internal workings of the court. the justices are aware of this. but there are eight of them that ask a lot of questions. the number of questions is quite high. justice sotomayor averages 21 questions. that is a lot of questions. does that kind of style make it more important to have experience in the supreme court? written about

increasing specialization of the supreme court arguments. there was a funny story written about a guy who had his case excepted. cepted.- case ac >> i think all of us have written one way or another and how the elite bar is tracking. there are more and more clients turning to this core group of private practitioners. it has become more pronounced because the courts calendar has been shrinking over the years and they are taking fewer cases. they have very prestigious lawyers taking up these cases and looking at picked up more cases. cases forteered to do free once the supreme court has taken it. there was a man named stephen levin.

he was living in guam in u.s. territory. he had gotten his case excepted. -- accepted. it was a claim for medical battery for cataract surgery. his case got accepted. no fewer than a dozen law firms jumped on it and said, please pick me. we will argue your case in front of the supreme court. there is a competition for cases. debate over how seasonedt is to have a lawyer. the justices seem to appreciate it. they like the fact that they can get high-quality advocacy. that is a pitch that many of that the kids make. i can speak the language of these justices. it is a very active bench we have here.

we know how to get in there and make that point. we will not be thrown that justice sotomayor will be asking as many questions while justice alito will be trying to jump in as well. become a muchhas more difficult task to argue than it was when i started covering the court. it used to be the matterhorn and now it is mount everest. i think that is what have ring. you need a lawyer who could be hit with three questions almost simultaneously and keep them in his or her head and respond to them in the order of seniority. it is not easy. do.amazed at how well they there used to be stories of lawyers fainting.

i think stanley reed when he was solicitor general did that. i fully understand. it is a blood sport. >> the specialists are good and how to get a provision granted. the fact that you have a brand- name or a superstar -- they are better at talking to the court in terms of the way he wants to be talk to. it does not want to know that you are a guy who should have won. they want to know why this is an issue that is worth their time i'll give rise to some legal principle. that is not the terms in which most lawyers think. there are several institutions to help the nonessentials. whetherave any sense of

those things are really worth while? do they really help? do they give them a fighting chance? i guess the thing i would point to is the georgetown project where they had the supreme court institute where they had a part of every single case. they want to help practitioners get betty -- get better. >> it is sort of one and the groups haveose experienced active shooters who run the programs -- have experienced practitioners who run the programs. inside theve from

courtroom to the outside front of the court. photos ofveryone has the enormous demonstration out on the sidewalk during some of days.guments and decision rule was that you can have signs and demonstrations on the sidewalk, but you couldn't have any on the marble plaza which is then the steps and most of real estate there in front of the court. , the hoo-haw, a fairly young on the district banningruck down

demonstrations on the plaza. >> just to set it up a little bit, it has always seemed ,izarre that the supreme court the guardian of the first amendment, you cannot demonstrate on the grounds of the court, but you can cross the street at the capital, not at the supreme court. one of the rationales behind this law that was passed by congress in 1949 was that the court did not want to be seen by the public as susceptible to being swayed by demonstrations. it seems like a far-fetched rationale for a first amendment restriction. the law has been upheld numerous times. there are lots of cases and demonstrations every year. it could be the death penalty or

a minister dropping to knees and praying on the plaza court, they get arrested. they usually challenge this law. usually a superior court and then it goes to the d.c. court of appeals and the law is upheld. mentioned,hat was instead went to the federal district court. at long last the law was declared unconstitutional. it is a love that prohibits assembly -- it is a law that prohibits assembly. judge said if you read this literally, it can cover a group of three skewers --

preschoolers huddled together and going up to the plaza for their first visit to the supreme court. they cannot imagine preschoolers visiting the supreme court. not sure they would get much out of it. the law was overly broad. it was struck down. .he court had a week response the the invoke a different theral law that allows -- court had a quick response. they invoked a different federal law. basically had a rule that says the same thing. we cannot demonstrate on the property of the supreme court. that will be challenged no doubt. the litigation process has given reflectt some cause to that maybe there is some middle way, some other way of allowing

for the demonstration on the court laws a. there's a lot of other -- on the court plaza. there's a lot of other activity. press conferences with lawyers. it seems like there is a lot to go on. demonstrations on the plaza in front of the court. he would be hard for anyone to think that you cannot demonstrate at the supreme court because there's constantly footage of people on the sidewalks and after the problem decision, you saw a huge turnout in front of the court.

>> the general public does not know for a majority time of the year that the building is even there. -- very rarely do see anyone who wants to protest outside outside the supreme court on a regular basis. it hasmpression that gotten more and more over the past few years. i cannot remember demonstrations in the 1990s. maybe one or two. now every controversial argument you have bothay, the press and hundreds of people for abortion cases and a gay- rights cases. those are the two biggest draws. plaza think the whole should be a public forum? >> i do not see why not. there could be regulations.

that would be annexed russian -- an expression of the -- an expression of the court. member of justice would take a walk around the block before arguments in the morning. justiceot seen a outside the building since then. we have got 15 minutes left to go in the program. if there are any of you who have been thinking about questions you may want to ask, let me give you a five minute warning. we'll have questions begin in

about five minutes. in the meantime, a general question. were there any big surprises this term? i thought there was big ones and small ones. the egg surprise was the -- thetive action case biggest surprise was that affirmative action case. it seemed very set up for the conservatives to pull back on a big way. there were five on the right that were skeptical of any sort of race-based admission program. 1 decision.t to be 7- i do not know what to make of it. that is something you would not have expected that several of the liberal justices or the conservative justices -- to annexeren't going

it out completely. i do not know. >> what to make the fact fact that they took yet another case? i thought more likely they would have struck down a particular texas. at a that forith david seven of them to get together on such contentious issues is interesting. >> how about a general question? some of the panelists have identified decisions that did not seem terribly important at the time, but contained the seeds of major changes down the road. the most successful addiction i and --r was back in 2000

prediction i remember was back in 2000. it turned out to be a big deal. have anything they think might've occurred this year? >> there was a piece in the arizona voting case. the girl law preempted the state law that required evidence of citizenship to vote -- saying that the law preempted the state law that required evidence of citizenship to vote. there was a discussion in the case about the qualifications clause in the constitution and that states are allowed to decide for themselves who is qualified to vote as opposed to the manner of voting. there are people in the election community who thought that was a sleeper timebomb compromise. >> i agree with that. case that divided

people who should know the answer. lot of election lawyers thought it meant one thing and others thought it meant something else. i think that is one to think about. the other is not a sleeper, but certainly the doma decision laid out a lot of language that i think will be analyzed by a lot of courts in the future. >> prop 8, the kind of standing it went off on is to make it much harder for citizens in the state to put a ballot initiative into the constitution and allow state officials if they do not like it to effectively veto it why not defending it. that would trigger the process. i was going to say that the

arizona election case, but a sleeper for a different reason. justice scalia said election clause gives congress very broad power to regulate federal elections. that the voting's right voting rights case, -- congress would pass a new formula to a special situation where the stock is under federal oversight. on the hand, if congress can agree on some national standard on elections, early voting hours, things like this opens the door for congress to say there needs to be a basic minimal standard to protect the right to vote nationwide. that case seems to invite that sort of law. >> i think that is right. it also seem to foster some agreement on the court that

states decided who gets to vote which it would seem to have a lot of importance for voter id things that the states can decide. have got about 10 minutes left. i invite your questions. they can include comments as long as there is a question at the end. we have a traveling microphone. in the texas affirmative action case, is there another case or other cases that are working their way up through the courts? that the supreme court might have an effect on? have a combined result with the others? >> if there is, i'm not aware of

it. michigan oneut the for next year and the texas case. the texas case will get decided. it requires the texas program to be struck down, that case might rebound weeks later. >> anyone else? some people have pointed out that these affirmative action , it is a slow -- solo plaintiff especially with a heightened standard, a lot of discovery and witnesses so that some of these cases will be harder to bring unless they're well-funded by some organization like the fisher case was.

the sleeper case discussion, clearly the voting rights race is a follow on to the 2009 decision that was a warning shot about the concern about relying on four-year-old data. anything from this term that might be a warning shot to other terms? if so, what are those issues? >> what we have been talking about such as affirmative action one, what burden i be on universities to justify these programs -- might be on universities to justify these programs? there was a cassette involved the utilities that challenge section five of the voting rights act. eight-member court led by chief justice roberts said that the water had an exemption. qualify for the bailout would not go forward.

