people i grew up with were killed in germany. i have always been deeply grateful to this country and i know what it represents to the peace in the world. i have been lucky at being able to execute my concerns as my profession. so i am not involved in what i'm doing in order to get history written about me. there is an extensive record. people -- although i must say, the way the mass of material that is produced in the

internet age, i'm not sure whether you can say history will come to a fair judgment anyway. that is not my concern. i tried to do the best i could. that is all i can say. mark: that is all anyone can say. [applause] mark: we are not only grateful to you for being our honored guest tonight but for serving your country in world war ii. we have many veterans out there. i would ask now that you stand and be recognized by this audience. [applause]

mark: thank you for your service. dr. kissinger, thank you for your time tonight. thank you all. [applause] ♪ [crowd noise] >> in both iraq and afghanistan i hope both countries with their constitutions, being a facilitator of agreement on key issues among iraqis and afghans.

the head of state or government have been anxious to meet with you when you are asked for a meeting. >> tonight on q&a, former ambassador to afghanistan, iraq and the united nations discusses his memoirs. extremists such as czar cowie exploited that z -- zarkawi exploited the time i was there by reaching out to the sunnis, the iraqi forces, by establishing a unity government. killing zarkawi brought about the security. the violence was way down but unfortunately when we left and the vacuum was filled by rival regional powers pulling iraq apart, the violence escalated and we have ice is now -- isis now. >> that is tonight at eight

eastern on q&a. nasa administrator speaks tomorrow the future of science, technology, engineering and math education in the u.s.. that's at the brookings institution. we have that limit 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. later in the day to look at the rise of terrorism in europe and with certain groups are being blamed for promoting a jihadist agenda in the region. that's hosted by new america. we have live at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. monday on the communicators, republican fcc commissioner michael o'rielly on issues facing the sec like net neutrality and set-top boxes. the comments on the political divide within the sec. he is joined by howard buskirk, senior editor. >> including the chairman to take the most aggressive, leftist approach to policymaking. there is little graph -- ground

when it becomes the first primary goal of the item. when the policy and the direction, rather than any consideration of any collegiality already attempt to bring or develop consensus you might have with the scenario we have today. there is little interest in bringing my opinions on board and you will find i'm less likely to be supportive and i will express my opinions. >> parse the communicators monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> now discussion about the legacy of the late justice antonin scalia of -- former law clerks v of the energy california berkeley federalist society. this is an hour and-a-half. >> welcome to the berkeley society's final gathering for this academic year.

justice antonin scalia, an exceptional legacy. i'm the outgoing copresident of the chapter and we're very gracious for your kind support you've given us throughout this year. you've meant so much to us. we're indebted to our distinguished panelists who have come together to celebrate the distinguished legacy of justice antonin scalia. today, we are joined by the -- today's event is also dedicated to the story legacy of justice scalia, the justice of the supreme court of the united states for nearly three decades, one of the longest tenures on that institution. at an occasion marking one of the justice's milestones on the court, chief justice roberts' colleague says since chief justice scalia came on the court, it's not been the same. indeed, justice elena kagan remarked the yesterday will go down in history as one of the

most transformational supreme court justices of our nation. his views on interpreting text have changed the way all of us talk and think about the law. the justices contribution in all its interpretation, and its subspecies, originalism and constitutional construction, his principled and courageous opinions dissents in area after area of american law and his personal decency provide a paradigm to which all jurists may desire. we truly are blessed to be serving on the court with such valor and distinction. i had the great good fortune of meeting the justice when he came to the oxford union. we were all of 22 years of age, but even then, we appreciated the mind, the soul, and the heart we had amidst us. the justice often acknowledged that he wrote his opinions, particularly his dissent, for contemporary law students and young lawyers. he has inspired several generations to think and reason critically and to maintain civility and generosity of

spirit. our four distinguished jurists with us today, practitioners, academics, a former solicitor of -- solicitor general of texas, knew the justice presently, three who clerked for him, and one who clerked for justice scalia's friend and clarence thomas, whom justice scalia often called brother clarence and admiration. we have ms. miles is a litigation partner in the san francisco office of munger, tolles, olson. her practice is focused on complex litigation. she was recently selected as one of the national law journal's outstanding women lawyers. for many years, she has been named among california's top women lawyers and is a female bar broker. ms. miles served as a law clerk for justice scalia from october 1989 and judge douglas ginsburg. she graduated magna cum laude

from harvard law school in 1988, and received her a.b. from harvard as well. mitchell,ve jonathan who served until the soliciting general of texas. he is a visiting fellow at the hoover institution of stanford and visiting professor of law at that university's law school. he received his law degree with high honors from the university of chicago law school. during his time as solicitor general, mr. mitchell argued before the supreme court of the united states, the federal courts of appeals, and the supreme court of texas as well as numerous trial courts. after graduating from law school, mr. mitchell was a law clerk who judged fourth circuit and for justice scalia during october 2002. he served as an attorney advisor in the olc in the justice department from 2003 to 2005. we come now to professor michael ramsey of the university of san diego. he clerked for justice wallace in the ninth circuit and justice

scalia in october 1990. he practiced international business law. he joined the san diego school of law faculty in 1995. professor ramsay teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, foreign relations law and international business law. he was awarded the law school's university professorship of the 2012-2013 academic year. jd earned from stanford. lastly and not least, we are fortunate to have dr. john eastman who is the professor of law and community service at chapman university school of law and also served as the schedule's dean from 2007 to 2010. he is the founding director of the center for constitutional jurisprudence there. prior to joining the school of law faculty in 1999, he served as a law clerk to justice thomas during october term 1996 in the fourth circuit. he earned his j.d. from the university of chicago law school where he graduated with high

honors. finally, the federalist society for law and policy studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. it's founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom and that the separation of governmental powers is essential to our constitution and that is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. first, we will hear from our panelists, and i will pose a few questions about justice scalia's legacy and tenure. finally, we will entertain your questions. let's begin. >> i am christy miles. when justice scalia joined the court, i was still in law school. during those years, harvard was the home of critical legal studies and other deconstructionist theories and constitutional law seemed like a blur of fuzzy thinking, policy considerations and multifactor balancing tests. controversy law like wise focused little on the process of contract language or applying the rules of language in more

considerations of fairness, equality of bargaining power and similar issues. statutory interpretation was not a subject at all. it was simply not taught at law schools, including harvard. already by the time i graduated in 1988, justice scalia had begun to have an influence on legal thinking, even in law schools. even professors who disagreed with him, which in our case made up most of the harvard faculty, assigned his opinions, if nothing else, because they were compelling statements against which the professors could then present their views. a quarter of a century later, justice scalia's legacy in law schools is undeniable, just as his legacy on the court. as justice kagan explained in the second annual antonin scalia lecture at harvard in november of last year, justice scalia has brought about a revolution in the way law is taught in law schools. before justice scalia, she said,

while schoolteaching was done through the common-law method and textualism, whether statutory or constitutional was simply not part of the curriculum. now she notes more legal thinkers consider the words the meaning of text as the starting point and sometimes the ending point of the analysis. i make that last point because in chambers, justice scalia used to rail against opinions that used the common expression, "we begin as always with the text of the statute." he used to say, what do you mean you begin with the text? why not begin and end with the text? when i started my clerkship, justice scalia had begun the process of trying to persuade the other justices to rethink the way they approached legal analysis. and in particular, he frequently dissented or concurred on statutory interpretation in statutory interpretation cases where the court had adopted an approach that used policy,

fairness, or worst of all, legislative history. sometimes, justice scalia in those days would write a single paragraph opinion refusing to join either a paragraph or a foot note in the majority opinion because it cited some house report or statement by a senator on the senate floor. in his view, the only legitimate authority as law was the law that was passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, not a passage snuck in through a legislative report or announced on the floor in a way that could be used to manipulate the statute. these eccentric materials he thought were made to make words appear to come from congress's mouth which is spoken and written by others. never the congress, aids or enterprising lobbyists. he insisted that the text be followed despite counter vailing, economic or social commendations. one case, he said despite

justice stevens' dissent and despite the clear trend in both congress's amendments to the relevant statutes and the regulatory development, there was toward deregulation, nonetheless, the core of the doctrine remained in the statute, and he said it's that skeleton we're construing. we must read what it said. justice scalia was relentless that the words prevailed. not just the whims and majority of justices. we'll get to some particular cases later in this talk, but this meant two things. this meant on the one hand, if the right was enumerated in the constitution such as the confrontation clause, the fourth amendment, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, he would enforce the

right despite either opinions by other justices or other social developments that made the right inconvenient to enforce. likewise, in the case of unenumerated rights, such as, again, sorry, the other enumerated rights, the first amendment, which i think we'll talk about in greater detail later, but if a right implicated the first amendment, justice scalia would be lining up with the liberal justices to enforce it. with respect to unenumerated rights, justice scalia felt equally that if the right was not articulated in the text of the constitution it couldn't be , imported into the constitution through some creative use of the due process clause. for example, which provides certain rights -- a person shall not be deprived of certain rights without due process. the substantive due process jurisprudence has allowed justices to read rights into the constitution that could not -- of which a person could not be deprived at all. justice scalia couldn't count on that approach, which was entirely counter textual.

so in sum, justice scalia had a profound effect on the way both law professors, law students, on the one hand, and the other justices on the other, look at and think about law. as justice kagan said in the same comment that was just quoted, in addition to saying that he was one of the most transformational justices of our nation, she said that his views on interpreting text have changed the way all of us think and talk about the law. so with that, i think hopefully, we will get a chance to talk about the legacy. what does it mean for the future? i think it's a justice kagan will be someone who can carry that textual torch forward in the future. it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the court over the next couple of decades and the extent to which justice scalia's legacy in the law

schools among students, such as many of whom being present here, will carry that same affinity to -- of fealty to the text forward as they go into the legal profession. host: thank you, ms. myles. mr. mitchell? >> as kristin notes, if you were to pick up any supreme court statutory opinion from the 1960s were you will see very extensive 1970's, reliance on legislative history. today in supreme court opinions, you see legislative history discussed mostly in dissenting opinions, if at all. text and structure have become paramount in the way the supreme court interprets statute. at the same time, justice scalia's tenure on the court has been less transformative in the field of constitutional law. it's clear that a majority of the supreme court still subscribes to the living constitution mind-set that produced decisions such as roe against wade, the same sex

marriage opinion from last terp, -- term, the same thing. by justice kennedy, it's over text. it departs radically from the original understanding of the fourth amendment and rejects any efforts to the rules. why was justice scalia's time on the court in his forceful advocacy of textualism, originalism and formalism so effective and influential in the area of statutory construction, but seemingly less transformative in the field of constitutional law. i think that's one of the key questions surrounding justice scalia's legacy. there are many possible answers one can give. i want to suggest a couple in my remarks today. first, i think one of the reasons for this disparity in the influence of justice scalia on the way the supreme court approaches law is the fact that so much of the constitution by the time he got to the court had already been interpreted, in previous supreme court rulings, that did not employ textualist

or originalist methodologies. so that fact, when combined with the supreme court's strong decisive norms, makes it very difficult for any member of the court, especially someone who's espousing meaningful textualism to reconstruct established documents that the supreme court has already made. a related reason is that new constitutional provisions are seldom enacted and that deprives justice scalia and others on the court of opportunities to apply their dominant methodology, textualism and original meaning it new constitutional provisions that are not weighed down by the baggage of earlier court rulings. if you look at the opinion in heller, which interprets the second amendment, the majority and each justice stevens' dissent argued primarily based on the text of the constitution and historical evidence surrounding the original meaning. that's somewhat unusual but the second amendment had very few prejudice in interpreting that. when you see a provision lika -- like that reach the court during yesterday skl's time,

text and original meaning took center stage even for nonoriginal jurists. for the other constitutional provisions when there's so much water under the bridge, it's much more of a challenge for justice scalia and fellow textualists on the court. it changed the way the court does business. there is a second reason why original meeting textualism has not has much of an impact in constitutional law, even after 30 years of justice scalia on the court. that's because they're political appointment. to be sure the president and the senate care about legal qualifications and their political accountability of the people demands they take that into account. but at the end of the day, the president and senators are looking for jurists are looking for rulers who they approve and in --terest groups that influence the judicial process do not care whether their political goals are confident with the text or the original meaning of the constitution. as a result, we have jurists being appointed through this process that do not regard tax

