court in richmond newspapers then grant this historic decision recognizing the right of access. again, not just for the press but for the general public. but for the general public. and when we at the reporters committee think about access, we're thinking not just in the short term. can we get reporters into the court to cover the hum of what happens in a particular news cycle building, but also the long term? dahlia mentioned papers and supreme court papers. and one issue we're also very interested in is trying to really force the court away from this ad hoc system of each justice deciding on his or her own when and how and under what circumstances to make papers available and to move instead to something more regularized like what you have in the presidential system now, which was put in place by legislation in 1978 deem those papers

property belonging to the public. and not subject to the particular decision making of any particular justice when he or she leaves the court, and when you ask what access means to me, everyone that responded in terms of extreme particularity, i wrote some statistics down. my wife's grandfather was a friend of justice douglas and we discovered when he passed away that he had a number of letters from douglas and we were kind of trophy hunting going through the papers and seeing the stuff. so i looked it up online to see what i could find out about the papers of justice douglas and where they were. and, of course, you go to the supreme court website and immediately send you someplace else because it's not the kind of thing that they are collect and gathering, although they should. as you make your way through a number of other websites, i found with great particularity great information about the papers of justice douglas, which i will share with you.

they're at the library of congress. there are 1,787 containers of papers making up 716.8 linear feet. there are a total of 634 -- excuse me, roughly, i will give you anaprox mitt now, 650,000 items. one box of classified documents and seven oversized documents. that is transparency. that gives a member of the public, reporter, some sense of a particularity with which it's disclosed there a confidence that a justice who served on the court for what, 45 years, something like that, that those papers are preserved, they're out there for scholars, journalists who are writing books. when you see something like that in relationship to one justice, it begs the question, why can't we have that for them all? thanks. >> all right.

i'm sonya west and i'm really honored to be on this panel today because this is an issue that is really near and dear to my heart. i was very briefly a reporter in my college and post-college days, including internship at the reporters committee, which was amazing. but decided to go to law school with this hope of defending journalists, which i did for a few years after law school, including in california, trying and usually failing to get cameras into the courts in california system. so this is an issue i had a great honor of clerking for justice stevens so i got to see sort of behind the scenes what was going on with the court and also became very interested in what the court coverage was of what i was seeing. and that's when i became a big fan of dahlia's work. because she did such a great job and became an even bigger fan of tony's work, who i already had been following. and i'm now associate professor at the university of georgia,

where i teach constitutional law and media law and i write about press issues. and so in terms of what transparency means for me, i'm going to mimic a little bit of what eric said but i feel like what transparency means is the presumption should be a right of access. and that the burden should be on those who oppose access. in this case the justices, that whether or not there's actually a first amendment right of access in some of these issues, i think there are arguments that there could be. we should nonetheless have sort of the first amendment presumption that we're going to have public access to this information. and the problems i'm seeing right now, and here i am going to talk about cameras in oral argument even though i agree we should not be completely focused only on that issue. there is a wide range of other issues that matter. is the reasons we're getting the responses we're getting to the arguments clay laid out really well are not meeting that bar in terms of why we can't have cameras at the oral argument.

and the arguments we're hearing from the justices, and we just get this piecemeal when they're asked about it. and they're asked about it all the time when they appear at law school or panels, basically fall into three concerns. one is concerns about participants. that they will engage in show boating and grandstanding. that just doesn't add up when we look at what's going on in all of the other courts that are allowing cameras in, all 50 states have cameras allowed into their courtrooms in some form. canada's had cameras for more than 20 years. this issue of showboating just doesn't stand up. it also doesn't make sense when you think about what a big deal oral argument at the supreme court is. justices already know that everyone is watching who asks the first question, who sounds a little bit critical in their question. they keep track of who makes the audience laugh. they know they're on stage here. advocates know, willie attests to this. they're not thinking about the audience. they're thinking about justices and making their points and reading justices.

the idea showboating would occur i think just doesn't add up. the other concern is about what the media would with w camera access. concerns about snippets and sound bites. belief there's concern with jon stewart and stephen colbert would do with these clips. but again, that doesn't add up with the fact that already what we tend to go from the court is snippets and sound bites. we just get it in audio form or we get it in quotes in the newspaper. we just hear about this question or that question. and so the area we're hearing more these days from the justices and i find concerning is that we're hearing from the justices, even justices sotomayor and justice kagan at the confirmation hearing supported cameras in the courtroom are starting to say these things. this is the trend. we see nominees start out in support. get on the court and start to change their mind, which suggests we can't really just weight out this issue. it's not just an age issue. this is a concern about the public.

we keep hearing this concern that the public won't understand what they're seeing. they won't understand oral argument is just part of the process. they won't understand that the justices have to be harsh on both sides. they might think someone is getting ganged up on. i type this to be a very concerning issue because it suggests that more information is actually going to be bad for the public. that the public needs to be shielded from information. and it does seem to have an elitism to it, that already those of us who do read the transcripts and listen to the audio or read the reports from the supreme court press corps, that we're the types that can understand where oral argument falls in the process but tv would reach a different kind of audience who wouldn't understand it. so i find this very concerning and i certainly believe it doesn't meet the bar of is this argument good enough to go against our presumption that i think we should have of accessibility and openness.

>> i want to give you a chance to react to one another but i want to ask another question. and i think it clicks at one theme we're hearing today. undergirting this conversation about why the courts are different from the other branches of government is just i think this sort of chronological argument we're different because we're different. we're just different. if there's more transparency, we will stop being different. yet almost every variation of the problem of transparency comes down to the idea, look justices are different. that means their papers are treated differently. it means their decisions are treated differently. it means access to them is treated differently. we can't see the texts of their speeches because they're different. i wonder if anyone wants to take a crack at this question of are they different? are they just different? and if they are, you know, some of these arguments begin to make sense. so, clay, looks like you want to

go. >> i think to an extent they're different because these are the only people inside of government that don't need television in order to get their jobs. you know, i suspect that a member of congress cannot get elected without television. i suspect the president cannot get elected without television. without stepping in front of a camera. without being in the public. whereas a justice can. so this idea of i guess the confirmation hearings or whatever, but this idea that television or video or transparency is part of their duty becomes sort of difficult because it wasn't part of the job interview process, right? so i mean that would be my case for culturally why they are different. i also think that, you know, you

have to look at the supreme court as a leader, so to speak, for the entire judicial branch. for all of the courts. the interesting thing is it when you look at the supreme court's use of the internet and start comparing it to the lower courts, the supreme court is actually doing quite well. sort of like my 1-year-old is doing quite well at speech compared to my cat. but still, you know, he's doing quite well. and i think that you're not going to see much change in this field until the supreme court changes because the supreme court represents the end of someone's career all without cameras, all without television, all without transparency. and as such, why would i -- why would i change now when i never had to do that my entire career?

i never found the people at the end of their career are the first to embrace new technology. so the point is not different in any way that would justify reversal of the presumption of transparency in government. >> sure. i meant culturally. >> and also they do have the nomination hearings -- not really hearings, but they're on tv. and there's no problem going on talk shows to hawk their books. but the truth is, the supreme court justices are less like judges than any other judge maybe in the world. they're the only judges in the world with life tenure that serve on the nation's highest court. only ones. their decisions as judge pozner repeatedly said are essentially political. the only secrecy -- i don't want to see their draft opinions. that is fair. i don't want to hear deliberations with law clerks. that's fair. everything they do that's public should be public. and i will give you an example. it's just a small thing but it's

not a small thing. justice scalia was at a conference in atlanta last friday. the only person who said you can't tape record, video record my comments is justice scalia and then it turned out that it actually something happened, the supreme court justices, and now no one gets to see it and a public official making a public speech, ranted about how same sex sodomy and abortion are not in the constitution and shouldn't be protected and ranted and got embarrassed at the end and no one saw it. if he's going to come to atlanta and go to the governor's mansion for a reception and appear in front of 500 people in a room and give a public speech, it should be recorded and there's no good reason why we should have had to accede to his request that it not be recorded. >> why did you? >> he wouldn't have come otherwise.