was laidrtually what there with the help of the liberal justices. that is why the question has come up so much in the texas affirmative action case. the road to adown complete undercutting of affirmative action because of the suggested changes in the fisher case. how everythingng is built unprecedented there, for better or for worse. it is not just a matter of the law, but how justices will do look at in the future. >> it is not a warning shot but citizens united having laid waste to the expenditure side campaign finance regulation is now a first step in chipping away at the contributions. >> anyone else?

we wait for your potential questions. joe? >> hi. a semantic is not quibble. we use the terms conservative and liberal as if they make sense for the voting block on the court. left and right might be a little more accurate. who ruled thates corporations are in an , is a classic conservative position. i want to ask about the terms liberal and conservative. >> who wants to reflect? >> i think it's the shorthand that makes sense to people. when you say conservative or liberal, they know which justices you are talking about. it is a shorthand that doesn't require a degree in moral philosophy. they do a raid themselves across the spectrum. array themselves

across the spectrum. you know which justices we are talking about. >> can you suggest a better term to use? >> left and right. [inaudible] that is your suggestion conservatives are not pro- business? [inaudible] it is a semantic question, but political science question and general question. it is confusing the public to call people conservative when their views are all over the not conservative considerably. and for a liberal, the same thing. >> people are pondering, yeah. >> i think it is one of those

things that is hard for journalists to decide what is the right way. it makes more sense to the general reader to describe the court that way than it does in other ways. may left and right would work. i think sometimes we use those somewhat interchangeably when we justices. the >> maybe we should refer to them by the party of the president that appointed them. [laughter] usthey say who appointed doesn't dictate how we vote. sometimes you think pro- government antigovernment might work. anybody else?

well, we have got a couple of minutes. one more question. requiring -- is retiring after many years. the court has announced that scott harris will take over. does the person who is the clerk of the court make any difference to the jobs that you guys do? anything else the public should care about? >> i think in a general way the online docket is extremely helpful and well done. a lot of policies that bill suitor -- suter instituted have been customer friendly. and lawyer friendly. i think it does make a difference. the clerk of the court is the face of the court in the legal

profession in many ways. i think it is very important that public position. >> does anyone know scott harris? i don't. no? >> seems like a nice guy. [laughter] >> don't want to get on his wrong side. >> much more important for the lawyers than us. the lawyer sit in the front and the press right next to them. advising that doubled onto their wallets. that she is advising that they hold onto their wallets. -- he is advising that they hold onto their wallets. >> thank you for coming. i hope to see you next year. mercy to the panel.

-- thank you to the panel. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] died.liam gray iii he became the first african- american with in the house. six terms in the house before stepping down in 1991. he took part in a panel discussion. here is what he said. when i came in '79, you got ofknow your fellow democrats those who are liberal and conservative so you learn to work with each other. --ardless of your viewpoint the same thing is true of those on the other side of the aisle. the best friend i ever had were republicans.

especially ranking members of the budget committee that i was chairman of. meals together and talked informally about the budget policy. one time he got on the floor. made a mistake in his words. said the chairman of the budget committee had not presumed anything before this meeting. i said, i would like to remind him that i did. we were at his house and having drinks. many.arently had too he said, i want to apologize. he is correct. martin became the ranking member for a while. routine of once

a week having drinks together. she didn't drink much. she was going out with a judge from chicago that she married. drank martinis together. i do not know what i said in those meetings. [laughter] jack kemp became the ranking member. we used to go out and have meals together and talk football. then we would talk budgets. even though we disagreed on almost everything, we learn to like each other. he was not evil and i'm not evil. if people think the guy on the other side is pure evil, my job -- to blow them up you fly in and throw some votes and are out. presidentsman said --

obama is pushing for president morsi to hold early elections are inaccurate. >> let me bring you up-to-date. foreigne that the minister resigned said he does not have any natural counterpart to get in touch with. as he been making any calls from the plane? >> let me say -- patrick talked about this yesterday. touchcus is on being in at the highest levels of both on the ground with our ambassador in the embassy and that the highest levels of government here. i'm sure that the president spoke with president morsi yesterday and the white house put out an extensive readout of

that. i should have an up date that the secretary did speak with the foreign minister. i understand what the public announcements have been, but he is appropriate counterpart. he spoke with him before i came down to speak with all of you. he conveyed the same message that the president conveyed to his counterpart, which is that it is important to listen to the egyptian people. and othersed what he have said publicly that the u.s. is committed to the democratic process in egypt. it does not support any single party or group. he stresses that democracy is about more than just elections. it is about ensuring the voices of all egyptians are heard. he also reiterated what our goal is, which is a peaceful and stable and prosperous egypt. that is what we are focused on. >> in what capacity was he

speaking in? do you consider him to be a representative even though he is resigned? provide an update that the secretary did speak with them. >> he is aware that the guy resigned? >> yes. there are public announcements. again, we are in touch at all levels of government. >> including people who are not in the government anymore? refer you to the government of egypt on that. by it beinghe mean important to listen to the egyptian people? >> he was reiterating what the president said publicly and what was in the readout. is about more than just elections. it is about ensuring that people can have their voices heard usefully.

-- peacefully. that is always the goal. he needs to take steps responsive to their concerns. the secretary agrees that is an important step. >> can you give us an idea of what kind of steps those would be? you do not want to be seen as dictators. what kinds of things does the u.s. think morsi could do to be responsive to the egyptian people's concerns? >> again, what we have seen their is people expressing their points of view and allowing them to do that is an important step. it is part of that process. we know that democracy takes time. what we are seeing happen in egypt is that transpiring over time.

,n terms of what he can do respect the views of the people. you have heard that president called but there are concerns about violence. --ting an end to that >> the protesters want morsi to leave and step down. they want him out. is that the step that you suggest the u.s. thinks would be good? >> i think we have been very clear on the secretary's call to the foreign minister as well as the presidents called to the president that we are not taking sides in this. it is not up to us to make choices. our commitment is to allow the democratic process to take place . it is never been about one

individual. it has that it has been about hearing and allowing the voices of the egyptian people to be heard. president obama has urged president morsi to appease the crowds. >> i have seen that report and i can tell you that it is inaccurate. appears that the united -- es saying that he has to figure out a way to end this crisis. reports that we have been urging early elections are inaccurate. fore have been calls allowing people to peacefully ,ommunicate their concerns

allowing people to protest in that capacity. urging the respect for democracy. those are things that have been called for. >> one of the things the u.s. is looking at is that democracy is more than elections. what does that mean? >> he is respected and hearing the voices of the people. not just putting your ballot and when that occasion presents itself but also calling for freedom of speech and encouraging that year-round. >> coming up in a moment. corporate ceos talk about business in america. then setting where on college costs. later, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke discusses the need for tougher capital requirements for large banks.

next "washington on education. later on our spotlight on magazine series, franc kaplan of mit technology review discusses a recent article on the history and capability of u.s. drones. we will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. about the sustainability of the economy. continues to be a problem. and oneing dealt with

balance in a pretty good way but it is a long-term problem. i think the export oriented economies given europe's problems and given our slow growth are slowing down. still continuing to perform ok but not as they have in the past. unique problems at this point with the government increasingly their use the word dysfunctional. the issues that people are wrestling with the need to get resolved hopefully sooner rather than later. i am not terribly confident that a big bank solution will be found here. all that keeps me up and we have we have exposure in the various countries so we watch very is cyber-security.

secretary panetta describes this as a threat to the united states. when the secretary of defense says that, you have to listen. we have been targeted, all the big banks have been targeted. just about hackers. let's put it this way. it is not just about guys trying to get your credit card number. it is an instrument of the state. there has been lots of press about china, iran, israel. it is a reality. these are very sophisticated people. and so building fire walls difficult. we have a very strong team but this is a threat and this one that should keep us all of that

night. it is a tough one. >> the chairman of citigroup talking about what keeps him up at night. that is one of a number of speeches by corporate executives that c-span has covered over the past couple of months. tonight we will do something a little bit different. one of the reasons we're here is to cover discussions of public policy. we're going to show you portions of speeches by many of those executives and give you a chance to talk back and ask about corporate america and the message you have for business leaders. we will cover a number of topics, everything from health care to tax policy to immigration to unemployment. we would like to hear from you. the number of ways you can participate in the discussion tonight, by phone. linesl open up our phone now. if you are democrat, there is a number to use. independents line.

if you're a business owner, small business, large business, we have set up a line for you. let us know the type of business you own or run when you call-in. we're a we're keeping on -- our eye on the hashtag #cspan. danny says -- we posted the question and a number of postings so far. justices think about this. jeremiah of with a simple get control of your greed. that is on facebook. we mentioned we covered a number of speeches recently.