-- text or original meaning as the touch stone of proper constitutional interpretation. so this may be an inevitable consequence of having a constitution that provides for the political appointment of supreme court justices. but i don't think it's inevitable and i don't think we should regard it as inevitable. the political seduction of constitutional law ultimately te -- depends depends on a legal culture that accepts the idea of a legal constitution as an acceptable approach to judging. if the legal academy and the organized bar and the norms of our profession insisted on fidelity to constitutional tax, -- text, and if they denounce the judicial creation of atextual constitutional rights as illegitimate or lawless, then the president and the senate would be unable to find jurists. it would be akin it trying to find a supreme court appointee who would issue advisory opinions. it can't be done because there's an entrenched norm in the legal culture that federal judges are

not supposed to do that. it's regard as an active -- active user patient, -- userp ation, something that exceeds the proper and legitimate role of the judiciary. instead, the legal academy and the organized bar not only accept but applaud rulings that create constitutional doctrines that have little or no connection to the text of the fundamental charter of government. and this in turn involves interest groups, jurists and other agendas from the bench, either conservative agendas, such as the evolution of affirmative action, or liberal abolition of affirmative action, or liberal and progressive agendas. justice scalia may not have vanquished living constitutionalism on his time on the supreme court. but the challenge he threw down remains unanswered by any member of the current supreme court. here's the challenge he threw out. if the meaning of the constitution changes and evolves over time, then why does the supreme court get to impose its preferred interpretation of the constitution on the rest of us?

if we have a living constitution, why shouldn't the political branches disregard the supreme court's past announcements and adopt new interpretations of the constitution that they think superior? the supreme court tells us that the constitution's meaning changes and evolves, yet it insists that its own precedence and interpret this supposedly evolving document are fixed and immune. until, of course, the supreme court gets around to overruling them. those stances are in considerable tension with each other. if the underlying law is a morphing and changing thing, then there is no basis for the judiciary to demand obedience to pronouncement, that purport to interpret a document that is in flux. this judicial constructions are up for grabs as much as the constitution itself is. if the post scalia supreme court use propagating the idea of a living constitution, there is

the reason what english a defer to the judiciary's pronouncements of the that evolving document means. or if there is a reason why the supreme court constitutional pronouncement is wholly read, the justices on the current court have not yet provided one. host: thank you, professor mitchell. professor ramsay? ramsay? thanks very much. real quick on what you just said. i would say not only have the justices provided one, but neither have academics provided one. thank you very much to the law school and to the berkeley federal society for having me back here. i agree with all the things that my panelists have said. i will take a little bit of a different tact. i will tell a little bit of an anecdote that tells something about scalia as a person and his legacy at the end. here's my anecdote. so scalia was much of a hero of mine when i was in law school

ever since i read his dissent in morrison versus olson, the great separation of powers case that we may talk about later. perhaps one of the single most influential thing i read in law schedule, i may add. it was such a great honor to go up to washington to be his law clerk. i was a bit overwhelmed by it, but i came in the first week and it was in the summer. we didn't have that much to do in the summer so it was fairly light but we had one opinion left over from the previous term that hadn't been quite finished up. when i got there, the justice said, look, we've got to get this done. i want to you do a couple of things on it, and get it on my desk and we'll get it out of here. so i did. i came in on that saturday that week, actually saturday morning. did the things he'd asked me to do. he wasn't in the office. so i just went in his office and put it on his desk. and then i decided i was done. so i left and i went out for a bike ride. and we didn't have cell phones in those days, so i was out of

touch for a couple of hours and when i got back to my house, we did have an answering machine. when i got back to my apartment there was about a 20 minute message, seemed like 20 minutes. where are you? i need your help. i can't believe you're not here and so forth. this is bad. so i rushed into the court. i lived right around the corner. i put my bike in the office which is probably a mistake, in retrospect. in any event, went in, reported to the justice. he was furious. further lecture followed about how he expected his courts to be available and how he specifically told me we were going to get the opinion done. i thought when he said get it done i meant -- i document the next couple of weeks but apparently he meant that day. so i apologized the best i could, but the justice did not want to take apologies real well so he lectured me a little further and sent me off.

i went back to my office, put my head down on the desk and figured i'd completely blown it and i couldn't believe this was the way my courtship was starting off and he would never forgive me. so i was sitting there in this mood, and about 20 minutes later, justice came in. heavy draft opinion in his hand. he was chuckling. came over to me, poked me in the arm like that, said hey, i added another zinger. isn't this a great one? he showed it to me. of course i told him it was the funniest thing i'd ever heard. he said yeah, yeah, this is pretty good. that's a great opinion. he slapped me on the back and said here, do a couple of more things on this, finish this up, get it out, great job. i'm really happy with it. and he went back to his office. at the time, i was a little bit relieved, and at the time i thought, well, not too much more than wow, i might survive, and

this guy is a little more -- mercurial. we'll see how it goes. he never mentioned that again to me. but i never forgot it. and at the time, again, i guess i wasn't as impressed by it, aside from the fact i still had a job. but later in retrospect, as i've grown up -- i was only 24 years old at the time. as i've grown up and had my own kids, and thought more about this in retrospect, i saw that it was more than just that he was a little mercurial, although he was. but he really -- he thought of us like his own kids, and he treated us the way that i would treat my own kids now when one of my own kids made some big mistake. you want to let them know, right, that look, this is not acceptable behavior. but at the same time, you can't hit them so hard that it depresses them and takes the energy out of them. so you give them a little hard time, and then you treat them

just like you always would, like they were your kids. and you know, he really did -- he treated us like we were part of his family. part of his extended family, and i came to value that so much through the rest of the time that i was there at the courtship and then throughout the rest of his life that when i had the pleasure to interact with him. so i think when you ask about his legacy, part of his legacy, a large part of his legacy is all of us, all of us that have been touched by him and have been made so much the better for that. in just two minutes then maybe i'll say one thing about the law part of his legacy. and it follows up on something that kristin said earlier. when i was in law school, originalist thinking and conservative legal thinking generally was really focused on the idea of judicial restraint. it was a reaction to the warren court, to the excesses of judges

making up their own ideas about what their laws should be. and the idea of it was that courts should step back and not interfere with the political branch. it was reflected by the dominant academic voices. they talked about the difference of the courts to the political branches. i think part of scalia's legacy is that we don't think so much that way anymore. and morrison versus olson symbolizes that because it was the case of the independent counsel where all of the judges were fined and creating the statute, except for scalia, he dissented alone, 8-1. early on in his tenure in the court. and he said no, that's not what the constitution says, because the constitution vests the executive power in the president and paraphrasing, but not by much. it says it doesn't say some of the executive power.

it means all of the executive power. and that include the power to control independent counsel which the statute denied. and what morrison stood for him was the idea that not just the court should not interfere with the political branches doesn't warrant, but it should interfere when the political branches warrant. we live in a regime of limiting government by the constitution. that limit is enforced by the court. it was not the role that previous conservatives had emphasized but it was an active role when the constitution warranted. and i think that now is much more taken for granted but it was not taken for granted before he came on the court and before he made statements like his dissent in morrison versus olson. so i think that's perhaps not

the thing he's most remembered for, but i think it's a very important part of his legacy. thanks. host: professor eastman? professor eastman: i was not a clerk with justice scalia but justice thom. during the course of the panel discussion -- we'll get to the minor disagreements and judicial philosophy between the two because i think it's some of the most interesting things that occurred on the court in the last generation. but before i get there, i want to talk a little bit about the legacy. i'm a co-author of a constitutional law text book. those things can be pretty dry. justice scalia's opinions find greater presence in most constitutional law text books than any other justice on the court. maybe save for john marshall in the history of the court. and i think there are two reasons for that. the impeccable logic of his opinions and reasoning forces

you to confront the logic and analytical skills we're trying to teach in law schedule. they are very good schools. it matters not whether they are majority, concurrence or dissent. the logic of his opinion help us to advance that pedogogical tool. but they're also so much fun. justice scalia, i think in the order citizenry, is best known for his quips. this court has been mistaken for -- a culture can for a bit of spite. church and state would not be such a difficult subject that religion were as the court apparently thinks it is to be, some purely personal that can be indulged in secret, like pornography in people's homes. you get these things. even people that came under his pping knife,qui like ginsburg, for example, praised him not so much for the language sometimes but for

forcing them to make their own opinions stronger. i think the most memorable one of that is that it was a love note to justice ginsburg. if i were to ever join an opinion like that, i would hide my head in a bag. the supreme court of the united states has dissended from the disciplined legal reasoning of to the aboriginal fortunes of the fortune cookie. that is what makes him so fun to read but it's the logic of the impeccable reasoning that make him such a long-standing pedogogical tool and also has had a transformative effect that everybody else is talking about. i've had my own anecdote with him. he loved the intellectual sparring of his role in the court, but also his role as teacher. i remember some years ago we invited him to give a commencement speech at my law school, chapman, and the invitation got lost in the mail. this was when the anthrax scare was going on. when i bumped into him one day

visiting justice thomas's chambers, said we never got a decline from you. he said i never saw it and i do want to come out, just not graduation. what do you want me to talk about? i said justice scalia, you can talk about whatever you want. he looked me right in the eye and said eastman, you're wrong about lockner versus new york so i think i'll talk about lockner versus new york. i said that's great. next year is the 100th anniversary of it. why don't we reenact it. you can play chief justice. and we had a wonderful exchange about substantive due process. he said what do you get due -- out of law do you get of it. i said it's law. he said where do you get that. i said one day your successors on the court won't like that, -- citing foreign sources of authority, but that was cicero he said where did that come . from? i said i think the state of sicily, your honor. it was a fun point to be may about the nature of the constitution.

this brings me back to -- by the way, one side on there, when alberta fell was handed down last year, oftentimes when i see my former boss justice thomas has written his own opinion, i'll start with his opinion because i want to see what he said. and he said something in that opinion about the word liberty in the 14th amendment means protection against government interfering with you walking in the streets and other things or from working up or manufacturing materials of their own growth, like lockner raising bread and justice scalia join him. i said here's an opening he's , coming around to joining the lockner view. but i found out that he and justice thomas himself joined chief justice thomas's dissent, which includes an entire section attacking lockner. but the fundamental point and minor disagreement in judicial philosophy between justice thomas and scalia which i think , warrants our attentions for a very long time, is on the role of the principles of the

declaration of independence and understanding the constitution, whether it's filling in the meaning of hard to understand words like "republican guarantee" or "privileged immunities" or the back dropped principles as justice thomas says are inherent in the constitution. and this fight has been around ever since calder versus bull and justice iradel and justice chase disagreed on exactly the same terms. it's been around since the lincoln-douglas debates when they disagreed on those terms. scalia stakes at his position most forcefully in a case dealing with parental rights and grandparents rights, he says i may think they're unalienable rights and i think they deserve to be protected but , i don't think i force the -- i is a judge can enforce what i believe our rights to be inalienable if they're not

enumerated in the constitution. justice thomas responds in a very short opinion in adderand which dealt with the facility government when there's not a specific clause that deals with the federal government. the clauses on equal protection, what have you, textually only applied to the states. he said this violents the -- violates the principle of equality that is inherent in our constitution and for that proposition he cites simply the declaration of independence, paragraph 2. so the sparring back and forth on that issue between the two of them, that somehow involves the issue of lockner as well, and this comes to the forefront, i think most visibly, in their disagreement on the grounds to getting to the outcome in the second amendment case incorporation of the second amendment to the states, in mcdonald versus city of chicago. justice scalia had written heller. the personal right to keep and bear arms that operates against the federal government via the second amendment. then they're confronted with the question of does it apply to the states.

justice scalia probably from the conservative side of the bench, the most vocal opponent of substantive due process ever on the court, the most vocal critic of the doctrine of lockner is given the opportunity to apply the second amendment to the states via the privileges immunities clause where the legislative history of that constitutional provision was quite clear that that was one of the core things they intended, or accept the existing precedent of the court. this substantive due process president that he otherwise criticizes. he went the substantive due process route, leaving justice thomas alone on that. i think there's a lot of fruit for further inquiry we can gain by looking at those areas they -- they don't often always agree on the outcome but sometimes got there by different routes that are very telling and worth our inquiry. thank you so much. host: thank you so much, professor eastman. and thank you all for your brilliant in moving statements,

anecdotes and magnanimity. a famous commentator, not a characteristic justice scalia allied, said just after d.c. versus heller was decided, we are all originalists now, she said. professor mitchell opined on some of these issues and heller, of course, established an professor michel opined on some of these issues and heller established an individual right to bear arms under the second amendment. it is remarkable also because the scalia majority and justice kept with the original meaning. will original as a mentor? originalism endure? creuset is nothing new, that was the case before justice scalia joined the bank -- the bench.