>> to pick up on these remarks, it's self-evident that they are different in the sense that other than justice kagan, they've come from one cloistered life to another. the route to the priesthood is through the federal appellate courts and these institutions are bundled up so when they get to the supreme court, they don't reflect the range of professions and exposures in public life that other government people would have by the time they got to the the high rung. >> you're saying they're different because they have super thin skin? not because -- >> no, it's because they're culturally -- transparency is not a technical issue or a legal issue, it's a cultural issue. when transparency is a technical issue, it fails, it almost always fails. if you look at the president's open government agenda, when the president on day one was like

we're going to open up all of this data and you go to data.gov and look at the last time the data sets were updated, it was 2009, 2010, and that's because it was very much a technical issue and not a cultural one so if an institution isn't ingrained with the culture of technology, those transparency initiatives will often fail. >> willie, did you want to respond? you lunged. >> i just couldn't see. i think if anyone who agrees with eric that the corps is just another political body and they're doing what they want, they are imposing their will in all of these -- >> anybody disagree? >> absolutely, i'm willing to disagree with you firmly and i think that because they are not public officials whose job it is to appeal to the public, right, if a member of congress or the president does something that does not stand the light of

public scrutiny meaning it offends a lot of people, they may be doing their job wrong. that is not true of judges or justices. that is what they are paid to do and for exactly that reason, the fact that their -- and their opinion might be unpopular, who cares. the fact that their private votes, the reasons they give in conference -- do you think their votes in conference should be public? >> no. the preliminary vote, it can change. >> their deliberations are not public. oral argument is part of their deliberation, too. it's supposed to be a fleshing out of what is important here. >> it's public already, though. >> absolutely. that's a separate question. public in what way, but i think what we need to focus on is who are these people, what jobs do they do and which parts of it kind of are -- they're just public officials running around giving speeches, selling books, and taking money from the public treasury.

the fact that they operate a branch of government, they have employees, they, you know -- they, you know, take gifts and travel, accept travel and so on, that's all fair game but when you're talking about the job that they are doing, as judges and justices, i think it's different and equating them with members of congress and the president is a false -- >> i would throw in there that the ways that they're different argue for openness even in terms of a legal branch and not getting into the political argument. they don't deal with witnesses, they don't deal with juries, things that could raise valid issues about those sensitive things. the issues they deal with have the most national importance. so, yes, they have tenure which almost all other government employees don't have except some federal appellate judges so if anybody should have this openness, it would be them, i

would think. >> they are the only governmental officials in the western world anywhere that are final, leaving aside the constitutional amendment process, they are final, they are unreviewable and have lifetime tenure. they should have the most transparency for those reasons. >> one more veillance to this is how are they different from canada? because i always remember, it always comes back to canada but i remember hearing ruth bader ginsburg and beverly mclaughlen, the justice of the canadian supreme court talking about this and they say canada has cameras in the court. >> nobody cares about canada. >> that was justice ginsburg's argument. >> the canadian supreme court most of the time can be overturned by a super majority

vote of the legislature. these men and women are final. >> i want to ask a question that i think sweeps in some of the things you just talked about and that is there are work-around to all these rules because not just the pin camera. that's a new and interesting workaround but when justice scalia says nobody's going to cover my speech, what happens if someone tweets it or clarence thomas came to u.v.a. a couple of years ago, you were sworn to secrecy and every word was published the next day in politco with mistakes. justice alito goes to speak at a dinner and someone just takes a photo of him and suddenly the media has captured it so it seems to me that more and more when the court puts up barriers to transparency, what happens is what rushes in is less than what they would afford us if they

would let us in so i wonder if anyone has that's about, is there a tipping point -- i'm thinking about the healthcare cases what they were handed down and for the first couple of minutes, it was wrong and maybe the court has no obligation to help us get it right. >> last friday, they got it wrong and in this case they did it to his benefit but it could have been to his detriment and it would have been better if someone could say, let's go to the videotape. >> i have screen shots of the front pages of fox news, msnbc and cnn on the day of the -- and the fox news said, obamacare struck down, and msnbc said, supreme court upholds obamacare,

and cnn said, breaking news, supreme court issues response. we'll tell you more in a minute. i find that apropos and demonstrative of our media environment but the interesting thing here is that we're in a more -- i think because of the internet and because of technology, we're in a more politicized environment than we've ever been. look at what happened to shirley sharad at the beginning of the administration when a 30-second sound bite ends up on the glenn beck show and you end up fired for words taken out of context so i think there's a level of demonstrable fear and healthy fear of public scrutiny. when i was working at the sunlight foundation, part of my issue with sort of transparency as a panacea is not only are you arming the smart lawyers but you're also arming the glenn becks and keith olbermann's of

the world to advance things that may not be the truth. unfortunately, the only real cure is a good transparency and i look at the political, activist discourse around things like citizens united and i wonder how much better our public discourse would be if those deliberations were a bit more public. i understand that the oral arguments are public but a bit more public. if the public could see those arguments, and i wonder what harm this lack of transparency is doing to the public because our discourse has to be distilled into what gets delivered to us through fox news, msnbc and cnn, which seemingly on that day couldn't make up its mind. >> it's fair to put the question back to you, with an analogy.

last summer when disclosures were made, the department of justice had subpoenaed a. p. phone records and seized emails from a fox news reporter, holder launched the process to work with the press on trying to figure out what reform needed to happen on media subpoena policy. i would wonder after some of the glitches in reporting the healthcare decision, why doesn't the chief justice wander down the hall at some point or reporters try to wander up the hall. >> there's no wandering up the hall. >> we need to start talking. this was a monumental decision, the reporting of it was flubbed and the press needs to work with the court because it's the court's own legitimacy at stake. is that a possible conversation you could have to launch a dialogue the same way we've launched one with d.o.j.?

>> it's a great question. i'm not in that conversation. i'm looking at tony, he would have spearheaded. the court disaggregates the media's problems from the court's problems. there's a famous story of the press going to then chief justice rehnquist and saying please don't dump six 100-page decisions on us and ask us to get it all right. can you space out decision days so we can do our jobs and get it right and the response literally was, why don't you just only cover some of them today and then you can cover some more tomorrow as though the news happens magically at the caprice of the court so i think that the court thinks these are the media's problems and the court does not feel there's a cost to fox getting it wrong or cnn getting it wrong for two minutes. >> there was a very substantive problem underlying this

procedural transparency issue. i know there will be disagreement about this but the substantive problem is the justices really feel historically they are special, they are different, they are not political and it's a temple on a hill. they really feel that way so they're not going to worry about the press. they're not going to worry about all kinds of things that other governmental officials have to worry about. we can't develop this today but they're not special. their opinions are not based on law, they're based more on values and not politics republican and democrat but personal life experiences, politics and they are far less special than they think and the faster we get more transparency, the more that will be clearer. >> to circle back to canada, they do this differently in canada and from my understanding, the press corps, someone comes from the court and says this is what the case is about, do you have questions, this is how we can explain it and i think there's quarantine for a couple of hours where everyone reads and figures things out.