among the folks you will hear from, tim cook, the ceo of apple. also the head of xerox. fred smith, the founder and head of fedex and arne sorenson. the numbers are on your screen. go ahead and start dialing and participate by twitter and facebook as well. he talks here briefly about the economic recovery and consumer confidence. here is what he had to say. >> what i would say are a few key things. i think the consumer has demonstrated an incredible resilience in a very challenging economic environment. the question is how long will that last? but the consumer is held up relatively well. you also see that in spending,

you see that in the credit performance. for the industry overall, they are at close to historical lows. we're performing 50 percent better than the major bank card issuers. i think that that demonstrates some view that the consumer health is pretty decent. consumer confidence has held up pretty well. notve been of the view surprisingly that the economic recovery as i look at it in the broad scale is going to be relatively slow. i do not have a great deal of nfis going

to be any turnaround in the near term. what we have to hope for is it>> the head of american express, one of the recent speeches we have covered from across the country on c-span, looking at issues of public policy. for the next 50 minutes we're getting your reaction. what message do you have for corporate america at? we covered speeches on a wide range of issues that have a number of different functions and congressional hearings. if you own a business or run a company. what are the largest corporations and america according to fortune magazine, let's take a look at that. wal-mart is number one with a revenue of $469 billion and a profit of $17 billion. phillipsfter that, '66, and number five is berkshire hathaway. investment company. apple is sixth on the list with

100 jetty $7 billion in revenue. $42 billion in profit. general motors at $152,000,000,000.50 dollars billion in profit. general electric after that. valero energy. and the ford motor co. rounds out the top 10 according to fortune magazine in terms of corporate revenue and profit. let's go to our phones. greg is on the line. what is your message for corporate america s? >> it seems to be a disparity between the salaries they are earning and the workers pay. upre do think that will end in the next decade? >> what you think is behind this corporate salaries going up

like that? >> when the competition causes them to pay more -- they have to pay to get the best talent. $39according to that report- million in overall compensation. robert eiger, the head of disney. and at no. 6 is the head of the ebay, john donohoe. howard schultz of starbucks with $29 million in compensation. rounding out the top 10. mentioned there was in a number of publications including the new york times recently. rounding out the top 10.

you are a retail shoe store owner. tell us about that. >> basically a family run business. the government is trying to stop small and medium-sized businesses by taxing the crud out of us. thatat is the challenge family-run businesses use a faces? >> -- you say faces? >> the new health care bill is a monster. for company my size. just in that regulation is going on right now. >> how many locations do you>> 5

locations. >> thanks for calling in. he mentioned the health care law that was passed in 2010. the newshiafrnoon about that and the implementation of the health care. here's a tweet from mark knoller. to delayoing implementation. that is from mark knoller. the obama administration delaying until 2015 after the 2014 midterm elections for a limitation. to euronext from -- we wanted to hear next from another leader. we have one more call in here before we hear from our next ceo. go ahead. caller: working 15 years in corporate america and starting

my small business. i would like to see which states rank higher for the economy? maybe it is california. where do we see the next growth cycle as far as what part of the country would be really interesting? >> how is the business environment in new jersey? butt is competitive overall, i think there is an overall population moving out of state. law because the complex structure, the cost of doing business in the state. but the benefit is that the population is quite high. the proximity to new york city. there is all this benefit on that side of it. >> what kind of business would you start? you mentioned starting a business. >> we're in the fast-food restaurant business. >> thanks for calling and. the head of bp's spoke about

the difficulty that some businesses are finding investing in the current economic climate. let's listen in. >> balance sheets are extremely cold. much of that cash is offshore because of the differential tax rate. we do feel that it is more important at this point to do something rather than nothing. there is the time perhaps and an economy that is moving along well where the stalemate is fine in washington. right now there is too much uncertainty and leadership in the government and private sector is critical. our message is very much that it is time to get together, work up something where everyone compromises how we do and business. create some past to the future.

isgeneral the u.s. economy healthy. it is just being held back right now. there's a lot of latent capacity in the u.s. economy and the u.s. economy is healthy. it is being held back right now. >> you carry a lot of stuff. i will not ask you how much. presumably the amount of stuff you're carrying is increasing all the time. why do not continue to invest and if you are, how much really are you being held back by the uncertainty in washington? >> ups is fortunate. we have been around for over 100 years and continually innovative. we carry 6% of u.s. gdp in our network. from the largest corporations to the small mom-and-pop business. we see the hesitation for investment very noticeable in small and mid-sized customers that perhaps do not have as the pockets and not have international markets to address. we have seen the larger businesses go global to find new growth outputs. that is harder to do for small

and medium customers all the we think it is critical to u.s. competitiveness. the impact it has on ups is right now, the u.s. economy is chugging along may be added to percent rate or so. nowhere near what you'd expect any economic recovery. we're growing less and not able to expand as rapidly because demand is not there. but because of a long-term perspective, we do make investments that may not pay back in the next couple of years. we're still making investments that are prudent but it takes- it slows the rate of growth. >> we're hearing from corporate executives and some other comments on public policy issues, issues that affect them. we're hearing from you, your message for corporate america. we are keeping our eye on twitter. goodar from kevin, evening. >> those shalit -- salaries do

not differ much from professional athletes, actors, musicians make. is pretty much 0 outrage toward them. i would like to apologize to the corporations of america for our government being so ignorant and making it easy for them to do business in china, taking jobs away from the americans such as myself. i am unemployed. >> what kind of job did you have? >> i worked in a manufacturing facility. i have worked in construction. it is next to impossible to find jobs in this field right now. >> thanks for checking in with this. cranbury township is next. >> i kind of agree with the last caller. i think there is this culture ofcorporate greed that kind

exists. the salaries are greatest. no one begrudges in a free marketplace earnings. disparagingut the environment that exists between the ceo, and a mid-level to lower-level management or even a lower level worker. it is absolutely said. -- sad. more needs to be sensitivity to a little less profit. the work force that could be inspired that has a chance to make more than what they're making. profits are of. we can go on with the examples. we're headed in the wrong direction. the way is to be was a lot better.

corporate america is trying to fool the public at large. with the patronizing and they do with the benevolence to go through the motions on. >> it in the discrepancy between the top -- what the top makes and with the average worker makes? >> it is not just the number. lesseason why the top made is not because they made less, there was a concern to mid- level workers that deserved it more than had more perks and more things. profits are being made but they're being taken at the top. it feels uncomfortable. generally speaking even in a free marketplace it makes me feel terribly uncomfortable and i think we're headed in the wrong direction. >> it says here you have a small business.

you are currently running a business? >> i am. >> i have from myself and situation hard to find work in construction. agot my own business, i am veteran and i am speaking of work. i put god first and work second. i am blessed to be american, thankfully to live in america. people back on history, how i got here. we had people come here. we established churches and we worked hard. i didn't--- bring back to basics of the people who was here in this country. will love each other, love of god. wigeon rely on the people of the government to apply our needs.

f and will see how i can change it. -- we will see our country make a change. >> he and another caller -- those working in the construction field. there's another issue on the corporate side. microsoft talked about the issue of finding skilled immigrant later -- on immigrant labor. >> microsoft and across the john g. sector, where and physically -- we are increasingly grappling with this issue. we're not able to fill all the jobs we are creating. -- numbers tell the story the number of -- and time when unemployment hovers below 8%. the unemployment rate is falling down to 2.2%.

bemis the categories in has fallen 2%. getsituation is likely to worse rather than better. the bureau of labor statistics says asserted that this year economy is right to free of young -- economy will generate new jobs. we estimate that all of the colleges and universities in the country put together and produce this year only foreigners semaphore of this is why we are how -- it addresses the green card shortage.