of fewer than 12 persons. required of jury trial 12 persons. heller trying to make justice stephen's argument. everybody thinks the original meaning counts for something. i am not aware of anyone in the judiciary or academy the things the original meaning of a text is entitled to no weight at all. the same time, i do not think anyone is is -- is an original list, meaning it is everything and nothing else could the considered. it is hard to answer your question. everyone thinks original meaning is something to be considered, but at the same time, even the has aogmatic originalist

knology you sometimes have to reach non-originalist results. no one thinks the supreme court should declare paper money unconstitutional. it is upheld for -- >> i think there is more to this. not in forad it , weice scalia on the court would have seen an entirely different opinion in heller. it would have balanced the public interest and the threat haduns and it would have from both sides about what the risks were, was it more beneficial to have gun control or less, and that would have been to the end. maybe a glancing not, but it

would not have been wholesale grappling with that fundamental question. because scully has become much more dispositive than it ever was -- that it had been for 50 years. >> i am optimistic justice scalia had an influence in causing the court to move more toward originalism. can say yes, justices can do it when it is their purpose but i'm optimistic to see what will happen going forward. which upheld case under the sixth amendment. does that mean it is ok to

introduce out of court cases as long as they comply, or reliable deemed a -- by the court? you have justices joining an opinion that went to a truly originalist -- this was an issue kicking around. my tune -- my term, child witnesses were meant to be protected. not having to sit in the courtroom and see the person who was accused of having committed a crime. the court upheld those procedures. for me, it was good to see it come around where you had at majorityignificant including some of the liberal justices adopting a different view. becauseg to clear up, one of the negative articles

written by justice scalia was one written in the yorker. negativepretty article. i was disappointed in part because i did not think it was intellectually honest with regard to what he described as originalism, which he described in the sense that we have to decide what the framers subjectively thought when they wrote the road to death relevant provisions. i do not inc. that is at all what justice scalia's originalism is. it has to do with the text of the provision, and what those words would have meant to jurists and members of the public, and lawyers in the day and time it is written. it is different from saying, what did alexander think he was doing in writing these words?

says, he therefore dismisses the exercise because how could these people have thought things that were new, technology andg figure out what is going on there. that is the case which i think we will talk about where the justice led a majority of the court in an originalist result which was that the fourth amendment protects people in their homes. that means the privacy of the home, even if new technology that the framers would never have known existed could be used to figure out from the sidewalk what might be going on inside the home. in light of those opinions where you see not only justice scalia, but malt members of the court going along with the

methodology, i am optimistic there will be a legacy there even on the constitutional side. cleanse a little bit of an agreeic perspective, i you can use those arguments if they happen to get you where you want to be. i think what is different post scalia is it is at least and recognize as a plausible position to hold that originalism and textualism should be decisive in the sense that it should lead you to results even when you do not results onparticular the ground. that kind of you, at least when i was in law school, you dispel that kind of you and originalism, when i was law -- in law school, people would look it you like you had three heads or worse. i would not say now, it is a great overstatement to say we

are all originalism's -- originalists. , i dove or something else not think we all are, but some of us are. and we can be even within law school. the reason, when i told my parents i would be a legal academic, they thought it was a bad idea. they said he will not be able to survive because you do not have the values a have. they will not accept you. but that has not been true. 's have a seat at the table as one of my colleagues said. it is not the case that originalists dominate. it is also not the case that they are driven underground. a a large extent, that is

legacy of justice scalia. he made it impossible to say marginal orwas unimportant as a thing to consider. it playing way i see academic conversation, which i think plays over to some extent in the broader legal culture as a whole. >> thank you all. i am pleased the originalist -- his of justice scalia -- onal modesty if i wereu said that king, i would have punished them, but i am not king.

he regarded reliability test as that flabby test. for criminal defendants who had been unlawfully searched, and forrative agencies, a lady who tried to poison her husband and was federally prosecuted as a result. how did these opinions inform the justice's greatness? >> i cans be to the flagburning case. the second one was decided my term. texas versus johnson was the state case that came up to term before the 88 term. the following year, congress had passed a statute essentially trying to fix the problem the court had created in texas versus johnson. at the time johnson was decided,

48 out of 50 states prevented the burning of the fight as a means of protest. opinion byin an justice brennan, justice scalia did not write opinions in either , it is quite expansive along with kennedy. scalia, what had been done was, and understanding of the first amendment that went back largely through court precedent. i would not call it an original it applied the historical meaning of the amendment, as the start -- as the court had found it, beginning with the dissent in

first amendment cases and leading up to the court's adoption of homes's view that if words or expressions are made in protest, that is at the core of what is protected by the first amendment. the logic was not that complicated. for members of the public that you cannot even protect the united states flag. the conduct only when it was as a form of protest since burningise, a flag is the way you are supposed to dispose of a flag, he did say, famously, that if it were up to me, i would put in jail every sandal wearing weirdo who burns the american flag. but, he said, i am not king. he said it's perfectly fine for

the state to the prohibit me from putting my hand out the window while driving a car but what the state can't do is prohibit me from putting my fist out the window when i drive a car. he said it would have been perfectly fine if the state or congress prohibited flag burning altogether but that's not what they did, either in the texas case or subsequently in the case involving the united states. and all the dissents, interestingly, in the case, were all about patriotism and chief justice rehnquist included several long poems, patriotic poems and songs and that was really the gist of the dissent, there should be an exception to the first amendment for the american flag but justice scalia, no matter his feelings about scruffy bearded weirdoes, he was not willing to create an exception to the first amendment.

>> i'd like to thank you for that question because i think there's something of an emerging narrative about justice scalia that, while he talked big about originalism, he decided cases according to the way he wanted them to come out and originalism was a screen. you'll find that in some public commentary and also in some more serious academic writing and i think it's important to push back against that narrative because i just don't think it's right, as the cases that were listed off indicate and i'd like to add one case to your list, one of my favorite of his

dissents which is hamdi versus rumsfeld where the interested party was an accused terrorist and the court held that he could be -- that he could be detained without trial subject to minimal procedural protections and justice scalia dissented and said either he had to be tried for treason or he couldn't be held. it's a great dissent. he referred in that case to the courts, quote, mr. fix-it mentality and that, quote, the court's taken a mission to make everything come out right, initial caps, everything come out right. so he rejected that idea even though it led him to the conclusion that this terrorist should be -- excuse me -- accused terrorist, should be set free or tried for treason but not detained in the way the court and executive branch wanted to and i'm sure it wasn't

because he had sympathy for terrorists. so i think it's an important to see what he was doing here. the one part of the question i'd push back a little bit on is not how far i would go endorsing his personal humility and modesty. i don't think that was the determinant thing. but what really made the difference to him was the idea of the rule of law. that's what mattered to him. that's what he saw himself as a servant of and the idea and therefore that links up exactly with what he criticized the court in hamdi.

it's not the court's mission to make everything come out right but the court's mission to apply the law. >> i want to pick up on that theme a little bit because one of the criticisms of originalism as an enterprise is that it's unknowable, how can we put ourselves back in 17 91 and figure out what they intended, the scarecrow version of originalism or what the original public meaning was as we're 200 years later. and since it's so indeterminate, that means it's a facade for achieving the agenda i want and i think these cases are pretty dispositive proof that for scalia originalism wasn't a tool to get him where he wanted because it often took him to places he didn't want to go.

the notion that there were criminals with lighter sentences or convictions overturned altogether is not what you would expect from a conservative jurist on the court like scalia yet that's what blakely and crawford lead him to, that we can't use police investigative techniques that would have been completely unknown to the founders if they intrude on your house, even in virtual ways rather than physical ways, the kylo case. so i think that's dispositive proof that he was not use originalism as a tool to advance my agenda but use originalism as the end of our inquiry to see what the rule of law requires of us as judges whose job is to interpret, not to remake the law. >> it's also really hard to see how originalism can support the

results of the flag burning case. the text says speech, not expression. the original meaning was far more narrow than justice brennan's opinion. >> the fact that he may not have been perfect on his understanding of originalism on any different case doesn't mean -- if he was going to use it for a tool, he would have come out on the other direction on that. >> it does rebut that point but it's odd for me to see the flag burning case -- producing the results in that case and the

court's opinion was not originalist in the way it reasons through the issues. >> thank you for the discourse. we were impressed, the personal humility helped him put the rule of law ahead of his own private agenda. we appreciated that. justice scalia's morrison dissent had the brilliant quote, this wolf comes as a wolf and it has often been regarded as among his finest hours on the court. why did he care so much for structural matters that undergird our constitution? >> i guess i'm a separation power scholar so maybe i should answer that question. i think that part of it is the

rule of law in that the framers wrote the constitution with particular attention to separation of powers and federalism which they regarded as the fundamental protections of liberty. the original constitution didn't have a bill of rights, had minimal protection for individual rights in its text but as federalists argued during the radification debates, the reason they saw the separation of powers of federalism as sufficient protection for liberty that they didn't need a bill of rights. he also parenthetically worked in the executive branch, and had strong views from that experience of the importance of a singular executive and of executive power so he came to the court with very fully formed views on the executive power, as well as legislative and

judicial. >> one of the things that most of the commentary about justice scalia's passing has not focused on is was he himself changing his views in anything and the idea that flows out of the separation of powers in morrison also contributed early on to justice scalia's full embrace of chevron deference to executive agencies and i think that kind of goes up out of his disregard for the activism of the warren court in the 1960's and early 1970's when he comes of age. the court kind of answering every question and he said if we defer to the executive agencies we're at least deferring to a political branch that however imperfectly owes its direction to an elected federal, the president.

and in recent years, though, he came to the realization that that itself was a pretty dramatic violation of separation of powers because we were allowing unelected executive agencies to write massive amount of law when law making powers vested in congress and accountability for the law making power and costs that go along with it are supposed to be vested in congress so he started in recent years even backing away from some of the deference doctrines that he himself authored once he came to the realization that they themselves might be violating the core separation of powers principle now that he had time to reflect and see its operation more fully and i think that was a very significant aspect of justice scalia's intellectual journey on the court that he would be willing to reverse course on something he authored if he saw it bucked up against the understanding of the constitution, ultimately. ms. myles: i'd have to disagree with one aspect of what

professor eastman said. i don't think justice scalia was ever a big fan of chevron. i think he grudgingly accept it. he didn't author it, for sure, and i think he and justice stevens often had disagreements because i think justice stevens did see it as an open-ended deference to the executive branch and embraced the idea that this meant that the executive was going to be writing law. i think justice scalia always bristled at that. i think he felt bound by the precedent and maybe it was the

only solution. certainly it wasn't going to be a solution for the judges to make up law but i know that he and justice stevens had a distinct difference of opinion on what chevron has step one and step two. step one says, is the statute ambiguous and step two says, if it's ambiguous, the executive interpretation can fill in the blanks as long as that's something we can infer congress meant to law the executive to do and justice scalia always said that between him and justice stevens, the difference that was

he would almost never find the statue ambiguous because he would say you look at the statue, interpret the words, apply traditional doctrines of statutory interpretation and i, justice scalia doing those things, believe the court can come up with the correct interpretation, only rarely would i be deferring whereas justice stevens was quick to find ambiguity and quick to defer. >> i don't disagree with that. the additional deference doctrine he did author, what we call our deference, is the one he was backing away from toward the end of his term on the

court. mr. dasgupta: justice scalia went from fainthearted, calling himself a fainthearted originalist to calling himself a stout hearted originalist. if words and an instrument have meaning, he contended those meanings should to be honored. but i think those are marginal cases and don't go to the heart of what the true originalism enterprise is and i think that's why he first responded the way he did and came back and said i'm a stout hearted originalist. >> a difference between using originalism to strike down legislation and more as a shield to uphold it. when he's talking about fainthearted originalism. there are two ways to describe it. one could be the example in the eighth amendment where the court would strike down a policy that legislature as enacted. the other way is to think of it as giving way to stare decisis. there were a lot of non-originalist precedents that justice scalia seemed to adhere to.