i'm not sure how i feel about that exactly and they do let them know big cases are coming to be prepared but there is a different way to do it and i think what we're hearing here is from the political branches, there's an understanding, a love-hate relationship with the press, the press hurts and helps what they're trying to do and with the court it's more just the apathy/hate and the idea that the press could help them in terms of if they worked with it in terms of public understanding of what it is they're trying to do is what's missing and it's a shame that they can't get more into that mindframe. >> willie? >> i'm curious. when they let some people into the cloister and give them a peek of the opinions, does it include bloggers? does it include interested members of the public who might want to talk about it on a radio show? >> i wish we had that problem. >> i don't know the answer to that. we have a supreme court that

gives out press credentials so it's making those decisions on questionable grounds. >> reserved seats to members of the institutional press and denying them to people who might have a blog but everybody gets the decision at the same time, right? >> right. i'm not advocating we do things exactly like canada because i think the two-hour quarantine is a little questionable constitutionally. >> scotus blog doesn't have a press credential on the supreme court. if any other branch of government would making a decision so unbelievably stupid, it would be -- scotus blog is where we get our information about the supreme court and they're denied a seat at the table. that is crazy. that's an argument that tom goldstein that owns scotus blog and argues cases, it's a conflict of interest but that's not for the supreme court to decide. >> respectfully, isn't that a circular argument? scotus blog has covered the

court and made itself essential so the court has to let them in? >> yes, of course. it's the press. yes. sure. >> i certainly agree with you that they're the press but what form of access is it that -- what are you focused on? it's not a hostile question? what access for scotus blog are you focused on? >> simon, a supreme court reporter for the "new york times," gets to hear the oral arguments, gets to hear the decision announcement, gets to see justice alito doing this, he gets to see that firsthand, in person, and he was talking about this last friday in that it's hard for him because he'd rather be writing but he wants to be in the room because that's the most important over time. scotus blog's amy howe is not in the room and she doesn't have that benefit of seeing it firsthand with all the emotions attached and at this moment in

time, i think scotus blog deserves a seat in the room more than the "new york times" because they're trying to live blog it. >> isn't lyle in the room? >> because he has an independent press credential, not as a representative of scotus blog. >> one thing i like to tell people is that when we had to decide when the healthcare cases -- sorry to keep perseverating on the healthcare cases, it was traumatizing so i'm not over it yet but i'm working through it. one of the things that was super emblematic of what eric is describing is you literally had to make a choice between either being in chamber, watching this historic hand-down, watching john roberts read his opinion, watch ginsburg read and then knowing that when you were finally allowed to leave, 19 hours later, because they were reading, it was over, right, it had been tweeted, it had been discussed. wolf blitzer had been talking about it for an hour and a half.

for purposes of my editor, it was over but i chose to be there but the other choice was to be in a room where you could hear it but you couldn't -- if you left, you were stuck so you could hear it but not leave or you could be in a room where you could neither see nor hear but you could write. it was the three monkeys, hear no evil, see no evil. you had to choose which monkey you wanted to be and it seems to me that in 2012, was it 2012? we need to up the ante on the monkey. that's not how to cover a major historic opinion and i think it loops back to bruce's question which is does it affect the court is that we didn't -- maybe it doesn't. maybe the court didn't care. >> i'll tell you, there's two ways to look at this in terms of transparency, goes back to my opening argument. maybe the court didn't care.

maybe the court shouldn't care. but the video could be released a year later or five years later and it would still have an impact, right? it would still be profoundly useful to the legal profession, to law students, to the -- whatever the 50,000 law students that weren't allowed in the room, and i think that we have to start thinking about transparency as being a bit larger than helping reporters. and it being about reflecting the dignity and majesty of the court and the importance of the law, which is -- i mean, the other part of this argument is that the law itself is completely locked up from the public and the only thing that's more morally offensive to me than the judges being locked up to the public is that i have to pay as a citizen of the state of georgia, i have to pay a company called lexus nexus $800 to get access to the official code of

georgia. that is gross that we've privatized that is -- that our courts, our courts are basically paying westlaw hundreds of millions of dollars for access to its own records. this is preposterous. it's a thing that i think is hampering the legal profession. it's hampering our own history and i think it's something that does not reflect the values of either the constitution or the united states. >> that's -- thank you for saying that. that's a useful frame. we've got questions and you're encouraged to write questions and hand them to a person who's going to collect them so i'm going to ask the first question that i've got. since asking nicely appears to be an ineffective strategy so far, how do you or your organizations propose to make actual change and increase transparency?

>> in 1802, i think it was, congress shut down the supreme court for a year for really bad reasons but they did do it. they turned the candles off. i think congress will probably never do this, i think it will be fully constitutional for the congress which funds the supreme court to give the court a choice, either televise your oral arguments and decision announcements or do it with no heat, no air conditioning, no lights and fund yourself. that's a fully constitutional use of congress' power and i think they should do it. >> does anyone have a less radical notion they'd like to float? >> i think the issue, the credentialing of the scotus blog has been kicked around for a while and i think it would be interesting to see that taken to another level to force the court to examine its own practices publicly, in a transparent way and i think that part of this

effort, that we're engaged in today, is part of an ongoing initiative to focus public attention on these issues and to hope that the people in the building who are there to protect the long-term reputation of the court, we just touched on it a few minutes ago, how do you get them to focus on the fact that they need to protect their own institutional legitimacy and essential to that is this transparency initiative. when you look back at the richmond cases that were important to the media, at least the press and court were in sync lack then and what seems so discouraging today when you think about trying to get reform

by bringing lawsuits is that we're so out of sync. the press and the court are so completely out of sync today and there was something special about that moment in the 1960's and 1970's when they were working together and they're not today and it does make me think that the kind of strategy that we used in those decades probably will not be the most effective one today. the litigation strategy, in other words it. >> i think the cameras in the courtroom thing is sort of a done deal. i think 10, 20 years out the, you know, i'll have a small camera in my eye glasses or something like that that will be -- the pen camera is the start of it, but what's the supreme court going to do? ban people from wearing glasses in the supreme court? >> yes. >> with cameras in them. >> they'll are undetectable.

i think cameras will be within the next 20 years undetectable. the pen camera is like the tip of the iceberg and that that technology will solve that problem. >> right now if you walk into the d.c. federal courthouse, you know, you have to -- i think they make an exception for lawyers showing up for a case, but they will make you surrender your phone that might have a camera. five years from now, you might surrender your eye glasses. >> removing my ability to make phone calls is significantly different than removing by ability to see. >> yeah. >> right? the other stuff, though, personal financial disclosures and stuff like that, you know, who knows how that will happen or if it can and ever well. >> let me segue to the next question because we have heaps of them. who gets -- this is just an informational question. who gets to decide on the

changes in the policies about transparency? are these decisions taken by the chief justice? does the court vote in is the staff voting? >> we don't know. >> it's really unknown whether if congress passed a law, whether or not that would apply to the court, whether they could make them do that. we really don't know. >> the closest indication we got was when they closed the front doors, they published a dissent by justice breyer saying we should still allow people to walk in the front door of the building. >> congress could do this. if the political will was there, they have the money, they could do it. >> justice scalia, i'm sorry -- it's the chief justice making the decision about audio policy, we know that, right? that the chief was making the decisions about which cases were going to be audio, same-day audio.

i think that was -- i think it was clear. >> that's my understanding, right. >> it was a case-by-case -- today we'll release this one but the other ones you'll have to wait until friday but when they decided to start releasing audio on fridays instead of at the end of the term, i don't know if that was scalia. >> when justice douglas got sick and had a stroke, the justices took -- americans don't know this -- a secret vote and that they decided they would not decide any case where justice douglas' vote would matter. the eight justices secretly decided they would not decide any case where justice douglas' vote would matter. the only reason we know that today is because justice white was so offended, he wrote a public letter about it. had he not done that, he would never know. they view themselves as having no obligation to tell the american people that justice douglas was so sick, he couldn't decide a case and they would decide arbitrarily which cases in which his vote might not

matter. >> they goes to the justice scalia recuse, where he refused to recuse himself in the death gate oral argument and did america the courtesy of writing us a long letter explaining why he didn't think he had to recuse. the legitimacy of them not just as individuals but the court can't help but be raised in the eyes of everyone to see the behind-the-scenes thinking. it's incredibly material when they recuse and why and the idea that we kind of know today why justice scalia sometimes chooses not to recuse himself is not a standard, right? >> don't get me started on the healthcare case. we'll be here all day. >> are the -- eric, you're not

allowed to answer this one. are the justices fundamentally afraid we're going to learn they're not as neutral as they say they are when they're deciding cases? is that the fear? eric? >> yes, unequivocally, yes. they spend -- i'll do it real fast. they spend so much time and energy in their written opinions which is their arguments as to why they don't have to be transparent, because everything comes out in the written opinion, hiding the reasons why they do the things they do because they'll have text, history and precedent. >> where do you want to take the cameras that will find the hidden -- >> i'm just suggesting the answer to the lack of transparency can't be the written opinions is what we share with the public because they're dishonest written opinions. the real reasons why they decide the way they do is not in the text, history and precedent. that's important but it's in a