it creates a new green card category for a balanced stender raise. all things that are needed. the bill quite likely the olive hyde -- companies that with changes to ensure that american workers are protected car raises the aids law. protected. employees can switch employers. it addresses a number of other issues and even though we have lingering questions about potential language and potential of unintended consequences, we recognize the compromises needed all around arab to be able to work with this committee and staff as you go through the details. there is the third thing this bill does. that is of lectionary

importance. -- extraordinary importance. prius and national stem allocation fund. the reason we have such a shortage of high skilled labor is wheat under invested as a country in the education of our .wn children -- we have systematically under invested as a country in the consider this. there are over 42,000 has schools of america. this year, the number sinified to cheesy attachment player -- [indiscernible] it creates the model for national stem education fund this bill follows much of that model but i hope you might improve even further. raise the fees on visas, on some green cards and invest

that money in the american people so we can provide our own children with the educational opportunities there will need to develop skills to compete in increasingly competitive world. as a company, microsoft spends more research and development. we spend 85 percent of that money in one country, this country, the united states. our industry has come to washington because we want to keep jobs in america. we want to fill jobs in america and we want to help create more jobs in america. in the short run, we will need to bring more people back from other countries to america. we hope and the long run some of us -- some of them will follow in the footsteps of albert einstein and great technologists and scientists

and entrepreneurs. what to do more than that. we think the country should seize the moment to invest in our own children as well. if we're going to do all that, if we're right to do any of that we need your help. thank you. >> testifying before the senate judiciary committee. that was on the immigration bill that passed in the senate before they went on the july 4 recess. all the speeches and testimony google where are showing you is available on our video library. what message do have for corporate tricare? corporate america? >> a couple of points. flore the compretta rate of low-skilled americans. and the reason illegals are coming up here, they want a

better life in a better job but it wanted to appear for a job. you use e-verify. the second point is your college loans. pfft fitcolleges are loading kids up with debt. tie the college loans and the various programs to the degree they're pursuing so you'll get more money to get a storm debris, to get a degree in science and technology. you will earn more when you get out of college. that will put pressure on the colleges to lower their costs. as opposed to keeping all the raise equal. we will give you all the college look you want. we have a trillion dollars a student at -- in student debt.

>> old college loan is an issue congress will face. the rate above went up for new lines -- new loans to 6.8%. happen go ahead with your comments. >> i have a question. last month there were five people that got caught -- you're getting a little confused. new your television and go ahead with your comments. there were [indiscernible] do know anything about that? >> i do not.

>> i'm going to let you go. thanks for calling in this evening. larry on the line. go ahead. but i think that we need to scale back on automation so much. that has put a lot of people out of work. now, i did not know what we can do with the horses -- with the horse out of the barn. a side of putting people out of work. and unlike the previous caller said, we pick up the phone now and how a systems problem and we have some money in the

philippines or india or summer. those are jobs that people right here used to have and they do not have them anymore. we have recordings on the telephone where they used to be operators. all of that, the people that are out of work and when they're out of work, the cat by the supplies. they cannot buy the supplies. who are we making this applies for? >> are you currently employed? >> i retired from the military. >> thank you. here is the bloomberg story from today about the sales of gm and ford sales rises. the makers of gm and ford. new vehicles accelerated to the fastest in 67 months. one company that is involved in the auto industry is bosch. they have internships in germany. >> these are programs with

are vital. if you look at how germany is set up with their dual education system we get to go through the standardized schooling and you have a -- to apply with the company, you get a specialized training for not manufacturing but other areas. we see that to be beneficial in germany where the unemployment rate has dropped significantly due to this. bring these types of programs into south and north carolina. >> vester may have a lower unemployment rate among young people, lower than our rate in the united states? >> yes they do. >> is that due to this dual education approach? >> i believe it is. >> that is something we should analyze in this country moving

forward. jobs in the local communities, here is what the head of xerox>> if there's a problem and education, businesses engaged locally with educational institutions and try to do the best they can. we found is the engage a lot. a lot of money, a lot of time. a lot of human capital engaged in grade school all the way up through universities. one of the things that we're doing is we formed this organization to get companies pointed to more effective ways to use the money they are using. there is a lot of work at the business roundtable. cynicism is not the name of the game. when you go out and try to operate a business, we do work to try to solve problems. a little help from government would be nice. we figured out a way to do it without having a turbocharge behind us but imagine if you had a turbo charge behind us.

ofexports we have a lot work. to try to enable and lay a system that will help small to large companies export more of their goods and services. that is the goal of the export complex. it is an infrastructure that can work. there are private companies that are saying we're not going to wait and see, we will debate the keystone pipeline. we will explore. i do not think we're sitting back. i do not think there is cynicism until we come here and start to talk about the problems here. only go back to our home bases. we work and we tried to solve the problems. >> back to calls and

comments. your message for corporate america. matt makes fuel efficient engines. go ahead with your comments. >> i am the chief consulting engineer. we are developing a 30% higher thermal efficiency engine using gasoline, natural gas, diesel, or jet fuel. a 30% higher thermal efficiency. a car will go approximately 30% more miles per gallon under identical conditions. >> said the number one thing the federal are red can do to to begin this year free to get your product to market. >> first of the can give us a grant of $20 million so we can demonstrate to the world that

this and generally does we're preaching which is 30% higher thermal efficiency. and then later on, with this product will do is reduce the fuel consumption by $40 million per day. >> thanks for joining us. this is the lines of four businesses. we're also looking at facebook and asking the same question. what is your message for corporate america? reaction to comments from the general counsel of microsoft. the evening. what is your message for corporate america? >> there is several things. this is coming from a liberal. thisf the biggest problems -- [indiscernible] we need to overturn larger corporations and get rid of the monopolies, back down, small banking, small corporations. put business back into the people's hands. hasproblem is everything

gone too large. we have got the workers are working part-time to 32 hours. it got a small percentage of the population that can [indiscernible] it cannot have the people to spend back into a consumer economy. you have too many college degrees that are not even necessary in today's economy. it takes the average job market 30 years ago and -- you take the average job market of 30 years ago. there would get hired within minutes sometimes. nowadays it turns into a two or three week process.

it got a small percentage of the population at large percentage. you do not have the people to spend the money back into a consumer based economy. , someone callning about college. you have degrees and are not necessary. you take the average job market years ago and people can walk into a job, they can talk to a person, do an interview and get hired with and met sometimes. nowadays it turns into a two or three weeks process. you sit there for hours filling out a job application. i have witnessed it. wal-mart is not the only one

that does this. partment a lot of hr de bloat. itre is all this bloat, and bloats up the hiring process. that peopleain going on unemployment. >> thank you. but to get another call here from sun city, california. good evening. work forcethe best in the world. there is no other place a would rather live. the corporateth america nowadays is when you get into a company, i work for a company that has over 1000 stores in three different

countries. the nickel and dime you want to get in. corporate america is nickel-and- diming me. one of the reasons private workers are disgruntled with our government is because the unions that they care take as well as government workers. i am sure they do work fine. and hard at what they earn. betweena discrepancy the private workers and union government workers. >> more of your calls coming up.

we are using twitter tonight. here is one from dara. we will hear more about that in a moment. wells fargo and walmart running at the top five. jpmorgan, berkshire hathaway, ibm, and microsoft. wasapple ceo timothy cook on capitol hill recently testified before the permanent investigations subcommittee in the u.s.. largely the issue was about the offshore enough corporate profits. here's some of what he had to say.

[video clip] >> last year our cash effective tax rate was 35 percent. we paid nearly $6 billion in cash to the u.s. treasury. that is more than $16 million each day. we expect to pay even more this year. i would like to explain to the subcommittee very clearly how we view our responsibility with respect to taxes. apple has real operations in replaces with apple employees selling grill products to real customers. we pay all the taxes we wrote every single dollar. when not only comply with the laws but we comply with the spirit of the laws. we do not depend on tax

gimmicks. we do not move intellectual property offshore and use it to sell our products back to the united states to avoid taxes. we do not stash money on some caribbean island. we do not move our money from our forces and dearies -- foreign subsidiaries. they hold 70 percent of the cash because of the rapid growth of our international business. we use these earnings to fund our foreign operations such as spending billions of dollars to acquire equipment to make apple products and to finance construction of apple retail stores around the world. under the current u.s. corporate tax system, it would be very expensive to bring that cash back to the united states. unfortunately, the tax code has not kept up with the digital age. the tax system handicaps

american corporations in relation to our foreign competitors who do not have such constraint on the free movement of capital. host: more of your phone calls in a moment. i wanted to show you the back and forth at the senate hearing asking tim cook, the head of apple, whether any profits made in the u.s. offshore. [video clip] >> i know some of it depends on where the sale occurred. but some of it depends on a decision you are making internally about where your going to allocate what you're getting for your intellectual property. where is that decision being made and what do you base it on in terms of how much money comes back to the american companies are paying taxes versus how much is attributable to the international companies. >> it is a good question.