one was the size and scope of the commerce power, the other is one person, one vote. he hasn't argued for overruling that. incorporation of the bill of rights, far from clear that incorporation was the original meaning of the 14th amendment so there are examples like that where he has gone along with precedent in the name of stare decisis without arguing that every single precedent should be overruled so in that sense i think he is a fainthearted originalist and not stout hearted. ms. myles: i can say one thing about that. he had a reason for doing that and that was he didn't want to be -- i think he wanted to be able to have an influence on the way the legal scholars, judges and the public, american public thought about the constitution and incorporation is a great example because the text of the constitution couldn't be clearer that the first amendment does not apply to the states. congress shall pass no law. not the states shall pass no law and the idea that somehow was

incorporated through the 14th amendment to the states following the civil war is not very historically -- it's not supported, really, as an historical matter. but he was not willing to go back that far and turn back the clock, partly because it would -- it would make -- it would render him incapable of contributing to the debate about what the first amendment should mean, since most cases that come up, come up from states, and in every such case, he would have to say, not applicable. of course there would still be federal cases but i would wager that the number of first amendment cases that come up in the states is greater than the number that comes in the federal government. >> with me on my i.r.s. litigation but i'm nothing else. >> i just have to quickly note that i don't think it's true that the incorporation doesn't have any historical basis.

i think incorporation, through the substantive due process clause, doesn't have historical basis or textual basis. he went along with that but christen was making a broader point that i had to push back on a little bit. i wanted to take up the question you asked us directly about and also push book that. you asked us, other than the facts that this might generate normatively disagreeable results, why does the justice's philosophy generate disagreement? my answer is -- it's exactly because it generates disagreeable results that people don't like it. and more than that, it would take away from the justices and it would take away from elite lawyers and it would take away from us as academics and law

students, the ability to argue policy, which is what, after all, we love to do, and we harbor in our mind the idea that we could persuade a justice or five justices to adopt the policy that we think would be best and isn't that -- isn't that a feeling of power? you might not be able to but there's a chance you could. and that's why i think it's so -- the non-originalism, living constitutionalism, whatever you call it, is so appealing because -- it's a feeling of power and that's exactly why people hate originalism. mr. dasgupta: thank you so much. almost a herculean task for each of you.

justice scalia liked to say, i don't attack people, i attack ideas and some very good people have very bad ideas so if you could each share a thought about his personal decency and relationship with his colleagues or with his clerks, his larger family, that would be wonderful. ms. myles: i can start. justice scalia did have an amazing ability to appreciate in other people their best qualities. and he loved the other justices on the court. and, you know, i had the good fortune of clerking the last year justice brennan was on the court and justice marshall was also still on the court then. what people often talk about how justice scalia's relationship with justice ginsburg and that is a famous relationship and quite a remarkable one that was formed when the two of them were judges together on the d.c. circuit.

they got to be friends and spent every new year's together and they loved opera and loved to go together and he was thrilled when she was appointed to the court because now one of his best friends would be his colleague. they also famously were able to disagree on substantive matters pretty well without getting personally annoyed with each other. they actually loved that sparring. but also, you know, justice brennan and justice scalia got along famously. i just remember seeing them come out of conference and just walk down the hall with their arms around each other, both of them rather on the short side.

both about the same height and they'd be roaring with laughter over something that occurred in conference and justice stevens, likewise, i saw justice stevens at justice scalia's funeral recently and we talked a bit about how justice scalia and justice stevens were both passionate about administrative law and he said to me, you know, there wasn't very much that he wasn't passionate about and the two of them loved sparring over administrative law issues because no one else on the court cared. but the two of them, also sat next to each other on the bench because they were two apart the entire time they were there together so they always sat next to each other the way the court configures the seats on the bench. it's by seniority. and so oftentimes we would see

them disappear because the chairs would swing back so the two of their heads would disappear from view and then you would hear this raucous laughter coming from behind the bench where they were sharing anecdotes or jokes about what was going on in court but i would also say that justice scalia had an amazing admiration for justice marshall. he would always come back and say that justice marshall was the only justice on the court that really had criminal justice experience, that had seen the unfairness that occurred within the criminal justice system. i don't know the extent to which that at all influenced justice scalia -- some of the outcomes in the criminal justice area. as mentioned before, he used textualism and originalism to enforce a lot of criminal justice rights that had been diluted.

i don't know if justice marshall influenced him on that but he definitely influenced him on justice marshall's own experiences and finally i'll just say justice thomas and he -- maybe john can speak to this more -- but justice thomas did a reading at justice scalia's funeral and also gave a beautiful tribute at the memorial service the following week, saying the two of them came from different places. he said, i came from an uneducated family, he came from a family of educators, but we met and we walked together for 25 years and he just had the whole room in tears with his recollection and the feeling of loss that you had about the loss that he was experiencing and felt he would experience going forward without his brother on the bench. so those are just some examples. mr. dasgupta: thank you, ms. myles. >> he was liked and respected by his colleagues. it was very evident but also remarkable when you think about how the supreme court got along in previous decades and iterations. chief justice rehnquist told me when he clerked in the 1950's, there were horrible animosities on the court, justices that didn't speak to each other. if you read "the brethren," he talks about how the court was in the 1970's and problems people had can collegiality so it was remarkable during his tenure on the court relations not just with justice scalia and colleagues but relations with members across the court were pretty good despite disagreements over legal issues.

>> i don't have much to add to that. i disagree -- agree with it all and you've got my anecdote already and it shows the side of him that was important to see but i would add that this is another narrative that's pushed about the justice by some of his detractors, that he was mean, that he was tough, he was a bully, that he went after people in a mean way and so forth and you know like a lot of narratives, there are grains of truth in that in the sense that he was tough on arguments, not on people, but on arguments that he didn't accept and he wrote some tough things in his opinions but his ability to get along with people that he didn't agree with, i think is what is very remarkable and something that we should remember in these days where it seems like it's increasingly hard to get along with people that we don't agree with so he should be a model to us in his friendship with justice ginsberg and justice kagan in particular should be a

model going forward. >> he was human and his ability to do that wasn't perfect. that sometimes took a while. after planned parenthood versus casey and the lack of logical reasoning in that opinion, holding a grudge is too long a word but three years later when i was on the court, we wrote the court skit at the end of the year that still reflected some of the tension that still lingered over that case. but he liked you to push back when he was sparring with you and i'll close with this anecdote. it's a tradition at the court that the justices would take the clerks from other chambers out for lunch at some point or what have you and he would always take the clerks to a.v.'s pizza and when he took the thomas clerks out my year, we went

there and he would famously order pizza with anchovies and demand that everybody eat it and i wouldn't eat it and he said, eastman, real men would eat anchovies on the pizza and i said no a real man will say no if he doesn't like it even to a supreme court justice and he said, touche. and i think that's how he liked to live and why people thought highly of him and his collegiality. mr. dasgupta: thank you, all. now we have time for perhaps one or two questions if some interested members of our audience would volunteer. audience: i wanted to know what the justice's opinion was about the u.s.' leadership in international justice and specifically rule of law institutional like the international criminal court and

whether he believed that this somehow infringed on our own constitutional framework. >> i think he saw the american constitution and the way that our founders did and the way many of our leading -- leaders over the years did which was a beacon on the hill that other people should follow because it was so well designed and right but the notion that we would interpret provisions of our constitution by what some other court and the european human -- whatever -- it was bizarre to him and it really undermined any notion of sovereignty so he was probably one of the most vocal opponents of this notion of looking to other courts' decisions to infuse meaning back

into our constitution. it was contrary, i think, to everything he understood, what the rule of law and originalism project that he was engaged in meant. >> i agree with that. but i think at the same time it's important to see the justice as having a real internationalist bent. he traveled widely. he talked to people around the world about legal issues and he was very interested in international matters but i think he wanted at the same time to be -- to be sure coming out of his rule of law orientation

that embraces of internationalism by the united states were consistent with the constitution, so i think you have cases which you might perceive as being anti-internationalist, such as zien versus texas and shansheargo versus oregon. i don't think they were anti-internationalist in that sense. i think they were protective of u.s. constitution and u.s. sovereignty to engage with international institutions, they were not hostile to international institutions so i think he was something of a middle ground on that.

he was in his own since. >> we have time for one last question. i saw that hand go up first. >> how does justice scalia pro religious decision, with his decision in smith and oregon. >> that decision came down my term. smith versus employment decision. what smith did most controversially is held where you have a generally applicable criminal law, that is in that case of law prohibiting the listing peyote as a controlled substance without an exception for religious use, there is not a need for the court to create a religious exception. that was essentially the holding of smith. it was perceived as being

contrary to at least some precedents where it seemed as though there was an exception that administrative agency doling out unemployment benefits would have to take into account whether the person was fired or otherwise was not performing their duties because of a religious obligation. we grew up thinking that was an exception. the court held otherwise with smith. that was a very controversial decision. i remember the petition for

rehearing. you are quite right, you can say, how was that protecting religion? peyote, who really smokes that anyway? it is a small minority of people. the logic would allow a state to prohibit say drinking alcohol, as at least one state said that. kansas, is that still a dry state? with no exception for, to pick a topic near justice scalia's heart, the catholic mass where you are celebrating with wine. they would say, that is not ok and under smith, that would be fine. the protection against that lies in the political process.

in the legislative process. he says this in smith. subsequently, the congress passed a law called the religious freedom restoration act that attempted to revive the doctrine. the court struck it down. in that case, justice scalia took on the historical case. ultimately saying the protection is with the people. the people are the ones that are making religious exemptions to otherwise generally applicable criminal laws. i don't see it as contrary to any personal belief of justice scalia. he was fully aware when smith came down its logic would apply to core, could be used to prohibit core religious activities. you name it, it could be the subject. i don't to get filing it, i don't to get was contrary to a view he had otherwise expressed that there needed -- if there was a law that was directed to religious activity such as no wine should be used in religious ceremonies, that would be prohibited.

>> i've got a distinctly different view. my litigation head is the claremont institute, probably the leading proponent that the natural rights foundation and the declaration of independence has to inform our understanding of the constitution. this is one of those cases where the tension comes out most forcefully. i think when you peel the onion layers away, it disagrees with other principles that justice scalia argued. he was a strong proponent that political process was sufficient

to protect the federalism provisions. he opposed that. here in smith, he adopted political process accommodation. if you want an accommodation against the law, your remedy is through the political process. that turns the notion of the bill of rights upside down. they are there precisely to protect individuals, particularly minority individual groups against the majority harry and political process. if the only people that can get accommodation are those with support of the majority, it is no longer do any right. that closing paragraph, it seems that as the cost of democracy. i think it is a just law. it will be interesting to see, now that justice scalia is not there, whether there will be an attempt to revisit that question

in a way that was not going to happen when he was there. >> my view is different than my fellow panelists. i think that although i was skeptical of the smith case when it came down, on further reflection, the historical case for the opposing side is somewhat a week. you can make big picture arguments. it is hard to identify of practice which granted these kinds of exemptions. there were some evidence for it. it is not overwhelming. if you have a view, which i

think justice scalia did, notwithstanding his view of the importance of enforcing the constitution, that the courts should not enter mean -- intervene unless it was confident it had the history behind it, there is a strong ambiguity. the opinion rest on that. the case for the other side is not proven. but this is on your list of cases where he comes out differently from where you think he would tend to come out. i think surely, of course he knew the applications of this. that gave him some positive it i wasn't there at the time but i have heard discussions of the case later. i think he did have some pause but he nonetheless thought that is where the constitution led us and therefore that is where he

had to go. on this point, i will relate an anecdote. we were doing a panel. when someone asked him about the smith case, what would happen if congress passed a law that prohibited consumption of alcohol and didn't have an exception for catholic mass? scalia said, according to what i heard, they would burn in hell but it would still be constitutional. it is one of the hardest questions in constitutional law because the text does not give a clear answer whether the freedom of religious practice requires exemptions. it creates absolute language. congress shall make no law. there is no exception for compelling interests or anything like that.

i can understand what justice scalia was comfortable with, the formalistic approach. it is a text phrased in absolute terms. it is a way of being respectful to the fact that it is phased as a command rather than a balancing -- but it raises difficult questions. what about anti-discrimination laws and so forth? >> this concludes not just our event but the chapter, until fall, 2016. thank you all for your generosity and support. please join me in thanking our

panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> in iraq and afghanistan, i helped with their constitution being sort of a facilitator of that agreement on issues among iraqis or afghans. your influence is can an herbal and this state or government very anxious to meet with you. >> tonight, former u.s. ambassador to afghanistan, iraq, and afghani nations discusses his memoir. : we saw an extremist

exploited, although we then corrected it toward the end of by time i was there, reaching out to the sunnis and moving up iraq worse is, establishing the government, to .ring about charity but unfortunately, when we left, the vacuum was filled by a rival regional power pulling iraq apart and now we have ice is. -- isis. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. and thepaul stevens justice who replaced him on the supreme court, justice kagan. this is from the digestion of congress. it is 50 minutes.