whole different set of values and life experiences which is why scalia and ginsburg who are good friends and go to the opera together, disagree on virtually every contested issue of constitutional law that gets to the supreme court. it's not because they have different skills. that's because they have different values and they would never admit that in public and that's crazy. >> i point out that transparency won't solve that problem. >> i know. >> just because you turn the lights on in a roach filled apartment doesn't kill the roaches. >> i didn't use that phrase. that wasn't my phrase. to be clear. >> you see what i'm saying, it turns out sunlight isn't a particularly good disinfectant, alcohol is much better. but when you turn the lights on, shine the lights at things, the shadiness just moves to the corners. the roach crawl under -- >> disagree. because scalia's a little bit bullish attitude comes out in oral arguments, i don't think he would change that and knowing his character, a little bit of a

bully, with all due respect, is important to the american people. we should know that he is a little bit of a bully. we should know that justice thomas never speaks. >> we'll know he's a bully but as you said to begin with, it's final. he's there. he's a lifer. so it's not going to change anything. >> i think it's true that general fear is part of this. justice breyer has said, fear of the unknown, we've done it this way for a long time so let's not change anything and a sense that this is an institution we need to protect and we don't want to make changes and fear of loss of privacy is clearly fortunate justices alito and others and loss of anonymity so there's fear that's part of this. >> they have to look at the deeply and popular nature of the other branches and think that maybe ignorance of what they do is better.

>> what is their approval rating? >> that's what's so sad because anybody who's been to oral arguments, it's terrific. the questions are so smart. everything is prepared. it is a terrific experience. >> if he would remain the same with cameras, that would be great. but that is what worries them. it wouldn't be exactly the same. everyone else is convinced it would be exactly the same. >> no. no. i'm not sure. that is not true. i don't know what would happen. i'm not smart enough to know. the question is presumption. the presumption should be an openness. only with a good reason should be secret. the burden of proof would be on the justices per you can't say i don't know. that's not a good reason. we don't know. >> we are having a fight about

today. your point is that if they videotaped them for history, and release them later, that would have its own value. their fear is that the reporters committee will never give up. they will want it today. not in 10 years or 15 years. >> i agree with you. the video would have tremendous historical value. the question is whether you could hide that. >> prop comedy in the united states congress has taken off. >> there is a hotel to block my law school that didn't take african-americans in 1965. they could have seen the oral argument, and it would have made so much more powerful, the fact that we can't do that is criminal. >> or bush v gore. or the health care case. you can listen to it.

you can't see what ted olson's face looked like. >> in my misremembering. a british the print court in the u.k. had the cameras trained not on the justices but on the advocates. the idea is that they want students to be able to learn oral advocacy. there are some hybrids were -- bruce doesn't want that. at least you can say there is this education purpose. there is somewhat historic purpose being met. students can learn and watch and still protect judicial privacy. there is something in the middle. >> even if you're against cameras, and i can't fathom that. how can you be against cameras and the opinion announcement? millions of americans would've had a citizens' moment of unbelievable historical and

present-day significance. what possible downside could there be to hearing justice kennedy announced this historic decision? how could you be a downside to that? >> i think one of the arguments would be that the opinion announcements are not the opinions. they are not signed off by all the justices the offering justice right. i agree with you. i think it should be there. >> here is another question. i'm trying to get through as many as i can. does true transparency require that justices records must be available online?

isn't it too limiting to have access to some in a library somewhere? >> the answer that is yes. when i try to figure out where justices papers were, you saw how few of these archival materials are available online. a very small percentage. the rest are available, you have to go to a research institution somewhere. >> that is a money issue. lee epstein has gone and had in turn photocopy digitize with a digital camera on a tripod and took pictures of the memos that clerks to the justices who produce pate in deciding whether to grant the petition or not. she had someone take pictures of every page. they are on her website somewhere. the vibrant congress did not do that for us.

now they are there. it is a great resource. >> 50 years from now the supreme court justices working with papers will be absurd. who would look at a keyboard as the first method of creating tasks? >> saying that i'm not so sure about the quote on page seven. what if we said blah, that is going to be lost to history. they may save the paper drafts. that is one reason to be glad that they still use paper and messengers and photocopiers. that will be saved. >> on the other side, yes and no. the digital records are much easier to preserve. >> i'm not saying they should preserve them.

the fact that they don't, there'll be something left for history. >> nobody's arguing we have a right to the discussions between justices and their law clerks. i don't think anybody is. >> 100 years later, perhaps. >> i think we have time for this last question. a few questions i didn't get to. i apologize. what if any problems have high courts in other countries or state courts, what problem or unintended consequences have other courts had after allowing cameras in the court? this is the question. >> the supreme court justice in ohio is a getting a whirlwind tour. her answer is i'm proud about this.

i have canvassed other judges. nothing that has come out. they can't find any evidence of any harm. >> name a case decided by the supreme court of ohio. [laughter] name one. >> why does that matter? >> the amount of attention. yes they are all broadcast pretty none of attention is not comparable. it is not comparable situation. >> if we were in ohio. >> do you really believe it is going to affect behavior of judges or lawyers. >> have you ever between oral argument in which a state attorney general takes the electorate and argues for the state? it happens today. >> you're going to be careful what you say in front of the supreme court. i don't know the cameras are going to make a difference. >> it is too late. it is a public hearing. some people get to go in. we are done. any other institution of government would have to

televise. >> it follows the exact same pattern, skepticism and concern at the beginning until acceptance, and then enthusiasm. it follows the same archetypal get used to it. iowa had cameras in their court for more than 30 years. their chief justice has come around and said no problem. it has been great. we put them online. people have access to it. as far as this dear of the unbound, what other way can we casted out other than these similar cases? other than running an experiment, that is our best guess. the evidence is extremely in favor of it. >> it can't be the case that only unimportant things, only ohio. that was the core argument when

they decided to pull the tv cameras out of the prop 8. when the district court was ready to roll. when the court issued, that this is too important. people care too much to have cameras. what is that argument? unimportant things to be televise? >> that decision had a substantive effect. they would have seen ted olson destroyed any plausible public-policy argument against same-sex marriage other than religious. that would've had a greater effect. that procedural decision was hugely important. >> it is interesting when judge walker handed down his decision in that case, this is true of the ninth circuit, everybody got an e-mail.

here is the decision. everyone opens up. the supreme court, they put their robes on and take the bench, they go up there and read a summary of their opinion because that is an exercise in transparency. it'll have to do that. no other court does that. i understand that you think they ought to televise that. because it would be meaningful and historically significant to hear it. it is important to remember that that is something the supreme court does. lots of other courts don't do it. if congress decided to pull their funding, they might say they won't do that anymore. >> let's stop us there. it is time. you guys should write articles about this. but, i really want to thank gabe ross and his team for putting this together. i want to thank nyu. eric siegel, and willie jay, and

all of you for being here. this is a terrifically important issue. this is been one of the best panels on the issue i've ever seen. >> i agree. [applause] >> coming up shortly, remarks by kevin orr, the emergency manager for detroit. he will speak to the american bankruptcy institute. he is overseeing the city's finances. he announced a pension agreement with some employees. we will have live coverage at 1:00 eastern. he will speak at 1:15. tonight, at 8:00 eastern -- oraling off on c-span, arguments in a case involving o, infringed on the

rights of netflix fire transmitting programs without copyright fees. in works by gabriel sherman and a variety of journalist. on american history tv, a discussion on the 1954 freedom summer, when they registered black voters in mississippi. that is all tonight on the c-span networks and it begins at 8:00 eastern. c-spanover 35 years, brings public affairs of and from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences. and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. onch us in hd, like us

facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> now, a discussion on reducing poverty in american cities. we will show you as much as we can until her program get started at 1:00. robert woodson is the president of the center for neighborhood enterprise. get yourn, could we reaction to something paul ryan recently said in a radio interview? [video clip] >> we have got a tailspin of culture in our inner cities. men are not working and generations of men are not thinking about working or learning to value the culture of work. so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with. guest: and he was absolutely correct. i think he was mimicking something somebody else said. back in 1978 --