theything that we sell in u.s. is taxed in the u.s.. for foreign country, generally speaking, when we sell something in a foreign country, it is taxed in the local market. and then if it is one of the country's that are being served from ireland, those units are generally sold by an irish subsidiary. it is taxed to the degree it is going to be in the local jurisdiction. the proceeds moved to an irish sub. in many cases it is ali. it invests apple's ernings. -- earnings. >> the many thousands of dollars to have gone from a over the years, do any of the from that actually get

part in ireland or in any of the international countries under the aegis of international property? >> i think mr. volek could answer this better than i. >> the answer is no. 100 percent of the profits on any sale to a customer in the united states whether it is through the channels, or our online stores, all of that is taxed in the u.s.. there is no outbound payments going offshore. host: a report ordered by senator carl levin. here is the headline today. a government watchdog agency found that profit will u.s. companies paid u.s. federal income tax equaling 12.6% of their worldwide income.

big businesses are lobbying hard to reduce the official u.s. corporate tax rate. the highest in the developed world that 35 percent. to me said, arizona. chris is on our independent line. caller: my general message is to corporate america act, it is true and are playing fair, and you love america, you believe america at. invest in to us, the people, keep your money here. if you guys are paying your fair share and are playing fair, if our rent is overspending, then support us. again, the people who purchase

all your products. if you guys are trying to play as the big guys and you're on our side than sure yourself as being on our side. it is the government that is boris spending, join us and let's cut out some of the fat in government. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a quick response to the gentleman from microsoft's comments. i fully respect the rights of all -- my great grandparents came as immigrants and i respect our nation's heritage. this deal mentioned there were 50,000 students in a country -- [indiscernible] thes wondering what corporations could do to reach our to as before the reset to other countries for help. host: what kind of work do you

do? caller: i am a student. host: what are you studying? caller: computervision. host: thank you for calling. hi, pery, you're on the air, go ahead. in chula vista, california. caller: i think there is nothing wrong really with corporate america. i do not think there is anything wrong. host: is your restaurant franchise or is it a stand- alone? caller: it is a hardees. host: there was news about the delayed implementation of the health care law.

aboutoncerns do you have the implementation of that law? >> nunnelee any concerns. -- not really any concerns. host: the mandate requiring businesses to provide workers with health care will be delayed a year. delaying the requirement until 2015 is an enormous victory for business that had lobbied against the health care law. it means that one of my-one of the requirements will be implemented after 2014 when the gop is likely to use the affordable care act to attack vulnerable democrats. arne sorenson said the has not cost the company that much.

[video clip] >> how has the obama health bill affected your business? >> i think when we look at the first of 14 will see the mandatory coverage. we have we think about 90 percent of our employees are full-time, 30 hours or more. we will be required to provide insurance to them. we think that this could be 60 million -- 600 million to $100 billion. -- and 60 to $100 million. interestingunch of things we will see next year. we do not know how many of the

folks who are not covered by our plans are covered by spouse's plans and how many are also the young and invincible basically say i do not want to pay my 25%, i would rather go naked because i do not think anything will happen to me. how many are folks that are too tight with the wallet and cannot afford it. we will see when the dust settles that is the letter to categories that are obligated to have insurance. host: you have a pretty good sense of what the burden on the company is and what it will cost. >> it was a pretty wide range. that suggests there is a lot we do not know. host: we have 10 more minutes of your calls and comments. your message for corporate

america. caller: good evening. a lot of the things that were said, i agree and i have been listening to the lot. i feel the big thing that sticks with me is too big to fail. we used to have monopoly law. i do not think the monopoly law is working. host: what is now working for you? caller: to many businesses are too big. and i think we did at one time have a monopoly tight laws. i think when a company grows so big, the dave grow up -- they broke up bell. host: things seem to be going the other way to you? caller: they influence our

government to much. it will not -- it is overwhelming and we have a union lobbyists. i just feel that everything is -- host: we just lost frances. woody tweets in -- steve says -- a couple more calls to kill you up -- pull you up. caller: 0 would like to see more businesses and co-op oriented business that i think away from the one

percenter mentality. i think that is a good idea. host: what kind of manufacturing are you? >> we premarin-week pre manufacture -- we pre manufacture pump applications. government should underwrite for small business. aerica has turned into country where we speak so strongly of small business and that is where we get patriotic and that is rah-rah and will of small business. -- we love small business. imagine if you would underwrite 500 million toward.

the pump stations. the government could underwrite with public offerings. the small business administration is governed [indiscernible] we cannot get to the table and yet i have patents on stations and whether it is a web page or a meeting, we are overshadowed by large corporations. we're challenged daily by large corporations. i would like to see this be the role of the day. it should be people like me with master's degrees, small business but we are passionate about america. i did not think this will ever be seen in america. caller: this was approved by the senate before the left.

here is one from daphne. joseph talks about and this is conversation that is going on back and forth on line. on the issue of fuels. fred smith talked about the need for higher taxes on fuel, pitcher joey on gasoline because of the issue of the infrastructure across the country. >> the combination of the leadership of congress and the regulating transportation and the funding mechanism that was put in place to build our transportation infrastructure was very important to the

economic prosperity of this country. beginning in the middle part of the 1990's, the primary funding mechanism for the highway system has been allowed to atrophy. is particularly unfortunate because we have had enormous improvements in efficiency in terms of the miles per gallon of both private automobiles and the equipment that will operate. the net effect on the traveling public or the shipping public is not unmanageable. that is the easiest, quickest, and most effective way to solve the problem is to put and a fuel tax to fund improvements. on the aviation side, there are mechanisms there to do the same

thing. you cannot wish these things will happen. they have to have the money to fund them. host: your message for corporate america. we have a couple more minutes. caller: i wanted to comment on the high corporate income tax in america and held that makes us competitive internationally. shifte really need is to that path and that revenue we may receive to a carbon tax and really try to keep the revenue neutral but protect us and our environment versus keeping this corporate income tax in place which is going to be abused and taken advantage of other corporations with the most money. host: jonah said -- back to brooklyn and richard on

our democrats' line. caller: corporate america needs to invest in our children. so that they stay motivated. it must start with the use like in critical. you disregard children, you disregard our growth, our citizens, our country, our fabric of life. education has always needed corporate participation. backing and also on a daily basis and not just on career

day. every day is a career day. this is to be presented to our children at schools. corporate america needs to invest in our children and if they invest in our future, the almighty dollar will appear. i just say corporate america needs to expand their view of spirit and then growth will occur. host: thank you for your call. a quick look at the headline about apple and their new server farms. apple will build a solar farm to power their reno data center. we showed you the comments of tim " talking about corporate of shoring.

test. .

.

good morning, c-span!

banks are not getting exposed to interest rate risk?that means there is less risk sensitivity in assigning >> you are accurate in your assessment. the overall comment about cap -- capital, not capturing interest risk changes, is only partially correct in that we do not have a standard way of doing it, that our rules as far back as 15 years contemplate that that should be measured in the assessment of the bank's capital adequacy. 2010,ecently, around because of the lower interest rate environment, the financial

regular mint -- regulator entities, we looked for expectations in these realms, how they should be adjusting and managing in the relatively low interest rate risk environment with the understating -- understanding risk would rise. we issued guidance in 2010 some of the basic expectations we had around changes in interest rates and how they could affect the organization's capital. as well as things like internal controls and corporate governance. in 2010, that was received relatively well, but there were questions. in 2012, we put out a series of guidances to address principal concerns raised by banking organizations. in that guidance we went into more detail on the use of the internal models, the appropriate methodologies that one should consider in assessing the asset on capital, as well as the basic

things, assumptions about net interest margin projections as well as multiples and interest income. from the overall standpoint, what we are advising firms and instructed our staff to do is to continue to be diligent in pursuit of risk in insurance, but not come up with quantitative adjustments as much. we are incorporating in our q&a's basic assumptions about analysis and what that would do to your portfolio. we have the basis for which we can move forward on this, and our firms are integrating that into practice. it remains to be diligent as rates increase, to follow up with firms as they implement

changes to strategy so we do not fall behind. the idea that interest rate risk management is not given as much attention, we are a little bit ahead of the curve in that. our guidance does address the concerns you are highlighting. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i compliment the staff on bringing this forward for final consideration. i have witnessed the process of careful consideration of comments and lots of thought, thoughtful approaches to the whole project, and i would say the final product seems to be an improved balance between implementing basel 3 and improving and raising capital standards, in a way that avoids unnecessary regulatory burden.