>> let me begin by offering our thanks and our welcome to two justices, justice stevens and elena kagan. each has given their time for the evening. thank you to both of you. [applause] justice stevens, let me start with you. 1975oined the court in after being confirmed unanimously by the senate. you left the court on june 29, 2010. the world changed quite a bit over those 35 years.

you think the supreme court also changed either in the nature of the case is -- cases or the way the justices went about their daily work or in any other way you might identify, or do you think the court is kind of a con that? -- constant? let me say one: brief thing -- [laughter] >> you see how much control i have here. justice stevens: he also was a very good caddie. [laughter] he actuallyens: caddied for me more than once. to answer your question, i am reminded of byron white, who every time there is a new justice on the court, it is a different court.

so you cannot summarize the changes just in terms of time that goes by, each member of the is a changes and it different institution and that is the most important change that ever occurs on the court. assuming there will be a new someday,n this court, i should also say i am very happy to be able to say that my excellent,s very because i almost never disagree with her. [laughter] justice stevens: although i think it might have disagreed with her in the case i decided this morning. when they could have been for-four and gotten rid of the case, they somehow or another struggled to keep the case alive. i am sorry. what was the question? [laughter]

changedhe court has over the time in which you have been involved. the majorevens: changes the fact that they do a much better job of managing their docket. they do not take twice as many cases as they are capable of hearing, which we did. cases and they court is now much better at was and ihan it assume that will continue. as i say, every court is different. justices came and went when you were there. how many new courts? justice stevens: i am not sure. i think about seven or eight. david, sandra, tony, nino, --

>> then david and she ride her. justice stevens: and stephen ruth. ansonia also joined. >> that is a lot of change. justice stevens: it was. kagan, you have been on the court not quite as long, but we're looking forward to this anniversary in the future. one of the things that has changed certainly since i was a law clerk and probably since you were is the way the court has technology. you who for those of are young, a device not hooked up to a thing called the internet. it just creates text or athlete.

how has technology changed the way the court does its work, do you think? congratulations. now i know who to go to for a caddie. well-deserved. congratulations. can i say something about being up with john stevens? together,ime we were be 102.hn will only this is a special thing to get a phone call from the president he would likeow, you to be on the supreme court. it is

i think all the time about all that john stevens accomplished in the seat that i now hold and you are really an inspiration to me in everything that i do, so thank you. [applause] so, technology. of course, technology has changed. >> it has changed, but maybe not as much as you would thank. when i got to the court, it was about 25 years after i started. in this 25 years, and information revolution had taken place. we do not use typewriters anymore, we still have messengers who literally walk memos around the building.

didn't none of you hear any of that? >> better. >> people here the justice before? >> ok? yes? should i use both? how about now? now it is on. the mosts not technologically sophisticated institution you are ever run across in your life. but really, what institution made up of people all over 55 is? we do our best. i think all of us understand that aside from just the court

running well, we have to understand technology to handle a lot of important cases. i think we all make a great effort to learn what we need to know to decide those cases in a sensible way. it is good that we have clerks who are young and can instruct us on things. sometimes i think the most important thing my clerks do for me is to tell me what snapchat is or something. [laughter] >> i understand that. i have been known to check with my son, who is sitting right here, about twitter or instagram or snapchat or facebook -- facebook i knew about, that is passe. so, another interesting contrast. both of you have spent some time working in other branches of the government. justice kagan was the solicitor

general and before that had worked in the white house and some capacity. and justice stevens served as counsel to the sub council on monopoly, the house judiciary committee. it will be interesting to know whether or how that experience outside the judiciary affected your understanding of what the courts do, and it give you a perspective as opposed to those who went straight into judicial work? >> i thought about this since you sent me a copy of the question. >> you are not supposed to tell. [laughter] >> that was probably one of the most important parts of my education. many times i think back of the experiences i had on the

subcommittee. i think that kind of work, you get a feel for legislation that is not available in any other source. you cannot read in books, and you appreciate the fact that the legislative process is very different from most other processes you're involved in. i think steve fryer has the same feeling. he learned a great deal as chief counsel for the senate judiciary. -- the senate, rather. i cannot pin down specific examples of things i remember, but i am constantly aware of the experience. it helped me a great deal and

understanding what goes on in the law. and i remember one time, i explained in some detail to one of the members what might happen with legislation down the line, and he got back and said to me, we will of the judges figure that out. the point of it is, the congress regards the judges as partners in projects rather than adversaries and totally separate branches of government. i think i got a feel for that fact, members of the legislature really look on the judges as allies in our common work. i feel the same way about congress, although i must confess that in recent years congress has become much more adversarial in their work than when i was working there.

>> it sounds to me, just a follow-up, you did not end up as a skeptic about legislative history, which are late colleague justice scalia certainly was, perhaps based on his own exposure. is that right? or do you have a different view on that? >> i have a very different view from ninos, i will cut you that. that is not unusual. [laughter] i think debating legislative history was basically nino against the world. i don't think anyone on the court has even considered the extreme position that nino took. he was an extraordinarily persuasive person, and rather than put in some legislative

history and then court a separate opinion debating whether it was appropriate to use it legislative history, many opinion writers i think simply do not cited to avoid unnecessary debate. i should specifically mention sam, when he came on the court, there was an argument that sam put in and nino tried to persuade him to put it out, and nino was unsuccessful. sam thought it was very relevant and he used it successfully in the case. i think he marked the difference between those who are firmly

against the and those who think it is appropriate. i really think there are very few judges who are not persuaded, who do not rely to a certain extent on legislative history because it does help us understand what congress is intending to do. so i feel very strongly about that. >> what about you, justice kagan? you were in the executive branch. has a move across the street helped you? >> is this working now? speaking of technological sophistication. the thing you should know about these things is you should always have the green light on. [laughter] it did. i've had a couple of different jobs in the executive branch. solicitor general was quite extraordinary. all the solicitor general does

is think about the supreme court. for the 15 months i was solicitor general, i was completely obsessed with the court, when a greed, when they didn't agree. your whole job is to figure out how to convince these nine members of the court. my first year or two, i used to think all of the time, now i only have to convince eight members of the court. >> or other members. >> that is right. that was great preparation for me. and especially, i have not been been a judge before. it was one of the great legal jobs in america. i spent four years earlier in

the white house, and that does not have such a direct relationship to what i do now, but i think i learned an enormous amount there about how government works, and a large part about what the supreme court thinks about and many of our cases are trying to make sense of how government works and what it is doing, what is trying to do, where it is overstepping and where it is not. i think that background, not in a direct way, but in giving me some understanding of the institutions of government from the inside, i think it does help quite a lot. >> so that is at a very grand level. i wonder what your thoughts are on a more granule level.

their people live noted that with the exception of justice sotomayor, no one has really been down in the trenches doing trials, whether for the government or private practice. the current court is a very cerebral group. their thin appeals justices, dean of a law school, solicitor general. and yet the court has issued opinions that are of tremendous importance to the practicing bar. do you think the court should be doing that? do think the court should leave those kinds of detailed things to the rules committees? >> it is the court of who. there are thousand things we do everyday that we have to learn. not all of us come in as expert in every area.

i think you picked one where it is a kind of appellate heavy group. not a lot of in the trenches litigating experience. but i think being in this job, you have to commit yourself to learning a lot, and certainly everyone gives us their opinion. in all of these cases, we get many amicus briefs. i think we have the materials that are necessary for us to be able to learn a lot. i think it is something that a future president might think about in terms of new members of

the court, is to try to broaden the experience. i think as long as we are there, we just have to do as well as we can. >> let me ask both of you, maybe i will start with you because you mentioned it. you mentioned amicus briefs. we have debate in our circuit about which ones are useful, which ones are just sort of "me too" and which ones are not useful. do you find them useful? >> i can't say i read every one of them, every civil page. in some cases we get 100. my clerks read them and tell me which ones to read. and i read those. sometimes on big cases, i will flip through the mall and check out the summary of argument. some of them are not worth

reading, because they are just repeating the parties arguments, often not as well as the party itself. but sometimes there is a different perspective, some kind of factual knowledge that they bring to the table, a different way of looking at the issue. sometimes it can be a different legal argument, sometimes it can just be adding facts to the mix in a way that might be helpful for cases. so that i can say i know what is at stake here in a way i didn't. they run the gamut, but the most useful ones are very useful indeed. i think our approach is to say anybody can cement anything, and we will somehow figure out a way to filter and find the ones that are significant and helpful. i think it works pre-well. >> did you find them useful justice stevens?

>> my view is very similar to elana's. there were brief worth looking at, but i did not as a regular matter read any amicus briefs unless my work recommended it. my view was the same as yours. >> we had a program this afternoon about something which has been a topic of active discussion in our circuit. justice kagan just mentioned fact in the amicus brief that might not been run up by the parties. to think any supreme court or any court should be looking at fact that the party did not put into the record, or is that out of line? >> it is a little bit like looking on the internet, you find things you're not necessarily looking for, you

learn a little bit about the case from outside sources, that it is not part of your planned preparation for decision. i don't really recall learning any factual matter in amicus brief that i did not have other access to. >> what do you think about looking at the internet? [laughter] >> i think maybe this is the wrong room to talk about it. [laughter] >> i think you have to be careful. i also think that we do nothing in a way that is hermetically sealed from life, we bring our own experiences to the table, we bring our own knowledge base to the table. i think we have to be careful. >> one thing that reminds me of that is kind of relevant, in the indiana voting rights case,

which i wrote for the court. i thought there was material on the internet and in general knowledge that was not in the record itself, and i clearly remember my own concern about trying to decide whether the losing party had proven their case. i didn't think they had, i thought it was not in the record, although i think i learned outside the record a lot of reasons that made me very concerned about that particular

so i had to question, should i rely on my own research or what is in the record? and in that case, i had a duty to consign myself to what the record did prove, and i thought it did not prove the plaintiff's case, and as a result, we ended up with an unfortunate decision. even though i think the case was correctly decided on the record, i do not think it would be correctly decided in the universe of facts that are available generally. >> that is very frustrating as a judge, although something that we all have to live with, given that we have an adversarial system and the record is -- >> would you do it the same way again? >> i think i would. that is a tough question. i really do not know for sure. i think the record did not support the position that the plaintiffs maintained. you may remember, there were two different majority opinions in the case. i saw david wrote one of his best opinions, partially influenced by material outside of the record. that is a very good question, i will try to think it through. >> don't you think it deals with how you write your opinions, too?

this is how it comes out, then people go off and read it without paying attention to the qualifier. i'm not sure how you can get people to read opinions carefully, but that would help. >> it is a tough question. >> justice kagan, you mentioned a minute ago the need for the supreme court of the united states to assimilate vast amounts of information across virtually every subject matter anybody can imagine. have you ever wished that you had tools available to do that that you do not have, or is this just kind of, i'm going to plunge in and do the best i can? the district court can appoint a master, but you don't really see that the supreme court level. >> it certainly sounds as though, you sort of think there ought to be ways to channel information.

but then when you think about what those alternatives are, i'm not sure i could come up with any that are better than what we have. picking a master, who would you pick? that sounds as if it could be as controversial as the case itself. so i guess i cannot come up with a better solution than just to say we accept amicus briefs from all comers, and people can throw out is what they want, and we will try to assimilate the information that is available from them. experts, masters -- i guess i am a little bit skeptical that that would do any better. >> when you have a case like this, are you more inclined to

write narrowly, or do you not take that into account one way or the other? >> i think it is important to have some humility when you're in areas that you are afraid you don't know a lot. there are some things we do where we look around the table and go, this is an area that is rapidly changing and none of us are experts in it. i think that does indicate to people, i think to all of us, i think this is a good one to take piece by piece and give ourselves an opportunity to adjust if we get something wrong. and give us an opportunity to learn more. >> wanted to get a sense of a step at a time. >> i think especially in these areas, it can come up in some a

different contexts, whether it is fourth amendment questions or first amendment questions, rapidly evolving technology is creating different questions. it is something where i get the sense that we should be humble about what we know and what we do not know, and you have to answer the question. but there are ways of answering the question that gives you more flexibility and gives you a better capacity to adjust if you're gotten something wrong. >> justice kagan just