" our children are living in depressed neighborhoods and on the verge of ethical collapse. morally weak people inhabit their own personal group and contribute to the politics of -- a generation of people lacking moral and physical stamina necessary to fight a protracted civilizational crisis. its is a danger to itself, neighbors, and future generations." that was the reverend jesse jackson in 1978 in ebony magazine. it was recognized that the crisis that we are facing today in terms of poverty -- you cannot generalize about party. there are some people who just vote. there are three categories of poor people. there are those who have character in place. the factory has moved out, death

of a breadwinner. people like that -- they use welfare the way it is supposed to. as an ambulance service and knight transportation system. then you have category two. a single mom in milwaukee on welfare. she saves $5,000 to send her daughter to college. when the officials found out, they indicted her and her sure they felony. she concluded that the centers were not worth it. i will sit back. the third category that concerns most of us are people who are poor because of the chances that they taken the choices they make. theirs as well paul ryan is talking about. these are people who are poor because they are on drugs. they live your responsible lives and get money and support. to give them support injures them with a helping hand.

they need intervention to help change the culture of decadence, as jesse jackson said. paul ryan was echoing what everybody understands to be true. host: he was criticized pretty severely by congressional black caucus as making a racist statement. guest: that is just ridiculous. he did not make any reference -- he talked about enter cities, as opposed to a metaphor for race. it is not helpful to racialized. you have many members of the black caucus who have become -- they just look for opportunities. for instance, they lead demonstrations. only 30 blacks are killed each year, murdered by nonblacks.

6000 are murdered by other blacks. young blacknths, men are killed by other black men. that is every six months. you do not hear anything about this outrage. over easter weekend, 50 people were shot. including a three-year-old girl. this does not rise to the level of a protest or even acknowledgment. one member of congress making a statement like this -- paul ryan, suddenly it becomes national news. it becomes a subject of outrage. wire only outraged by the slaughter that is going on in our own communities? host: robert woodson, what is a conservative approach to poverty? guest: i would say that conservatives approach to poverty -- i consider myself a radical

pragmatist. and a cardiac christian. i just want what works. what we are talking about is a conservative -- we respect individuals. helped tot be a become agents of their own transformation and uplift. liberals tend to believe if you are poor then people must care for you. in poverty inple the black community, and therefore liberals believe they must be rescued from themselves. 50 years we have spent $12 trillion on property programs to address the needs of the poor. dollar goesof every not to the poor, but those who serve for people. ask provider industry does

which problems are fundable. we have created a commodity out that you have a class of poor people, social workers, drug counselors, a whole industry of people whose careers depend upon having a dependent relation to serve. there are perverse incentives for us to maintain people in poverty. a conservative approach -- conservatives i believe have strategic interests that are compatible with the interests of the poor, because they do not profit from the existence of having large numbers of poor people. since they are more oriented toward the market come i believe that poor people have a potential ally with conservatives because conservatives are the people who run businesses. they need people who are responsible who can come to work

everyday, a couple of being retrained every seven years. i think a conservative approach would promote independence and self-sufficiency, a conservative approach would define success by not how many people are served, but how many people have been rescued from self-destruction, how many people are now independent and moving on and starting their own businesses and starting to be self-sufficient. that is a conservative perspective. host: give us a pragmatic example of how a conservative approach would manifest itself. guest: yes. some years ago a good friend of detroit, took in over a pastorate -- as vice president of development, it has truly been the endowmentad effort and head the endowment

fund. wonder, why should you support the endowment? dues all, you pay annual and you come to programs like this, and isn't that enough? you know the answer is, no, it is not enough. since 1998, abi awarded its to do adowment grants study on means testing in consumer cases. and since that time, the endowment has provided more than $2 million dollars in special projects that never would have been done but for abi. the other organizations that might be inclined to do this to not have the money. where funding now a

two-year study of reform for cases, a case that is -- a cause that is near and dear to my heart, and we have under way at another group that is studying individual chapter 11 cases and reforms needed there. we have had groups that study ethics and professional responsibility. we hadody remembers we ha study in consumer cases. these are important efforts. they are important for the profession. they are only undertaken by abi. with your help, we can do more. in case youation, did not know it, i am speaking of the endowment, is a qualified

501(c)(3) charity. and so the money that you give is a charitable contribution. we havehe things that seen done in recent years, which has been just enormously important to the endowment, is plan provisions in chapter 11 plans that allow unclaimed dividends that are not worth distributing. there's just not enough money there to war and further distribution -- two borat this ant further to warr distribution. we have information on the abi website how to do this. you can contact me, contact my successor, and we will explain how it works and help you do this. on the table in front of you there is a brochure. it is a new endowment brochure.

it explains all the different ways that you can give to the endowment. there is a category that fits everybody. payment can be spread out over five years. everything you give is tax-deductible. for those of you who make a $2000 pledge by tomorrow, there is an exclusive reception tomorrow night. the entertainment at the dinner, sticky fingers magician, or whatever his name is, will be there. [laughter] of you can pick up a copy senator elizabeth warren's book, which she has autographed for the people who give to the endowment and show up tomorrow night. also silent auction tables, and you should look for those. they are around the conference. i want to call forward a number of significant donors.

over here.table when i call your name, come up to the table, we have a gift for you, and i want to take your picture. at the millennium level of $50,000, the law form of virginia, represented by john bollinger. [applause] gift is very generous being given in recognition of smaller abi has done in and consumer cases. ofthe century council level $25,000, just as if she has not done enough, trish redmond. [applause] at the visionary level of $20,000, a judge and a

professor. [applause] at the legacy level of $15,000 beckett.allanen [applause] at the lifetime number level of --,000 or more, lisa -- chip and bob --. ofthe benefactor level $5,000 or more, professor nancy rappaport. [applause] and at the sustaining member level of $2000 or more, jack, sam, and jeff. [applause] thank you, everyone, for your generous support. ok. now comes our guest of honor.

there is a story, so i am going to tell you a story. i am going to tell you a story about a bankruptcy lawyer. a bankruptcy lawyer knows that detroit was the capital of the car industry. musicme to the motown business. he goes to detroit and he begins the interview. he learns that detroit's population was 2 million people at its peak in 1970, but since then the city has been in decline am losing nearly 60% of its citizens. the bankruptcy lawyer learns that the income tax has declined 40% -- since 2000, and for five years expenses have

exceeded revenues by $100 million each year. even after our rolling -- after 325owing, the deficit is billion dollars. in april 2013, just a year ago, detroit had cash on hand of $64 $225on to pay bills of million. the city had total obligations of $15 billion. the credit rating was the lowest ever. 40,000 homes had been abandoned. and there were 60,000 vacant parcels of land. of 90,000 street lights did not work. there were five different police chiefs in five years.

detroit had the highest homicide rate anywhere in the country. in the public did not feel safe. announcedrm mayor that he was not going to run for reelection. detroitas clear that was insolvent. so what does the bankruptcy lawyer say? he says we are going to fix this. , many you think about it times americans' problems are deposited on the steps of the bankruptcy court. think about that. we did the railroad reorganizations when the country's commerce was completely dependent on rail travel. we cleaned up the mess after the great depression. we figured out the answer to mass tort problems. we cleaned up the mess after the

tech bubble. we cleaned up the mess after the real estate bubble. we reorganized the airline industry, with cases such as andhwest, united, delta, the hugely successful recently finished american airlines merger. notaved the auto industry, just chrysler and general motors, but all the auto parts companies that were an important part of that industry. recapitalized the financial services industry following the collapse of lehman, and dealt with the aftermath of the great recession. so it actually makes perfect sense, that when this country did not know what to do, it calls upon a bankruptcy lawyer to be mr. fix-it. was the perfect

choice for detroit. florida he grew up in and lives with his family right here in washington, he knows detroit well, having educated -- having been educated at the university of michigan, both undergrad and law school. he was an important part of the epic day team that did the chrysler case that completed the sale of chrysler from the day the petition was filed through appeals to the supreme court in 42 days. he has broad government experience. theas senior counsel for fdic, then assistant general counsel for complex litigation in the bankruptcy session can of the resolution trust corporation. from 1995 to 2001, he was the director of the united states trustee program based in