in particular, it seems to me this time for us as a reviewing comments and reacting to public thought has resulted in a better balance for smaller institutions that have less access and different business models. we have reflected their concerns in the final product. an area in which we have received a good deal of comment but have gone ahead as proposed is mortgage servicing assets, and i would ask one question. for mortgage-servicing assets, can you comment on the questions that we had and the comments and concerns that were expressed in the decisions that we are seeing? >> under the proposal, we are maintaining the reductions of these efforts from capital. i think the rationale behind it

is similar to our current rules, limitations on how many assets can be included in capital, and because of the intangible nature of these assets, there is concern of the ability for a bank to realize the value of these in times of stress. we did preserve the proposal and we do still have strict limitations on the inclusion of mortgage-servicing assets in the final rule. the idea is service will have a fair transition time in which to add just for this. there are a handful of firms that add concentrations and will have to adjust their business models to address it. the thought is there is difficulty in realizing the value of these. >> ok, thank you very much. what i would like to do now is ask for positions. we have two issues, one is the

broad capital proposal, the other technical amendments to the market risk cap old rule, and after we hear positions, we will take two votes. let me start. vice-chair, can you hear us? >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> thank you. i support approval of the proposed final rule on standards and the proposed rulemaking on market risk. i would join others in thanking the staff and the banking supervision for bringing the joint loan making to fruition. [indiscernible] to implement basel 3 is a major accomplishment, and i understand certain community banks around the country are concerned about complexity, regulatory burden,

and the potential impact on the cost and availability of credit. we think some of the proposed changes, the rule we are looking at today shows appropriate sensitivity of these concerns. most important, this proposal raises the quantity and quality of capital regarding banking organizations, large and small, and create the capital conservation buffers so supervisors can act to restrict capital by firms undergoing stress. as the governor noted, it remains an agenda of work to ensure the safety, soundness, and solvability of the largest financial institutions. the crisis showed the need for both capital requirements to include the safety and soundness requirements in the system.

those rules are important to this goal. we are told about the uncertainty of the rules of the road that govern their businesses. i hope the publication of this rule will serve to mitigate uncertainty. >> thank you. >> thank you. i support approval of both the items on our agenda. i believe strengthening requirements, including the addition of a capital equity requirement, is an important element of a stable system. due to capital conversation buffers, it is a prudent safeguard for banks. the approach included in this rule, combined with exercise, and additional comments mandated by dodd-frank create a multidimensional approach to the

adequacy of our largest institutions. at the same time, i think this capital rule will prove to be workable for maintaining the capital strength and community banks tomorrow without unnecessary operational complexity or capital volatility. the time we took to review the comments we received and processed potential changes to the proposal that would be responsive to concerns are different from those that were proposed. it is time to provide clarity so institutions can proceed further strategies. as i read through the lengthy federal register and i realized it is all too easy to discount the hours of hard work that it took to reach this outcome. i want to recognize the staff work that went into achieving such a balanced result. i wanted to thank governor tarullo for his efforts. he has been determined to create

a strong capital regime with appropriate incentives got risk management and safeguards for arbitrage. this has required him to spend endless hours in discussion and negotiations with counterparts in the international community, other regulators, and occasionally with me. the product of these negotiations is a strong rule that will promote resiliency, and i am proud to support it. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to say among the more productive hours i spent in this pursuit are the ones in governor duke's office. i support both of these rules. >> thank you. >> i too want to voice my support. i want to commend the staff for their tireless work and bring

this to fruition as well as the work of governor tarullo and the committee. >> thank you. >> i support both items. i wanted to add my thanks again not only to the staff, to governor tarullo who has been a force of vision and implementation on all of this. again, just offer my support. thank you. >> i support both items. thank you again to staff and governor tarullo. >> i support both items. these are important steps to making our banks safer and for higher-quality capital. i would like to thank the staff for their hard work. i would like to thank governor tarullo, but this was a board effort. i think it shows in the final product.

this will represent an important international commitment that we are fulfilling which will trigger international monitoring and comparisons of the different regimes, which will strengthen the global financial system at the same time. we have been received lots of domestic answers, concerns of small banks, and that is a delicate balance that we have managed reasonably well here. this is as the governor pointed out, the beginning or the framework in which more will be done to strengthen our largest and most internationally active banks inclurding looking at the leverage ratios, capital surcharges, senior debts, and holding companies' liquidity, stress tests, so many components which will work together to ensure stronger banks.

i final comment is that it is good to have rules out there in black and white, but ultimately the implementation by the banks, by the examiners, and by us here at the board will be critical. we will need to make sure the risk models are safe and there are adequate safeguards to make sure they are adequately capturing risk. we will need to develop capability to assess risk as we were doing in the context of the stress tests. we will need to strengthen our supervision and our examination to adequately make use of this new framework, and as the governor mentioned, disclosures will be important so the public can understand what the capital standards are, how they are applied to individual institutions. we have learned through our stress testing that effective disclosures is an important

mechanism for increasing confidence in our banking system. i am pleased to support these measures. could i have a motion to pass the final regulatory capital proposal? >> moved. >> all in favor, please say aye. >> aye. >> are there any nos? any extensions? thank you. i need a proposal for the risk capital rule? all in favor? any opposed? any extensions? both measures passed unanimously. i thank the board for their work and participation. the meeting is adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> former pennsylvania congressman william gray died monday in london. he was 71. mr. gray served as chairman of the house budget committee and became the first african- american to become the majority whip in the house. it told healthy a democrat was to six terms in the house before stepping down in 1991. last december no great took part in a panel discussion on bipartisanship in congress. here is what he said. when i came in 1979, it

later, you got to know not only your fellow democrats, those who were liberal, conservative, workate -- you learn to with each other, regardless of your political viewpoint, but the same thing was true with regard to the other side of the aisle. among the best friend i ever had republicans. the best friends i ever had were republicans. we would go out and have meals together and talk informally about the budget policy. time, one of my friends got on the floor -- this is an illustration that my friend made a mistake in his words -- he said the chairman of the budget committee had not presented to me anything before this meeting. i said, i would like to remind the gentleman i did, and told

him where -- i was at his house. we were having drinks. he apparently had too many. me and said, i want to apologize. the gentleman from pennsylvania is correct. doeskind of relationship not go on. len martin became the ranking member for a while. we had a regular routine of once a week of having drinks together. she did not drink munch, but she was going out with the judge from chicago who she married. he and i would have martinis together. i do not know what i said, but we had a great time. [laughter] became direct -- the ranking member. jack and i used to go out and have meals together and talk football. , and even though we disagreed significantly on almost everything, we learned to

like each other. he was not evil, and i was not evil. art of what you've got now is that people think on the other side is pure evil. my job is to blow them up. i think some of the things that the senator has talked about -- you fly in, you throw a few votes, you go to the hearing, and you are out. >> a state department spokesman said tuesday that reports of president obama pushing for egyptian president morsi to hold early elections are inaccurate. she stressed that the u.s. is committed to democracy and not to a single party or group. >> can you bring us up today about what this, i do realize their foreign minister, he does not have a natural counterpart to get in touch with. has he made calls from the plane? >> let me say that our focus is

on being in touch on the highest levels on the ground with our ambassador. the president spoke with president morsi yesterday. i do have that. the secretary did speak with is appropriate counterpart. he came down to speak with all of you reading he conveyed the same message that the president conveyed to his counterpart. it is important to listen to the egyptian people, that we are a reiterating that the u.s. is committed to the democratic

process in egypt. it is not support any single party or group. he stressed that democracy is about more than just elections. it is about ensuring the voices of all egyptians are heard. he also said what our goal is, a peaceful, stable, and prosperous egypt. that is what we are focused on. >> in what capacity was the foreign minister speaking? you consider him to be even representative? >> i would referr you to him to for his exact status. again, we are in touch at all levels of government. >> including people who are not in the government anymore.

>> i would refer you to the government of egypt on that. >> can you elaborate on what he meant on being important to listen to the egyptian people. >> he was reiterating what the president said. this is democracy, more than just elections, ensuring the people can have their voices heard. peacefully is the goal. you have seen of the president urged president morsi to take steps to show that he is responsive to their concerns. the secretary agrees that that is an important step for the government to take. >> the kinds of steps these might be? what kinds of things does the u.s. think that morsi could do to be responsive to the egyptian people's concerns?