-- what are we going to do with imaging technology or the next step? is there anyway the supreme court can be more clear than that mark are you a fan of these tests we are supposed to balance? believe theens: i judicial process is a little different than the legislative process. the judges have to decide pieces based on the fact developed in the proceedings itself and in the record. it dilutes the strength of the judiciary to the extent they go outside the record and do their own independent research. historically has been one of an adversary proceeding in putting together the facts and i think that is

the way cases should be decided and, for the most part, are decided. >> let me turn to a broader view. justice breyer published a book entitled "the court and the world: the court and the new -- new reality." he talked about how the court should be aware of legal doctrine but not necessarily bound by them. about the propriety of looking for foreign law at all and looking to service some kind of referent -- do you have a view about that? justice stevens: yes. i think looking at foreign law as a matter of intellectual

integrity is no different than federal judges looking at state laws around the country because legal issues about from all sorts of sources and there's no reason to say i will look at what they do in nebraska but not what they do in south america or someplace else. extent there is a feeling that it is un-american to look at what happens in other countries, that seems to me to be quite wrong. there is no reason in the world look anyge should not place outside of the united states if the presidents may shed light on the issue the judges working on at the time. criticizing judges for looking at foreign law is quite unwise. >> what about you, justice

kagan? kagan: i think the controversy at looking into foreign law is narrower than people might think. book,tice breyer's recent a lot of it is about using international and foreign law in places where nobody would think you should do anything else. in other words, where you have issues that are in some dimensions international. arises the controversy in a few constitutional areas, particularly with respect to cruel and unusual punishment. says there are the foreign law people on one side of me not foreign law people on the other side. i think it is narrower than that. areas wherefew people do look to foreign practices and foreign law and

others, not. i do agree with john that you should never close yourself off to sources of information. saying i'm note going to read law review articles with respect to some particular area. the people who make a fetish of this are wrong to do so. hand, there is something serious about the that we have our own constitutional system that is distinctive in many ways and the and pickcan go about from any practice you happen to like on any given occasion would be a wrong way to think about the development of american constitutional law which has a long history and a long set of traditions and practices.

i think there is some ground to be skeptical about some uses of as the picking and choosing element of it being outside the tradition of american constitutionalism. >> would you say that even in of theons where out almost 200 countries in the world, 196 have one view and we are among the four or does this matter? justice kagan: i think it is something to notice it is not [inaudible] do a good jobyers of calling international law to attention or are they leery to

do so? justice kagan: i think you get a significant amount of information about foreign practices. often it is not in the party's brief that there will often be amicus briefs that do this. >> a little bit on outside sources -- our friend on the seventh circuit who is not here, judge richard poser has published a book called : in which heths are driftinghey apart. whether you agree with chief justice roberts that people in the legal academy are writing arcane and useless things, if there were a bulgaria at the time, which there wasn't. basically, our legal scholars

off on their own ordered did you find academic writing helpful sometimes? : academicevens writing covers a broad subject viewi do share john roberts' that very often the lot reviews are filled up with what happened in bulgaria rather than what happened in hyde park. so i understand that. i think a lot of legal writing is the province of people just trying to get tenure. i do think there is merit to the notion but you stumble across some interesting and important when you go through the law reviews. it's just like anything else in the law, you do the best you can with what is available.

tore's a tremendous variety answer that question in a simple way. the think that might be theme of this conversation -- you do the best you can with what you can. kagan: it is a nice, modest theme. >> at the harvard law school, people did write these meta-theory things. maybe not as much as gail, but i have looked at the table of contents of many harvard law review. in some future life, maybe i will read this but i don't have time today. what would your advice be to people who are aspiring legal academics? kagan: i think it's a mistake that all legal academics have to be writing for the court. i think it is great that there are some who do think about the always,d i often, not

but sometimes find things that are useful in lot reviews. were to say to my faculty your audience and you have to be writing to the supreme court of the united states, i would think that would not be a smart thing. are things in this country where law gets made. some faculty might inc. about writing it into legislature and some might think about writing .o practice and lawyer's some might think about writing to other faculties in the university. with sociologist and so forth. differentfaculty have audiences and i think that's an appropriate thing for law

school. idea that there is a divergence between law schools and the legal profession, this is not a new thing. people have been talking about this for 30 years. think it has gotten worse. i think it might have gotten better. good law schools are divers places and have different placeses -- are diverse and have different audiences. there are people who will think about the kinds of questions that we have to decide and who will write some useful things in that respect. me legalot a blow is academia falling short.

they should not be clerks, the law judges. they should not think of their jobs that way. >> do you find empirical legal research helpful or is there enough going on by anybody? kagan: speaking out in my capacity as a judge, but when i was a law dean thinking about who to hire, think some of the most interesting work is empirical in nature now. people are coming up with fascinating things about how the legal system works. stevens, your memoir is something we have all enjoyed reading and something i think makes the court accessible to a much wider audience. justice sotomayor or wrote her memoir for that.

doesises the question, how an individual justice or how does the court communicate with the broader public? is it just through its opinion? are there limits you would recognize? justice stevens: the principal method is through opinion and that is as it should be. retired,y book after i but i think soanya's book is a very good read. you learn about an important person and the different ways in which her life has been by a very valuable book to read. the judge's primary job is to

describe cases and the extracurricular writing is what might be available for that activity. everyone has different problems and that regard, but the more writing like that is fine. outsetmentioned at the justice byron wright who famously when he left the court earned his papers and backgrounds and said my opinions are what i had to say. that's what i'm leaving behind. is that what you plan to do? stevens: i had already given my papers to the library of congress and i think they should be available in due course. stuff.a lot of it's amazing how much stuff. nowdoing another book right

. i have my yellow original draft of chevron. [laughter] anyone wants to try to read my handwriting. >> you would be surprised. i realize we should wrap this up but let me wrap things up, what do you do for fun and what would your advice -- if you have any time for fun, what advice would you give to young lawyers today? kagan: we have great summers. i work hard from mid-september through the end of june, but we have these terrific summers and we have some fun. travel in the summer, i'm a baseball fan, i go to lots of movies. amount of reading novels and things like that.

evening -- even during the term to get away and refresh. i suspect it is like that for most people and you have to give yourself a little bit of downtime. >> what about for the young people? you are telling me about swimming. justice stevens: i do like to swim and i love to swim in the [indiscernible] there is a vast difference between the time you retire and

the time you are on the court. ,ou have very little spare time i'm not sure i can speak in the present circumstances he goes your work load is about half -- [laughter] justice kagan: when i clerked on the court, there were 140 cases and now there are about 80. i always tell my clerks -- when -- i feel like i know what it was. justice stevens: you were a little earlier. >> 150 cases, but the justices had several clerks.

serious problem during the term. that comesquestions up is sometimes you start -- it is theent truth of the matter that the isiest time of the year after you finish hearing arguments. you reduceome opinions like the ones that came out this morning that are totally unintelligible. [laughter] justice kagan: i'm glad i didn't write that one. [laughter] justce stevens: it's not the opinion, it's the whole case. i thought iin which had the perfect solution would have been we have eight justices and for go one way and forgo the other. we would not have created the

monstrosity. [laughter] >> i should thank both of you so much. [applause] close.pping on your justice kagan: john and i have offices that are close to each other and i have been getting messages from him when i vote the wrong way. stevens: she has not had a message like that since i can or member. i will finish by saying thank you so much for coming and participating and sharing your thoughts with us. we are really privileged to have you here. thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tomorrow, the wilson center hosts a discussion on military welfare programs by looking at the types of benefits soldiers receive and how the programs different from those for civilians. that live at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. later on, a look at the federal

reserve and what changes if any are needed. americanom the enterprise institute, live at 5:30 eastern on c-span. >> monday on "the communicators" michael o'rielly on several key issues facing the fcc like met trilogy, which is currently in the courts. politicals on the divide. direction from the fcc leadership, including the chairman to take the most aggressive, leftist approach to littleaking, there's groundwork comes to the first primary goal of the item. in consideration of any collegiality or any attempt to develop any consensus.

when there's little interest in bringing my opinion on board and you are going to find unless supportive and i'm going to express my views. communicators" monday night on c-span two. sarah jane glynn. she is with the center for american progress and the director of women's economic policy. good morning. thank you very much for being with us. guest: good morning. host: let's talk about women in the work place. what percent is it? guest: so, at this point, we've got the majority of all mothers working outside the home, more than 60%, so around 2/3 of all moms work, and that includes the majority of mothers who have very young kids. so even moms whose youngest child is under 5 and not yet started school, they're still working in in a yort numbers as well. that's a huge shift from just a few generations agoing when she we had this donna reed model,

where oftentimes in middle-class families, mom would stay home and take care of the children. now, in most families, all the parents work. host: let's talk about a couple of facts. first of all, women now earn a majority of the college degrees, outpacing men, and yet your study indicates that there's still a very significant wage disparity. why? guest: you know, this is, i think, one of the most shocking and dramatic findings around the wage gap. women have been earning the majority of college degrees since the 1980's, and now we're seeing women are actually getting the majority of graduate degrees as well, and yet we still see these pay disparities. some people argue, you know, these pay disparities on based on choices that men and women make. women are more likely to work in low-page occupations. women are more likely to take extended spells out of the labor force to raise children, for example, or care for aging family members. and so, you know, the argument that i hear a lot is, women just choose to do things that result in lower pay. but my argument there is that

even when you control for all of those factors, time out of the labor force, occupation, what someone majors in, whether or not they choose a job that has flexibility and friendly benefits, we still see a wage gap between men and women. so there's a piece of this, and some economists have estimated it's about 40% of the wage gap that we can't explain between observable differences between working men and working women. so gender discrimination is definitely still around, and it does influence the types of pay that men and women receive. and then i would also argue, you know, that some of cheese choices that men and women are making aren't being made in a vacuum. so when we say, for example, that women are more likely to have these extended spells out of the labor force so that they can care for a child or provide elder care, that to me says there's something going on here, because we don't see those same choices being made in other countries where they have paid leave offered to new parents or to people who need to provide elder care.

so there's a policy environment that all of these choices are occurring within that we also need to take into account when we're talking about the wage gap. host: democrats, republicans, and independents, we do have a line set aside for working moms. that number is 202-748-8003. we would love to hear from you. our guest is joining us from nashville, sarah jane glynn with the center for american progress. let me ask you about some research that you've done and put it on the screen so our outside against can see it. we'll also read it for our radio audience. back in 2015, female full-time workers made 79 cents for every dollar earned by the man. current pace of change, according to your research, it will take until the year 2059 for women to reach pay parity. and almost four times as many women as men work in occupations with poverty-level wages. a lot there to take apart. guest: well, and another fact that we need to take into account is that if you compare women of color to white men,

the pay disparities are even larger. so there's a lot going on here. you know, part of it is about occupational segregation, the fact that women are much more likely to end up in these jobs that pay very low wages. women are the majority of minimum wage earners, for example, about 50% are women. so that's one piece of it. but like i said, there's also gender discrimination is part of what's going on here too, and that influences not only the salaries that men and women end up with, but also the trajectories that get them into their careers. so things like girls being told in high school or even before high school, middle school, that they don't need to worry about math, you know, i remember when i was young, there was a barbie that said math was hard. that was one of the talking barbie lines. so the subtle ways that we discourage women from going into particular types of careers, like the stem field that do offer very high wages are also part of this. you know, the wage gap is a very complex issue. there's a lot of different pieces that we can pull apart

out of it. groip let's bring in our viewers. joshua from washington, independent line, good morning. join a very interesting question for your guest. are you a progressive or globalist? i'd like an answer, and then i'd like to follow up. gloip i guess i would want to know what you mean by globalist before i answer that. caller: well, we have a war coming in this country very soon between globalists and nationalists. i find your groups to be globalists. you want to destroy us and come up with this paradise. people like yourself who claim to be a woman, probably is a lesbian, with a set of guidelines toward life want to talk about this country, why don't you take your contact on the road and go to saudi arabia or iran and clean that up first ? host: i'm going to jump in. you know, we've had some -- i got to tell you, we've had some pretty stark callers this morning, and some of them have crossed the line, and we want this to be a civil discussion. we certainly want to give you a