washington. 2001 until march of last year, he was a partner at jones day. that year he was named one of the best lawyers in america. he has been recognized by chambers usa. manye has received governmental awards for his government service. so in march lester, he left the comfort of jones day, a firm he loved so much, to take a ginormous pay cut to become the emergency manager of the city of detroit. little did the man know who grew up in florida what he was getting into. he asked, so what is the average snowfall in detroit? [laughter] and they told him, 42 in just a year. for months, 42 inches, that will

be all right. this year detroit had the snowiest winter ever, with almost 100 inches of snow. and things have been so contentious in the case that --ry creditors make this man made this man sit for a deposition the day before just tos eve, and then, make the point, they have him sit for a deposition on christmas eve. and then, because bad things come in threes, he sat for a deposition on new year's eve. to say that his dear wife, who is here with us today, has been understanding is an understatement. this has truly been a personal sacrifice. but as his resume confirms, many times before

answered the call to serve the public. and this time he answered the bell for the biggest challenge of his life. job, the best man for this and we have confidence he will succeed. today, in "the wall street journal," the lead editorial in dety's paper says "the ."it's encrypts a revival we are lucky to have him as our speaker this afternoon. these help me welcome kevyn orr to the podium. [applause] >> it is interest in, one of the

things that al did not mention up until last year he was actually one of my clients. in addition to being a dear friend, i do not miss the fact that al makes those 12:00 midnight calls asking me where the deal is, why we do not have the definitive timesheet, and why it is taking me so much time to get this done. thank you for that rather engaging introduction. it is nice to be on the side of your friendship. [laughter] this represents some of the homecoming -- some of a homecoming for me as i look across the room, at so many people who i have known throughout my career. , and another, with those famous words, do not f it up. we havew firm with whom

been on the trenches many battles with, my friends over here, mr. harner, and some of my investment anchors here. some of the judges i have appeared in front of, and i am before you did not hold me in contempt. some of the pictures had the with my mouth open which is not my usual state of affairs. what isa interesting about whatl unique is bankruptcy is in america. what i thought i would do is discuss three points with regard to detroit. how we got there, what we're doing now, and what we see happening. i will do that by invoking a point of privilege that my wife reminds me of regularly. the five b's a public speaking. brief.f, brother, be

[laughter] inis right, i got involved this matter as a part of the pitch team to receive the representation. when we went in others were there and when we went in we had a very frank discussion, and one of the questions they asked is do you need an emergency manager? i thought i went off on eight ha tirade, this is a ridiculous question, and i guarantee you i will work with ever more schmoke you get to do muck you get to do that job. they called the next day. despite my initial answer, i am comfortably discussed in my petite for sure ozzie position ugeousie position. i decided it was a call to service.

an obligation in a city that has been so unique in this country's history. it is the motor city, motown, the arsenal of democracy, a order town, the jumping off point for the underground rare railroad, a city that has been central to the history of america. thaty for so many reasons has fallen down on hard times. i have not spent a lot of time focusing on a retrospective of why. there is enough attribution. there's enough blame, and you can read that. most of the free papers have chronicled detroit's arc to where it is now well. when we came in we did an analysis, but one of the things that was striking is while the bankruptcy was filed to light 18 18, 20 think july

about the process had been going on for years before that. the process began in 2011 when the governor made a move to say i am going to take on the chart. neglect,of decline, of and i will to get on in my watch. there's no upside here. % of the votegets 2 from the county. he began with a review team that can march of 2012 that issued a report which ended in a consent agreement in april 2012. failing to meet the conditions of that agreement, a memorandum had specific obligation that was approved in two city council votes for those provisions. failing to meet those, another team was empaneled in december of 2012 and issued a report and the governor issued 22 pages findings of facts of the

condition of the city. most of you have read it. that -- of of tone total debt. $2 billion in unsecured credit. 60% of the fires are arson. 40% of the streetlights out. 78,000 units delighted, abandon. as you drive to the city, in certain parts of it, it looked like a shadow of the former great american city of was. the one thing that struck me of going into the city is the resilience of its people. while the city of detroit may be bankrupt, the people of detroit are not. to their -- committed city with the hope that they do dream of better things and that

it shall ride from the ashes, the motto of detroit. what struck me in that retrospective is hopefully there is no cause and effect behind this phenomenon, but other cities i have gone to had a similar text appeared out of law school i went to miami. periodicals, were miami is dead, paradise lost, race riots, fires and brimstone. it is never going to come back. if you go to south beach, there was still the old training center where mohammed ali trained. everybody thought it would never come back. within a snapshot of five years, it began to turn. investment flowed into the city. great beaches., rat

i think i want to go back, especially when i hear about the snow. the city began to grow and thrive. are there in 2001 i came to washington. street.e was on e between seventh and the 9th street corridors. it to the buildings that were burned up from the 1968 riots. nobody would, go, too dangerous. pollin builtbe himself a stadia, and now we see thriving condominiums can gentrification, people coming back into the city supporting a space and despite the prognostications it was never happeningappen, with dispatch. new york, i met with the director for the city of new york, and he brought some

photos, and i said, that his church, and he said -- that is detroit, and he said no, that is 130th. thriving. it does not matter. every city, baltimore, inner harbor, pittsburgh, three rivers stadium, every city has an opportunity for revert, and that is what struck me about detroit. the costs of debt and unfunded obligations and conduct a borrowing from the pension funds and calling it the furl -- fe deferral, unsustainable. the fact that last year we had a citywide service on a on$1 billion -- the city would not function. you cannot cut enough of the fte's and services to balance

the budget. and it was apparent. suggest weitially to can do this without bankruptcy. thateived some pushback on saying that was sophistry, too ambitious. but what we have seen from last july 18 until now, in the past three weeks, we have made great momentum. some of you had read about it, the settlement with the bondholders. member of this president took me to task a couple of times for putting out a deal that he thought was too rich, and i will take a beating on behalf of the city every day, but drove it down to one of $77.6 million. the interest rate was being ominalated on a n

amount of $800 million. $400ort of émigres being a termination fee. the transformation of that the $50nt is to make million of principal reduction payment. the city is paying down its debt without the risk to its casino revenue. pfrs,ettlements with grs, others, and hopefully more to come, and today we are to file yet another plan of adjustment. it took us from the needs that were apparent and had been discussed about for many years, to a point where we had a framework in bankruptcy to provide a structure and mediation is a process to provide a venue to resolve many and some of the counterparties share this.

let me tell you, there has been some heavy lift, late nights, and lot of positions, some people walking out, some people crying, all that kind of good stuff. we are getting it done. more importantly than that, three months ago -- six months as i was up on seven mile, drive around the city to get a feel for what is going on. 500 andanging between 800 lights a week. i want to take a look at the pblight. seented to get a look to how the buses were running. i was driving by that street corner and i told this story before. there is a little princess, the age of my daughter, little pink backpack on, waiting for the bus. she is waiting for the city bus,

because we cannot afford school buses. on that bus which she writes with a else and older children,, it is her way to school. if that bus is late in november when the sun goes down at 4:30, if she is out there by herself on a cold bench all alone, that child is at risk. every day. she has to walk from the a stop past blighted homes. monsters live in those homes. people live in those homes. the risk to the city is terminus. what -- is tremendous. what we are trying to achieve to provide an adequate level of services for that little girl, for people who have done nothing wrong and expect to be paid and provide as sustainable and future for the city is crucial. the next steps, because he would like to take some questions. as part of a long race and we

are now coming around the third turn and we have the fourth turn industry to a coming up, we still got a lot of lifting to do, because despite the successes we have had we, we get negotiate definitive documents, we have got to get through a plain structure were some of our card partners -- counterparties have not agree to anything. that will be difficult. and we had to get the funding in , the $816 million that allows up to true up some of these pensions, from three different groups. $366 million. florida, not from really big in the detroit area. state legislature and the governor that appropriated $56 million and $100 million from the community to give us 100 $86 million to true up pensions.