>> i think we have seen people expressing their points of view, and allowing them to do that is an important step. it is part of the process. we know that democracy takes time. what we're seeing happening in egypt is that transpiring over time. in terms of what he can do, he can respect the views of the people. you heard the president's call. there are concerns about violence. they're concerned about violence against women. putting it into that is a said-- an end to that is a step that can be taken. >> the protesters want him to leave. they want him to step down. they want him out. is it the kind of steps that

u.s. thinks will be good? >> i think we have been very clear on the call to the foreign minister, as well as the president's call to the present. -- president. we are not taking sides in this case. it is not up to us, theto make-- the united states to make choices. our commitment is to allowing the democratic process to take place. it has never been about one individual. it is about hearing and allowing the voices of the egyptians to be heard. >> they reported that president obama has urged president morsi to call early elections to appease the crowd. >> i have seen that report. it is inaccurate. >> how accurate? it appears the united states is not trying to [inaudible]

but, they are saying that he has to figure out a way to in this crisis.crisis.-- end this crisis. one of them would be to call new elections. >> the reports that we have an urging early iron -- early elections are inaccurate. there've been calls for allowing people to peacefully communicate their concerns, allowing people to protest in the capacity, urging respect for democracy. those are things that have been called for publicly and privately. i was referring to that specific headline mentioned. >> one of the things that the u.s. is looking at is because of democracy is more than elections. what does that mean exactly? >> it means that he respects the voice of the people over the course of time. not just putting your ballot in. when the occasion presents

itself, allowing for freedom of speech, and encouraging that year-round. journalists talked about the recent support term. -- supreme court term. then a discussion on drones. later, discussion on samantha power, president obama's pick to be his ambassador to the u.n. watch live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. making the transition from journalism to bugs is exhilarating and completely overwhelming and frightening. >> why did you make that choice? >> i had long wanted to be working on a book because of the freedom it allows you to really dive into a topic and lose yourself and go off on tangents and have enough time to really explore it fully. >> sunday -- taboo sciences,

living in space, the afterlife, and the human digestive system. best-selling author mary roach will take your calls, tweets, and facebook comments sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c- span 2. >> now a look back at the recent supreme court term which just ended. topics include the rulings on to same-sex marriage cases, the voting rights act, and whether states can continue to keep dna samples on file for people who are arrested but not convicted. we will hear from ap, "the new york times," and reuters reporters during this discussion hosted by the d.c. bar. >> i am art spitzer. i work for the aclu. welcome to the 25th annual supreme court view from the press gallery panel. thank you all for coming. the panel is sponsored by the

d.c. bar section on core lawyers and the administration of congress, which is one of 20 sections of the d.c. bar. it concentrates on matters pertaining to core administration and court rule in relationship between the bench and the bar, and all aspect of a lawyer's relationship to a profession. it also focuses on improving access to courts for everyone in d.c.. in your programs, you can see the names of 10 other sections that are cosponsored. you can see from that list, they range over most areas of legal practice. there are another nine sections are not cosponsored. if your member of the d.c. bar and not involved in one of the sections, i commend you to take a look, and get involved. if you are an aspiring member, keep in mind for when you become

a member. our thanks for giving us the use of this room, and their logistical facilities. i will not tell you all the arrangements it has taken. if you have noticed, there is a camera in the back the belongs to c-span. i believe we are being simulcast. you'll be able to watch this again later if you have such an interest. [laughter] you are your friends can, when they rebroadcast it on the internet at 4:00 in the morning. we will be reserving time for questions and answers at the and. we think about what you might like to ask is the program grows on.

if you do not want to be on national tv, then either do not ask the question, or put it -- put a bag over your head. we will be privileged this afternoon to talk about the court with a panel of journalists who cover the court for a cumulative total of 101 years. let me introduce them. tony mauro has cover the courts, and he's been covering the courts from 1979. he has continued to be a supreme court correspondent. his college degree is from -- rutgers and his journalism degree is grom

columbia. david savage is closest to me. he has been with the los angeles times since 1981. he has cover the supreme court since 1986. in recent years, he's been the chicago tribune supreme court correspondent. he is the author of "turning right," and offers regular commentary on national public radio to talk to the nation. he has also authored the quarterly guide to supreme court. he has degrees from the university of north carolina and northwestern. joan covers the supreme court for reuters, which was the first news outlet to cover the lincoln assassination. >> we were on it. >> she has cover the court since 1989. before joining reuters, she covered the court for usa today.

she earned her degree at georgetown law school. she specializes in rescinding the supreme court to dash through the lens of judicial biography, and the author of sandra day o'connor." she is now working on a book project involving justice sotomayor. robert barnes joined the "washington post," covering maryland politics. he returned to reporting in 2005 and began covering the core in 2006. he of them planning to go to law school but changes might after taking a journalism class at the university of florida, and never looked back. his biography on the washington post website says, i assume he

wrote this, it is not occurred to him as it did to others that he could do both. perhaps the better explanation is that he would need three -- you did need three years of law school to not practice law.jessu e hunt has been with ap since 1995. before that, covering various state capitals. he is a graduate of old mississippi. his first book is "blackmail and black men built the capital." he has alerted me that if edward snowden leaves moscow or appears in venezuela, he is on that see

today, and he may have to leave it is beeper goes off. [laughter] last but not least, adam took over the "new york times" supreme court beat two years ago. he graduated from yell -- yale. he was on the times in-house legal department, telling them what they couldn't do. he became a lawyer covering legal issues, and supreme court nominations. his work is author -- his work has also appeared in other publications. looking at a sunday "new york times" this ad announcing his

new book, "to have and to hold." i plan to ask him all about it. >> it is on amazon and itunes. >> one more preliminary note, there should be an evaluation form on your table. i do not see them. maybe someone from the bark and distribute them during the program. we would appreciate if you fill them out and leave them on your way out. i'm going to sit down and join the panelists. let's start talking about last week at the court. the court saved all four of its biggest cases for the last week of the term. how did last week compared to last year when the affordable care act came down? was it just as crazy? tony, would you like to start?

>> i do not think so. there -- the decisions were bigger in some ways, but it seemed there was so much intense insanity last june surrounding the affordable care act. it seemed little but more normalized this time. there is not as much panic about it. i think some news organizations got new procedures for reporting the breaking decisions. we now have the running of the interns at the supreme court, where interns were taking the decisions out to the broadcast reporters on the plaza, so they

could actually take a look at the decisions before they reported it, which is on them to did not happen last you.-- something that did not happen last year. >> it was an important -- incredibly busy week. this time, the big decisions were rolled out one at a time. that made our life a little bit easier. we were worried that two of the huge ones would come on the same day. >> do you think they actually care about you when they decide to do it that way? [laughter] >> no. i think the chief justice has said that the decisions are published when they are published. i do not think they take into consideration very much how we report them. when they are done, they are done. that is when they release them. they never tell us. i could be wrong about that. i think when they are done, is

when they release them. they do not care when or how it makes our lives difficult. that is their public line. >> they did manage to drop the case is one at a time over the last three days. maybe that is just coincidence. maybe somebody is looking out for us. >> everyday care about people on their own staff. >> think they do make some accommodation for the press, and it says that during the rehnquist era, there was a one day when some of us are member when the court handed down seven opinions over 200 pages. we politely asked the court to not do that again. of course, the classic answer

was -- nothing says you have to report about them all at once. why don't you save some for the next day? showing a complete lack of understanding at how journalism works. since then, they have not done that to us again. there is some sort of a numeric cap on how many they will issue in a day. >> they want some attention for their opinions. it is in their interest not to give us all three or four biggies on the same day. their main issue is to decide the law, but they have statements to make. they have their own self- interest in trying to get the news out in a way that is orderly. >> it is hard to know what goes on extemporaneously.

i feel like i ran across -- do not release this on a friday. that will not get enough attention. you should wait until monday to release this dissent. >> have they ever handed down decisions on a friday? >> yes, they did. in fact, i think it was one of the brady gun laws in the mid- 1990s. i worked at usa today and if you got news on a friday, you were out of luck. there was no saturday paper. they are out by thursday. this year, by wednesday. >> let me start this question with jesse.

you work for a wire service and you have to get your stories out faster than anybody else. how much of your stories can you write in advance? >> you can write as many different versions as you want. [laughter] we normally write at least two different versions. one says, the court has upheld the lower ruling. we always start with at least two. you hope that the court will do one of those things. one of our greatest fears is when there is a plurality dissent. then you have to figure out which part of it they agreed to or what that decision does. this year, most of our prep, we called most of them right.

we could use a version we had prewritten. in the past, for healthcare last year, we had at least eight different stories ready to go, guessing what the court was going to do. luckily, one of them was the correct one. this year, the maximum we did on anyone was four, maybe five. you hope you get the right one that you can send out as fast as you can. >> quite a few of us are in the same business. you have time to read the opinion, listen to the dissent, go downstairs and think about it. a lot of us are in the business of having to file something in five or 10 minutes. on prop 8, it was great interest in california. i had about five different versions.

it worked out ok because one of the versions was what they did. go with b. they put it on the website right away. that is another reason this year went better for a lot of us because we went through it last year. >> a lot of people are sitting at their desks watching the live blog. i bumped into -- he argued two of the big cases this year. the week before they came down, are you going to be going down to the court every day? he said, no, i will be watching the live blog. does that take the pressure off you guys to get the news out?