chance to respond, but we just ask that you ask questions respectfully, not insult the guest that we invite to this program to come here to talk about the issues. insults are never, ever accepted, and we're not going to put up with it. so i'm going to move on. but if you want to respond to what he had to say early on, we'll give you the chance to do so. guest: sure. i mean, i personally don't think being called a lesbian is an insult. i suspect that's the way the caller meant it, but that's ok. and i would also say certainly there are issues globally, you know, gender discrimination is not something that's limited to just one country. we find it virtually everywhere across the globe. but i do think that because things are difficult for women somewhere else doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye to what's happening here in the united states. host: let's go to kevin in texas. good morning to you, sir. caller: yes, good morning. first of all, i apologize also for the previous caller. host: we've had a few this

morning, so i guess this is reaching a tipping point, so thank you, kevin. caller: well, my question is this. of course, i'm a republican, and, of course, i'm going to disagree with anyone from the center for, you know, american progress. but my question is, ok, you assume that lower wage, and even i hear, after you discount the other things, it's about seven cents an hour, seven to nine, maybe 11 cents an hour. you automatically assume that it's the employer that's being discriminatory, when couldn't that also just be the ability of women to negotiate their wages? because, i mean, i hate to sound like a sexist, but i think most women, they don't negotiate like a man will negotiate. so i think you put too much emphasis on the employer and maybe not the employee, and

i'll take your comment off line. thank you. guest: you know, i think that's a fantastic point, and i'm really glad that you brought it up, because there is evidence that shows that women are less likely to negotiate their starting salaries than men are. and what's interesting about this is that there are also studies showing that when women do negotiate their salaries, they fare less well than men. so it's a very complicated set of social issues that are happening here. you know, we have a culture that tells us that women should not be aggressive and that punishes women for being aggressive in particular ways. so i think you're absolutely right. you know, i certainly don't mean to make it sound as if every employer out there is sitting around, you know, cackling to themselves, laughing about how they're going to pay women less than men. i don't think that that's the case at all. i think that there are a lot of subtle things that happen behind the scenes, and part of that is around this issue of negotiation, where when women do try to negotiate their salaries, they often end up

with a lower offer in the end. so some people have learned not to even rock that boat in the first place. so, you know, you're absolutely right, it's not just on the employers, but there's a lot going on here. i think that that's part of why pay trance parns a is so important, and there are a number of employers that have very set and very transparent pay bands for particular jobs, for example, so they'll say, if you're working in this job category, your pay is between x and y. and then everybody knows that's what the pay band is, and it's very easy to make sure that everyone is being paid fairly and it takes some of the onus off of individuals to negotiate their salary, and it takes away the effect of being a more or less effective negotiator on your end. host: our guest is the director of the women's economic policy at c.a.p., the center for american progress. she's also previously an adjunct faculty member at vanderbilt university and belmont university in nashville, tennessee. let's go to cynthia, joining us from boca raton, florida, our line for working moms.

good morning, cynthia. caller: good morning. i have been a working mother for a very long time, starting in the mid 1970's. and it doesn't have very much to do with our being able to negotiate our salary. has more to do with the way the business world views women. i mean, i was lucky, because i'm a nurse, and i have done exceedingly well. being problem of llowed into some of the more or jobs that are out there i think is a really big issue. i know when i was younger, i

passed both the mcat's and the lcat's and couldn't get in because they didn't give women scholarships. while it's easier now to get into some of the specialties, it's harder in other ways for women to get ahead, because they put a kind of cap on how far you can go. thank you. host: cynthia, thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. we appreciate it. guest: and i think happy mothers -- happy mother's day, cynthia, first of all. it's a really important point. even in heavily female-dominated occupations like nursing, heavily female dominated occupations like nursing, male nurses are still being shown to earn more than female nurses. that is being shown as true for a majority of occupations. is that it isoint not just about entry, it is about being able to sustain and excel in that career.

that is another place where i think we need to have better interventions to help working women. one of the things they found jobs is that we have increasing numbers of women that are obtaining advanced degrees and entering the stem fields. they have what is called "a leaky pipeline." they enter these jobs, but they end up leaving them. the problem is that the jobs themselves are not very welcoming towards women. they do not have the types of policies that could help women maintain employment. this is main -- this is especially true for women that want to have children. that is why you are starting to cds tech companies, like google, facebook, and twitter, they are starting to offer very generous family benefits. they recognize that they are losing talent by not offering something like paid parental

leave. when they implement these policies, it may seem very expensive from the outside, at first. but what they know is that, down the line, it saves them a lot of money. they have all of these greatly talented women, who are otherwise likely to leave their jobs after having women. more bighave done a picture, long-term view, and they realize the need to change the work culture to maintain those valued women workers. host: and as been some years since the equal pay law was put into place. wagees prevent sex-based discrimination between men and women in the same establishment that requires substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. that was 50 years ago. guest: the fact that we still have a wage gap today really says something. we have come a long way,

certainly it is smaller than it was in the 1960's. we still have a lot to do. that is why i argue, we need to pay attention to discrimination. that is absolutely what is happening here. there are bad actors. if you talk to anyone in a legal community, they tell you that there are lawsuits for a reason. there are bad actors that are discriminating against women. there are a number of other factors that push women out of high page -- high wage jobs and into lower wage jobs. we need to talk about those, as well, not just about gender discrimination. i would argue that there are a set of policies that would be helpful. paid parental leave, and gender-neutral paid parental leave is important. i know it is mother's day, but having paid leave for dads is also incredibly important.

not only because it results in better outcomes for children, but also because men said they want more time to spend with their kids. also, if you make parental leave gender-neutral, it becomes something that workers do, and not just something that women do. it helps decrease discrimination and the wage a fact that, from taking time away from the labor force. as paidmething as small sick days would also do a tremendous amount to help working women, and to help them stay in their job. 40% of american workers do not have access to a single paid sick day. that means if you get sick, or your child gets sick, you can go without pay or even potentially lose your job. it can take a while to even find a new job. even in the state we are at now, it can still take a while to find a new job.

affordable childcare is also another incredibly important issue here. in the majority of states, the cost of childcare is higher than the cost of median rent or twitching at an in-state college. that tells you something about how difficult it is -- in-state tuition at a college. that tells you something how difficult it is to find affordable childcare. i think this whole suite of family issues but not only help working women, but it would help working parents, men and women alike. i think it would go a long way to help shrink the wage gap, and it would help women stay in their jobs. it would not have to switch to a lower paying job with more flexibility, or stopped working entirely to provide care for their families. host: let me take another point of view. we have a professor from harvard university, who has extensively researched this.

it is available online. the wagerds, she said gap is due to the choices that men and women make in her -- in their careers. it is not discrimination. guest: i have a lot of respect for claudia goldin. we have worked with her directly. she is a brilliant economist. i would challenge this idea about choices. one framework is to say, when a woman decides to leave her job and stay home, then that is a choice. she wants to spend more time with her children. talking about a woman leading a high-paying job, then it is likely an independent choice she is making. however, the increase of stay-at-home mothers is only increasing with low income families. so, are these low income families that are already struggling choosing to have their wives stay at home and not receive a paycheck?

or are they forced to stay home, because the cost of childcare is higher than what they could bring in from their minimum wage jobs? as always, we welcome our listeners. our guest is sarah jane glenn. she is with the center of american progress, and joining us this sunday from nashville tennessee. our next color is from wisconsin. elizabeth, good morning to you. caller: hello. i've a question in a comment. i am glad she made the comment about choice. it can be such a misleading word attached to what a woman does. there are so many things that impact choice. , this wage gap, gender gap, it all seems to boil down to legislative and enforcing what is legislative.

you make the comment about 50 years ago, what they've done for equal pay and why we still have a long way to go. why do we have a long way to go? why does a have to be that way? without the government and legislative process, these things cannot happen. yet, 50 years later it is still happening. why can it not be enforced? why does it still exist like this? what is it about us as a nation that says that we cannot even do something like that to make it equitable and fair? yout: i am really glad brought up this point about enforcement. it is so important, no matter what the issue we are talking about is. it is one thing to have a law on the books. if it is not enforced, then it makes no difference. i think that part of this is a around funding, and whether or not we have enough funding to

make sure that folks that are filing complaints are filed -- followed up with. important to note that this legislation, that says that you must pay men and women equally, it was past 50 years ago. we have not seen new additions to the law since then. attends have been made in congress, which have been stalled. i think there is this question around political will. if you poll voters across the spectrum, republicans, conservatives, liberals, democrats, everybody, they all say that men and women should be paid equally. i think equality is a fundamental aspect of our identity as americans. people across the board recognize that men and women should be treated equally. yet, politicians are not being more forward moving.

so, i absolutely agree that there is a huge disconnect about what voters say is important to them, and what we see happening in congress. this is true about issues of the wage gap and a variety of clinical issues. host: our next to colors are calling on the lines from working mothers. first is sarah from colorado. sarah, how many children do you have and what do you do? caller: i have to children. the are young, for into. -- four and two. host: happy mother's day. caller: thank you. i work for a small firm in town. host: full-time or part-time? caller: i work full-time. host: how do you manage it all? caller: i get help from my family. i get help from my husband with his work schedule he is able to pick a day of the week off. days,k sometimes 10 hours

so then maybe we can stay at home. we also have a great babysitter. go-ahead with your question or comment, and thank you for phoning in. thank you. i was hoping that surging could speak to, since she is an economist, many times when the government issues these policies, they are very effective in the initial stages. i'm speaking about the policies she spoke of, the bundle of family policies she spoke of earlier. they do what they are intended in the initial stages, but down the road, about a generation later, these policies are actually going to make less jobs available for women. employers are not going to want to hire people, men or women.

maybe these jobs will not even be available. then, you end up hurting the people you end up trying to help in the first place. host: sara, thank you for the call. guest: that is a great point. i think you are voicing of fear that a lot of people have. if we implement these policies that are geared towards helping working women, that they are going to backfire. that it is going to make women expensive to hire, and that people will end up discriminating against the very population we are working to help. part of the reason i do not think it is true in that instance, the policies we are talking about are not just about parents. it is not just about moms or dads. that is the framework we are discussing it in, because it is mother's day. is thegreat example family act, which was introduced in congress.

it would provide paid leave to workers, who need time off for a variety of issues. it would provide wage replacement for workers that need time off after the birth of their babies. so it would be for moms and dads. it would also cover family caregiving. if you have a family member that is seriously ill, and you need time off to provide care for them, then you would be covered. if you need time off to care for yourself, because you have your own serious illness or injury, then you would also be covered. this is very similar to what we already see in states that have a similar program. california, new jersey, rhode island, new york, they all have something very similar in place that provides temporary disability leave, and also family caregiving leave for a new baby or a sick family member. so, it is not just talking about moms and dads. it is not just about men and

women in their peak 30's. it is about every worker. every worker can potentially benefit from this. every worker might need to care for a family member. every worker might need time to care for themselves. by broadening what we mean by family-friendly, and including self-care, we can help the race effects that would be in place if we were only talking about mothers. that is one way that the u.s. is cutting edge when it comes to family policies being proposed here. if you look at policies that have been in place for decades in europe, they are heavily geared towards mothers. they are trying to catch up now, by providing more leave for dads. still, it is a struggle for them to equalize things. i think that is one way in which we are in a great position. what we are talking about is absolutely gender equal.

it shows that men are likely to take these programs, and dads in particular are excited about the possibility to take time off to care for their children or their parents, as well. reporting thatis san francisco, the first city to require fully paid friend to fully paid parental leave. caller: good morning. they q4 taking my call -- thank you for taking my call. i've been in the workforce for many years. i have two children that are now adults. i think i have a pretty good perspective and some insight on what i see every day, and how things have changed somewhat in the workforce.

what i am seeing is not so much -- i have worked with very large groups of people, men and women. what i am seeing with women is of the statususe of being a woman. i am in a management position. i will not tell you where. it is because of choices that women make. some women are making poor choices. result inhoices children without a support structure. thatgoing to estimate probably, not everybody, but about threeople, hours of their workdays are on the telephone, something to do with the children. that all comes to work.