we also have to come up with an exit strategy that leaves in place some post-emergency oversight which is state-of-the-art, the expectation state of the law, and every other restructuring like new york's reducible corrections system that lasted from 1935 until 2008. capital,he nation's still had to have four years of a proposed balanced budget over actuals that it met before he could get out from oversight. likewise, from detroit, that will have an obligation to keep true north. let's talk about that true north and where we're going next. we do see a brighter future. we have a new mayor. .e is as committed he is as committed to turning around the city and detroit's renaissance as anyone. we have the city council that is actually talking and working

with the mayor. they have even voted for some of the proposals that my office have proposed because it is in the interest of the city. we have city fathers and mothers . roger penske, or and gilbert, committed to the city for years. $1 million over the past 10 years to the city of detroit coming in, professionals, some of whom i talked with this morning, about what it means to be involved. downtown, central court, nine square miles, 97% leased. you cannot get an apartment downtown in detroit if you wanted to. we had investors that came in who trip over each other. we had a group of investors from china who bought three buildings because the value proposition and the relatively low acquisition cost smells all a lot like miami, washington, d.c., baltimore, pittsburgh, and other cities that have gone through a renaissance. in that is nine square miles

a city that is a 130 mile square. manhattan,it austin, and san francisco in our borders. the city has got to deliver services to all those 139 square miles. so there is still work to be done. what i say to people about the efforts we are making, this is almost, not quite easy, but long overdue and expected. it is what we do as restructuring professionals. we look at assumptions, come up with proposals, and cut deals that make sense. but that is the least of it. team, my core team, how many more professionals can you cram into a conference room? i said it depends, is a christmas eve or new year's eve? firmre team is my ex law jones day, my investment bankers, ernst & young, accountants, and they have been doing the work since 2012, and

they have been stellar in the way we handle ourselves. we have not thought, have not played games, i have not posed a reduction in force. i have not set of deadlines or proposals were if you do not agree, i take a quarter-point off every day thereafter. we tried to be reasonable and forthright answer. to some people's position, a little too much so mama but the important thing is we have to leave the city in a way that is able to move forward together so they can seize this moment to rebuild a great american city. so what do i see? on the way to a renaissance. committed folk with good faith, the city has been remarkably patient and secure. when i came in, there was a gentleman that showed up at city , uncle tom, here

is a bag of oreos, all that kind of stuff. i said, if you have some milk, i like oreos. now i am having lunch with a gentleman. you know what they say? what can we do to help, how can we pitch in? we thought you were going to be darth vader, but you have proved herself to be reasonable. we want to take a moment to make the city better for that little princess in the backpack. that is what it is about. but i also see much effort. that core, those 700,000 residents, deserve and expect tovices in a city that has come through the arc and grow. i'm going to speak personally for a moment. on two fronts. number one, it's been a privilege for me to have this opportunity. i said i didn't want to do it a cousin, frankly, i was thinking about the usual stuff, what kind

of toy am i going to buy, how much am i spending my pension plan, and it seemed like a sacrifice, but i cannot tell you how much worth it it was for what we are trying to achieve. the second thing, although i did not know she would be here, but now that she is, i would like i went to stand up so i can say to everyone, thank you for being supportive. thank you for being patient. [applause] you can probably tell i am proud of her. the reality is, back at home, she tells me to take out the garbage and walked the dog. i don't care what you are doing in detroit. [laughter] but i want to thank all of you also because from the judge to the mediators to the professionals to the part that i'm playing, as al mentioned, this is a restructuring effort that shows what everyone in this room does, the unique capacity

in america to take an enterprise , be it civil, municipal, or private, restructure it, and given a rush start, to given the opportunity to thrive and grow. there are many people out there in the community that do not quite understand what we do. many of them look at bankruptcy as a bad sobriquet, as opposed to a business tool that has grown and achieved normalcy in how we achieve it. whether it is doing something in detroit or doing something in a private enterprise, i'm just proud to be a small part of your brother and and be given this opportunity to allow the city to rise from the ashes. thank you. i'd be happy to take any questions. [applause]

i'm going to get off scott free? ok. no, they are coming. >> what will happen with the art collection? >> good question. last year, when i came in, i kept saying -- we hired christy to do an appraisal. as you all know, christie's is one of the most preeminent organizations around. we hire them in april and there was stories that kevyn going to sell it all off. i will say right here, first of all, thank you to christie's. they lost some commissions in the process and people were calling them carpetbaggers, but i did that for a reason. we spent the following seven months saying to the community, this is an opportunity to save yourself. if you do not, we may have to sell some art. we are in bankruptcy, you sell assets, that is what you do.

fortunately, as a result, the foundation community came, and one other conditions of the ,unders for that $860 million none of the art to be sold. in our plan, we are going to preserve the art. it is one of the most seller art museums in the nation. rivera's,ur diego wonderful paintings, but the interesting thing about the assessment, everyone thought that we had 60,000 pieces of art worth $50 billion. really, only 400 pieces of those 66,000 have value, so we will have the opportunity to preserve the art institute, a great facility. not just for the city but for america. that was an opportunity we did not have seven months ago. >> [inaudible]

i'm sorry, i cannot hear you. >> [inaudible] i think your question is am i monetizing assets in the city. some and some not. under chapter nine, it is different. 904, i can use bankruptcy speak with this crowd. the judge, presciently, in an order said that the city had the discretion to make those decisions. we looked at the opportunity and there were three principal issues we have to deal with. , the other was the detroit sewer and water department, which we are going through an analysis now, to see if a mediation process will go through to create an authority for benefits of the city. there was bell island.

was designed by the same architect that did the supreme court. that island we have leased to the state so that we can preserve it for city residents. that is generally what we have done so far to try to maximize value for our creditors. yes, sir. , i'm from chicago. we have our fair share of challenges, financially at the state and city level. i'm a high level, i'm curious, what lessons have you learned that could apply to other cities and states around the country tackling the same issues? >> thank you for the question. every time i go out i try to say, all municipalities are different, all cities and states have different enabling legislation as far as what they can do, all have different tax basis. chicago has a quite healthy tax base. one of my favorite cities. i used to go to hamburger hamlet

quite often before it shut down. $19 billion in pension obligations. generally speaking, at 40,000 feet, i think your mayor is well aware of this, delay does nothing for you. the reality is, one of the ways we were able to get pensions to 100% for our police and fire, uniform retirees, and roughly 95% for general service retirees , is that their market investment in the pension funds paid better this year. partner of that is that there is oversight. statute that says i will make criminal referrals if there is inappropriate behavior. there are people in prison as we speak because of misbehavior. if people behave in an irrational way and deal with the issues early on, you get over the risk. it does not get better. which issue with destroyed -- this issue with detroit has been

coming for 50 years when population began to go down town and for 25 years more acutely when it was clear the tax base could not support the services, and in the past 10 years, when the city of a million lost 240,000 residents, 24% of its population, that is a city that lost the size -- in the city. there were plenty of warnings but you have to take the opportunity to do with them. yes, ma'am, and then yes, sir. after this extraordinary example that you had set for all of us in this room, what do you do next? what can you do that would match this kind of assignment? -- is aitical career political career something you would consider? >> my boss lady is in the room,

so the answer to the second question is no. the first answer is a warm island with my wife and kids. i do not now. i cannot say i have enjoyed the process because there are so many different images to the process i did not imagine. one of my staffers said, i'm not a politician. one of my whiny moments. he said, you were not elected, so get over that. i have since learned to put that cloak on, but i'm looking forward to taking it off. there are no political aspirations inside this heart. i've had enough. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> you talk pretty eloquently about detroit's population loss and the fact about the job losses are also equally well-known. have you seen signs that the city is stabilizing the population? my friends who live in detroit

say they continue to lose people even sent the 2010 census. >> the reality is we are probably at 685 but there are some shelling population loss. in the central business is to there is growth. we do not have enough housing for people coming in. the other thing that makes it good, in the next three years, detroit will have five major infrastructure projects in that city for tens of thousands of jobs. we have a new bridge. we are such an important trade route for canada, they will build a multimillion dollar bridge, a welcoming center there, a new arena coming in, we have light rail going of the corridor, as well as indigenous development alon. not auto job necessarily, but new opportunities for residents, and taking many of our young people. i had a meeting with the united way yesterday and i could not