>> for us, it is a different audience. we have our own twitter site where we do the same thing. it serves its audience well, but it is a completely different audience. >> they are competitors. your response to competition is not to say, they are doing a pretty good job. >> the audience might be interested to learn how they do it. no electronics are allowed inside the courtroom. how was tom goldstein doing his live blog from the court? >> you will have to ask tom that. >> he sits up in the cafeteria. >> the live blogs that have been down this year from the court are not really live. in most cases, someone listens

to a lot of the oral argument. at least, that is where most of these have happened. they write it as if it were a live blog. this person said this and the next person said this. he gets the kind of feel that readers on the web like, but look at the time stamp, is not exactly current. >> bob is making a point about arguments. on the decision days, you were analyzing as quickly as they could. it is very fast, very good. >> david, you mentioned there was great interest in the proposition 8 decision in california. you are writing for the l.a. times and the chicago tribune. did you do different stories?

>> i did not have time to do two different stories. the l.a. times was much more interested in getting something up on the website. the trib is actually much more interested in the newspaper. the l.a. times wanted to get -- because of the great interest in what this meant for california. >> did you have the assignment of reporting what it meant for california? did someone else get that angle? >> the court cleared the way for gay marriage in california. that was the bottom line. people were not that interested in standing. they decided the case in a way that left judge walker's opinion. that meant gay marriage very soon. it was about 24 hours, if even

that. you could tell the way the court decided the case, it put it back in the hands of the california officials. the attorney general, jerry brown, very interested in seeing prop 8 go away and allow gay marriage. that is what i said. >> you talked about writing stories in advance. how much preparation sometimes goes into these stories? the case i am thinking of was the one about the breast cancer gene, whether it could be patented. there were lots of scientific technicalities in that case. a lot of briefs by scientists. justice scalia wrote this interesting opinion in which he

wrote, i am not competent to figure all this stuff out. all i know is the gene is a product of nature and the dna is not a natural product. how much did you guys become experts in genes and patent laws? >> not that much. i'm smiling at justice scalia's concurrence. it is such a rare expression of humility. [laughter] the justices -- it is the burden of the parties to make the justices understand all of the technicalities and the science.

if they do not do a good job, it has an impact on the court. >> i would say the great thing about -- i think the reason all of us enjoy it and the reason that you enjoy being a lawyer, it is a constant rotation of issues. you keep learning about things that you did not know about. that is what makes the job such a great job. there are all of these things that you are always learning about. >> i took some comfort from an actual scientist the day after the decision came down. the majority opinion had the quality of a seventh grader's

book report. >> did anybody mention the concurrence? it was refreshing, three sentences saying i cannot figure this stuff out. >> it was one of the fun things to add. first of all, it is a hard topic. having the supreme court justice say, i do not get it. we heard another justice quit, i almost wrote a graph that said, i get it. there is this dueling thing that goes on. many of us have the feeling that if we can include anything in a story that humanizes these folks, we are ahead. >> chief justice roberts contrasted the lack of knowledge in his speech on saturday.

he mentioned one of the lesser noticed opinions that involved the definition of the word defalcation -- he thought it sounded like the act of throwing a falcon out the window. the court became educated about the meaning of the word. >> in the same speech, someone asked him, what was his favorite case. he asked him with the case -- he answered with a case that i had not heard about. it had to do with the definition

of a vessel. does anybody report that decision? >> sure. [laughter] >> i think it was in the johnnie cochran school of reasoning, if it floats, it is a boat. >> people should realize that sometimes what is news has to do with what is in the competition. the ruling came pretty early. it was heard early in the term. there were some good cases these last couple weeks that got caught up in other things that would've gotten more attention if they did not, the same time as these big rulings on gay rights or racial policy. >> that opinion had pictures, too. >> i was surprised to learn in san francisco bay and seattle, a lot of people who live on these boats.

they get electricity, they are stationary. it was a very important thing to them whether they were classified as a vessel or a house. a lot of people, it was very important decision to say what is the difference between a boat and a house that is on the water? the entire gaming industry was worked up about it because all these floating casinos -- the court went into great detail. this thing had french doors instead of portholes. that was important to justice breyer. it was one of the very few cases which justice kennedy dissented. >> they were in dissent. >> explain that one. >> all yours. >> let's talk about that for a

minute. did any of you speculate in print? >> just to remind everyone, david mentioned this cleared the way for marriages to resume in california. did the defenders of proposition 8 have standing at the appellate level? the court said no. the 5-4 split was not the same as the 5-4 split on the defense of marriage act. we saw very clearly which five justices favor more enhanced gay rights through the elimination of section three of doma. that was the predictable lineup of justice kennedy writing for the majority joined by the four more liberal justices.

the liberal justices splintered in this issue of standing on the prop eight one. i think we can all agree they were splitting along the lines of how they might see the standing issue, but i also think it sent a subtle signal that even the liberal justices are not already to say anything definitive about a national gay marriage right. >> how long do you think it will be before they have to? >> their hand will be forced when they do it. they do not want the case back very quickly. i do not know, maybe five or 10 years. the states will have to have more action before they are willing. >> they struck down interracial marriage bans. once you get down into the 20 states, some of the court will do the mopping up. >> that will be tough, though, to get to because of the -- most

of those states that do not have it to have a constitutional amendment that makes it so they cannot. overturning those constitutional amendments is going to be a lot harder than simply getting on law passed. >> federal courts may be willing to take on the state constitutional amendments. >> they want to find a federal court that would be as sympathetic as the ninth circuit was and started case arching up that way. the inevitability is that it will have to come from the supreme court. >> it is so hard to guess, the pace of the public opinion change has been so fast. if it continues like this, the opposition starts to crumble. when this case was filed, this was a big mistake to take this issue into federal court because

you will lose. by the time, the four years it took, sentiment has so much changed. a majority of americans now support gay marriage. only among the 60 five and above group still strongly opposes it. one of the hard things, if that change continues, it may be faster than we would have guessed. >> i will let my own guess to the pool. it will be three or four years because i think despite councils -- sounsels -- counsels of caution, same-sex couples in states that do not allow marriage are going to be filing a ton of lawsuits in the next six months. some federal circuit will declare the constitution does not permit the state to refuse

them a marriage license. the supreme court will have a hard time not taking the case. >> justice kennedy's opinion has a lot of words. once you have talked about equal protection and the equal dignity of same-sex couples, what is the explanation? if you are a federal judge in some state that says we will not allow this, what is the justification for that strong claim of equal protection? i would think that is right, some judges will say, yes, you are right. this is an equal protection matter. >> if you look at justice scalia's dissent, he says the exact same thing. >> he is really the best friend of the gay rights movement. [laughter] >> chief justice roberts says no, this is not about gay marriage. >> speaking of justice scalia, he did something i have never

seen before. in his dissent, he took the majority opinion and crossed out some words and substituted -- he rewrote the case to fit the argument the other side was making. writing the opinion for them before the case happened. i do not think i have ever seen -- >> the chief did say that there was -- if you took the federalism piece of it seriously, if you said the reason the federal law had had to fall was because marriage is a matter for the state. you could see the opposite. >> justice kennedy rejected the argument from the obama administration.

it was not what the administration wanted. it is federalism plus equal protection. for any other audience, what are the even talking about? you know this matters and this is what will matter when it does come back. >> it is really substandard legal work. you cannot tell what standards they are using to get to where they are going. >> i agree with that. do any of you put it that in your articles? >> i said it was hard to locate the constitutional provision at work in the doma decision. >> don't you think the same thing could be said for the voting rights case? why was this part of the voting

right act unconstitutional? usually, you point to some provision in the constitution. john roberts made a vague reference to the 10th amendment. there is the 15th amendment that says the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race. congress shall have the power to force this to appropriate legislation. congress decided, how could that be unconstitutional? i thought the john roberts opinion may do very good political science commonsense argument. this is all based on data from the 1970's. it is outdated, it does not make any sense today. i thought it was very hard to say as a legal matter, why was that provision unconstitutional?