tell you how many groups were dedicated to training our young people so they could get into apprenticeship jobs and become skilled tradesmen. we have a lot of work. i do not want to be pollyanna-ish. 139 square miles. the population with loss we have suffered a significant, but the opportunities that are coming the way of the city in order to turn that around are at least much better than if they were not there, which would be a different story. there is a reason to hope that is based in reality. >> keep up the good work. >> thank you so much. that is kind of you. [applause] >> in closing, once again, thank you all. it is good to be back in the bosom of the restructuring community. i will stay around a little bit so i can use some bankruptcy speak and feel like i am back home again. thank you so much. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> as we wrap up with the american bankruptcy institute," the wall street journal" is announcing secretary jack lew is talking with civic and nonprofit leaders about how to revitalize the bankruptcy. the visit is intended to highlight the obama

administrations continued commitment to the city and explore ways to promote job creation and economic growth. the visit comes after last week state and local officials were in just did in getting the administration to free up as much as $100 million in anti-blight money for detroit. an op-ed piece in "the wall street journal" that digs deeply into the condition of the city of detroit. coming up tonight in prime time, supreme court oral arguments and lawyer comments about whether infringes on the rights of networks or retransmitted without paying copyright fees. that is tonight on c-span beginning at 8:00 eastern. independent scientists looked at the coronado market and found a gene that would normally summit was which on. that gene from produces an

allergen. you may have an allergic reaction, someone may die from eating the corn that is genetically engineered, unlabeled, as containing an allergen, but the process of genetic engineering created a switch on of the dormant gene and the change of 43 other genes, as well as changing the shape of proteins. an up tos soy has seven fold increase in a known allergen. this was not intended, it was the backgrounds not affect of the process of genetic engineering come in the process used to create the soy and corn we eat. >> here at the organization, world health organization, australian, american medical association, no problem with gmo's. are all of these part of the nospiracy that a person with scientific grading has uncovered and is telling us all about? if that isn't enough for you, here are a bunch of organizations. these are not organizations with

some scientific sounding name. these are real, medical and protective organizations. in europe, which is very anti- gmo, australia, all over the world -- here is the epa. posesay would not unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. i could come up with dozens of these. c-span, howend on safe is genetically modified food? this weekend on book tv, the festival of books from los angeles. saturdays starting at noon and sunday at 1:00 eastern. history tv,can georgetown professor bonnie morris on title ix, discrimination against women in sports and education amendments of 1972, saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight on c-span3.

c-span is pleased to announce the winners of the documentary competition. >> student cam is c-span's annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think about issues. the question students were asked to base videos on is -- what is the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 2014? andrew demeter believes congress should mandate genetically modified organisms. >> we warned the fda at the time and this was 20 years ago, that if they did not label genetically modified foods there would be a consumer backlash against them because consumers would wonder what they were trying to hide. >> have you ever heard of a gmo, or a genetically modified organism? >> no.

>> i think i have heard, but i am not exactly sure what it is. >> it's been a long time since i've been in college for science. >> it is where they add chemicals to the fruit or veggies. >> i know it is a crop where they modify the genes to increase the yield or the taste, or something else about the plant. >> the switch in the dna structure -- >> you don't want to lose your seeds. >> we require fast food restaurants to post calorie counts. >> what happens 20 years down the road? >> to obtain a better understanding of these gmos, i set out to interview experts in the field of, and those personally affected by genetic engineering. my first question -- scientifically, how does an organism become genetically modified? >> a genetically modified organism, or a transgenic crop, is when a gene is taken from one organism and put into a different species. this is typically a bacteria or a virus. >> for example, splicing a gene responsible for regulating a

winter flounder's body temperature into a tomato would yield a frost tolerant crop. although humans have selectively bred plants forever, businesses like monsanto began genetically modifying seeds in the 1980's to maximize farmer's crop yields and, subsequently, the global food supply. >> monsanto is a giant. >> they're trying to make products that sell, but products that sell are products that people want and people want products that are going to increase yield. roundup is an herbicide that farmers spray on roundup resistant crops so that plants will grow but the weeds will die. >> it is easy for these guys. they don't have the hassle. they don't have to be accurate. roundup takes care of it, for now. >> by utilizing herbicides, pesticides and advanced technology, conventional farmers can spend less and produce more, but at what cost?

>> the only problem i don't like about monsanto is they are coming after us farmers. they have patented seeds, where they say farmers cannot use our seeds for a second round of crops, but you can buy the seeds, plant it, harvest it, and then you have to wipe your field clean and you have to start new every year. that's part of the agreement the farmers sign. >> they go into farmers' fields and check, even though they are not supposed to. they trespass. we know. >> monsanto has filed suit against farmers who save or replant these seeds to protect its investment in genetic research and development. a group of organic farmers in new york preemptively sued the biotech giant in fear they would be sued if patented seeds from neighboring farms contaminated their fields via wind current. how does this information affect the average consumer? >> foods that are most often genetically modified are corn, tomato, and soybean. corn and soybean are probably the most common.

>> approximately 90% of all corn and cotton and 93% of all soybean crops planted in the united states are genetically modified. despite suggestions of noble intent -- >> they are genetically modifying rice to treat vitamin a deficiency throughout the world. >> there are people starving in africa and if we can get them the food they need, why not? >> the safety and nutritional value of gmo's is highly disputed. >> there is no difference if you ate all organic or you ate regular food. it will not improve your life or health or nothing different, as long as you eat fresh. >> gmo salmon and farmed salmon produce one third of the healthy omega threes that wild salmon have. the nutrient value is down by almost 70%.

>> some professionals propose the increased consumption of gmo's positively correlates with the 21st century rise in allergies, autism, infertility, and even some forms of cancer. >> is it possible that what we are seeing is related to what we are eating? the answer is yes. >> others claim the intimacy between agro industry and the federal government has created a revolving door of conflicting interests at the consumer's expense. >> private corporations send someone to work in government who is an expert in a certain area. that expert then allows for certain advantages that companies take advantage of and it moves back and forth between the private and public sector. >> michael taylor, former vice president for public policy at monsanto, is the current food safety czar at the fda. are these genetically modified organisms safe for human consumption?

>> you watch the commercial for a drug on tv and in the last 15 to 30 seconds are the warnings of the effects and side effects of the drug. if you had to do that with the tomato, chances are, people would not buy it. >> scientists will do a study with an end goal in mind. they will set up research to show what their agenda was at the outset. there are probably people on both sides doing those things. >> i think there needs to be more research done. we do not have conclusive evidence to show these products are safe for consumption. >> this global uncertainty has prompted more than 60 countries, including those in the european union, to restrict or ban the production and sales of gmo. >> countries around the world have said we don't want this genetically modified food. >> because neither congress nor the fda has yet to mandate the

labeling of gm foods, despite propositions and protests, some food companies have pro-actively assigned a non-gmo seal to their products. >> we are going to enforce labeling on everyone except gmo foods. that is the problem. government has decided in this case, this particular area does not have to comply. >> without transparency, we are left in the dark. >> who is responsible for determining whether gmo foods should be labeled, banned, or ignored? you decide. >> to watch all of the winning videos and learn more about the competition, go to c-span.org and click on studentcam and tell us what you think about the issues the students want congress to consider. post your comments on the facebook page or tweet us using #studentcam. the issue of airport security

continues to trouble the transportation security administration. we are joined by keith lang, who covers transportation issues for the hill. first of all, on this san jose stowaway story, what was the breakdown there? a the issue there was 16-year-old boy was able to get past, not only get through tsa security, where passengers are supposed to have their boarding documents checked, he was able to get access to the runway where it is supposed to be limited to employees of the airlines and airport. he hid in a landing gear of a hawaiian airlines flight, a boeing 767 line to hawaii. to hawaii. some say it is miraculous that the teenager was able to survive. he was unconscious when the plane landed but later regained consciousness at the hospital. it is really tough at the altitudes that commercial flights r