what happens is that it demoralizes the other workers. you are picking up the slack in the work for many of these women , who may be should not be in the work laced at this time. host: let me jump in. a man would not have the same situation as a father? is it different between a mom and a dad? caller: i am not talking about calling home for a family situation. i'm talking about several hours a day for family situations. it is not just a call here or there, that is fine. whole --ing about the a big chunk of the workday revolving around childcare issues, personal issues related to the children, and that is a problem. when you talk about this pay findingty, what i am

also is that many women are quite content just being where they are at. if there is extra work or extra pay, self-improvement with various classes -- things they can take advantage of, volunteering of on certain projects, they choose not to do that. host: thank you for your call. sarah jane glenn, your response. guest: there are two components to this comment that i would like to unpack. first, i think we have a tendency to put a lot on mom's, while letting caps off to hook. if mom is in a situation -- while letting dads off the hook. if mom is in a situation where data is not pulling his own then itthat it puts -- puts mothers in a situation where they have to do everything

on the wrong. i think it is not fair to put the blame on women, without putting men to task on these points. i also think that the childcare piece of this is very important. childcare arrangements fall apart, it has a negative impact on parent's to do their jobs. most young kids cannot be left home alone. if you have a baby, or even a child at school age, you cannot just say that i know your childcare program fell through, but i have to go to work. there are things that need to begun what if you're going to be a working parent. children have to be taking care of. high had a system where quality childcare is out of reach, then people have to cobble together -- a neighbor that is helping out, or maybe after school on some days of the week and not every week. people have this patchwork of

childcare providers, because they are scrambling to make and meet while holding down their employment. it is hard for me to say that you are a bad worker, when you have to juggle these things when they fall apart. one stronghat is argument for why we need to overhaul our childcare system. that way, we can enable workers howot only be worried about their child is being cared for, and it can let them vocus on their jobs. i think the point about volunteering also has to do with the point that women do a majority of the child caring in the family. women do a majority of the childcare and the housework. they do a majority of the elder care with families that are also dealing with angie relatives -- aging relatives. when you add that time in, it becomes incredibly difficult to

say, yes, i would like to take on this extra project that would require me to work these longer hours. it is not that women do not necessarily want to do these that thet is just structure of their lives makes it very difficult for them to do so while caring for children or other family members. host: many go to some numbers. you can go to american progress.org for more information. for is from the institute women policy research. it looks at the average earnings, the median earnings among all races and ethnicities. the average woman is earning $726 a week, compared to $829 for male counterparts. among african-american women, $615 compared to $680 for african-american men. asians, the average 800

$77 for american women and it just over $1100 for asian men. guest: i think there are a couple different pieces to this. the stats about asian men and women are particularly it varies a because lot when you take ethnicity into account. there are certain groups, like the enemies men and women, that are making much less money a week. there is a lot that is going on within this data. certainly, we can spend the rest of our time talking about how this all shakes out, but one of the things that i find interesting is that lack women in particular have been seeing , yetd numbers increasing their wage gap numbers are not budging. if you look at educational payments -- if you're in a low job, and youaid

just need to go back to school to get a higher earnings potential, on average that is true. women that have a masters degree do earn more than women who have only a high school diploma. if you map that against the educational attainment and earnings of men, you'll find that women need one extra degree to earn as much as a man. earn arage woman that bachelor's degree earns as much as a man with a high school diploma. theman with a masters earns same amount as a man with a bachelors. there are so many things that complicate this. when you add in ethnicity as well, you see there's so much more than just choices that men and women are making. host: do you feel that new fathers should be able to take equal time off from work without repercussion? guest: absolutely. i am a huge proponent for

gender-neutral policies. i think it is important for men to have time off with their babies. we know from companies that have done this, when you offer paid leave, men are more likely to take it. if you are talking about a two parent family, having a new baby can be very expensive. having both terrance stopped working entirely is not a solution -- both parents stopping work entirely is not a solution. we know that it is very important for fathers, who report wanting to have that time. i think it is especially true among millennial men. they want to be involved fathers and have time with their children. and also has positive effects on kids, as well. fathers that are able to take time off and spend more time with their kids, they remain more involved in their child's lives.

this is in no way meant to shame men that are not able to take the time off, but we need to have better policies in place that enable men to be more involved in family caregiving, as well. it is not only good for the kids, but it is also good for the debt. morning on, good outline for independence. you are on the air. .- four independents you are on the air. caller: i do not understand why can leave out race we talk about gender equality between men and women. you cannot separate the two. they have to go together in women advance in the workforce. host: right, we just made that reference in this chart disparity. guest: i think she is right. race is a big part of this. it is problematic for us to talk

about women as just one, big, monolithic group. we know that sexual orientation also plays a role in pay disparity as well. there are a lot of moving pieces here. in thesee tend to talk high top line's, because that is what the research and data allows us to do. onre is often limitations what we are able to do in the studies. it is a very valid point. race is absolutely a part of what is happening here. we had a study just come out recently that looked at work place policies like paid leave and flexibility, and when you control for all of these other factors, age, education, the type of job some one has, whether they are apparent, all of these different -- whether they are a parent, all these different factors, --

we found that latinos are less likely to have access to paid leave then white workers. race and ethnicity for sure plays a role in this. we need to have more research to bolster these findings. unfortunately, not all the data set allow us to get into that fine detail. host: lorraine, a quick question from michigan. talkingyes, i am just for the women in the military. i did 21 years as a single mom. hard,me, that was a hard, hard job. any working moms out there, just press on. host: thank you for your comments and thank you for your service. guest: thank you so much. happy mother's day to all the mothers out ♪ announcer: c-span's washington

journal live every day with news and policy issues that impacted. coming up monday morning, the president for security policy on how the current foreign-policy debate has been shaped by this year's presidential campaign. dennis kelleher president and on efforts of the justice department investigating banks in selling bad mortgages ahead of the 2008 financial disaster. recent analysis, irs says $450 billion in taxes goes unpaid each year. we discussed why the money is not being collected and how those missing funds have affected the budget. be sure to watch c-span's national journal -- washington journal. join the discussion.

the senate is back in session tomorrow at 3:00 eastern to continue work on an energy and water spending bill. there is a procedural vote on that at 5:30. the house returns for legislative work on tuesday and begins the week with a series of bills to help combat drug abuse. next, a look at how digital technology can affect human health when it comes to eating habits, and social bonding. this discussion was hosted by zocalo public square and ucla and is one hour. [applause] you for havingnk me here. thank you all for coming up tonight. i am looking forward to an interesting discussion and

hopefully learning alongside of you from a great panel of experts here. i will introduce them now. patriciat we have greenfield a professor of psychology at ucla and the children's digital media director. her book was translated into nine languages and was republished last year for its 30th anniversary edition. her research on media and technology in the effects of young people covers a full range of print, radio, tv, video games, teenage chat rooms, facebook, youtube and instagram. take you for being here. [applause] dr. greenfield: thank you. have genee we also block, transfer of ucla and a viral -- biobehavioral scientist. thank you for giving me a hard

work. how technology affects his the biometrics of the body. he served as provost of the university of virginia. he is also the inventor of several devices including a noncontact respiratory monitor for the prevention of sudden infant death syndrome, and an avid collector of vacuum tube radios. rossi will hear a little bit of that. [laughter] -- perhaps we will hear a little bit about that. [laughter] [applause] mr. terhune we also have dr. anusuya chatterjee, a health economist and fellow at the milken institute where she has led studies on obesity, medical technology and chronic disease

prevention. co-author of a recently published book, "the upside of aging. " rk coincides with cnn and others. run of plus.list [applause] mr. terhune a few introductory marks of self disclosure, i checked my phone now incessantly, and everything i know about snapchat comes to my 13-year-old daughter. [laughter] mr. terhune if you do feel the need to be addicted to something online, feel free to be addicted to any of my stories. the experts will endorse that. everything else could be a problem for you. the digital age has brought up a lot of wonders and i think we all know that from our smart phones, computers and laptops.

we can connect with somebody across the globe, a grandparent on skype, can order every single thing on mashable with one click. we have apps that manage diabetes. we have seen all of these wonders but we have also seen a dark side, harmful effects on her health, social interactions, things like that, the constant screen time, our sleep, eyesight, other ills we may be doing to ourselves. is this technology, humidity, so we will explore all of those things. the digital technology exposure we have seen in our hand could be doing more harm than good. i think i'm just going to throw it to our experts here for a general opening statement. many of your experts in the done research, have data, tell us a little bit about your general thoughts on the topic and what you are working on right now. i think people

have not considered the social costs and our current research identify some of these. we have found for example, in a went toere six graders a nature all in person. face-to-face. toy improved their ability read emotions from nonverbal cues. compared with a matched group of sixth-graders, this was just in a week. more relative to another group of sixth-graders. who had their usual media diet. over four hours a day. i think that is an example of the cost. theher study looked at sense of bonding in friends. those were sixth-graders.

these were ucla students. each participant came in with a self chosen friend. they had to minute or five-minute conversations. each one communicated with a friend face-to-face, video chat, by audio and by text. then we asked them after each chat how bonding did you feel. we videotaped them to live at their bonding shoes. -- cues. you probably can guess which one. face-to-face. they felt the least bonded with text.

the objective behavioral cues were the same. cues or bonding face-to-face. but one of kids using to communicate the most? it is text. block: we think about the fact that international jet travel which now is easy and affordable and people traveling all around the world. fact that we have communications networks that are so efficient. you can get advice on how to fix your computer who is actually in india, they seem unfair next-door. we stay up late at night looking at ipads and iphones and computers. bright screen tvs. they're having an impact physiologically on people.

the reduction in the amount of sleep that people are experiencing. 50 years ago the average was about eight and a half hours a night. seven,s been reduced to less than seven hours per night. you have this finely tuned timing system called your circadian timing system. it is a beautiful system that evolved and was unchanging. now we are forcing it to make rapid changes. through rotating shift work or travel across time zones. even just by having an excessive amount of light at night. positive aspects of technology are clear that we are beginning to appreciate some of the negative aspects as well. some are avoidable where the smart use of technology.

>> i could use a more sleep myself. >> thank you for having me. as the chancellor was mentioning, there are so many positive things about having technology. maybe look into some of the data analysis. turns more toward the negative side of using digital checking on the issue. -- technology. that includes using computers and ipads and iphones. as an economist i feel that we should say that humans are using

technology that is actually affecting their health. choice to beg the using this technology. foundis a study that waking up among all these american actions. usersst two out of five start using devices within five minutes of waking up. consumers actually had been checking 25 times daily. obsessedhem are so they check their smartphones 200 times per day. we are very accustomed to using digital technology. ist is happening is that

leading to us to a more sedentary lifestyle. we sit in front of computers for hours. then we come home and use all these gadgets we have at home. we are doing another thing which is snacking while watching tv or using the computer using the smartphone. the energy we are by eating we're not spending. the just increases our waistline. i authored a paper where we looked at 27 countries including the united states.

the highest obesity rates in the world and some not so much. how knowledgee is affectingcs obesity. how we measure that is through information communications technology in these countries. gross capital formation. when we together factors into account we found that for these increase inery 10% the share of investment obesity rates go up by 1.4%. 1% is directly related to just sitting there with that sedentary lifestyle.

one out of three people are obese. 1.4% goes into the millions. obesity is a risk factor for so many chronic diseases and disability. i will stop right now. >> as a father of two teenage girls, i think i want to think that my teenagers are more obsessed with their devices and

technology and staring at their screens all the time. looking at the research i think that is not necessarily the case. as adults maybe we are worse than the kids. >> the parents use of technology is a model for the children. parents are rose on their cell phones and other devices than one of the children going to do? if they are doing that, they are not paying attention to the children. they are also a role model for them and a very important one. the rule is no phones at the dinner table and when dad checks

his e-mail at the dinner table i hear about it. >> is that what you say but what you do. -- it is not what you say but what you do. what they try to do is reduce their child's technology but if you are telling them not to use as much and that you are using it all the time that is not going to be effective. block: the discussion of weight gain. reduces melatonin level. it also reduces the level of leptin which is a hormone that makes you feel full. several things happen which having this light early at night. it affects sleep and as you sleep less there are these

medical bolick changes that occur. you crave carbohydrates and people gain weight. of the weight gain in children is not so much related to being couch potatoes but excessive amounts of light at night. eating less sleep. it leads to less sleep. this is white blue light which affects your sleep. there's something about weight gain that just goes beyond the snacking. it is also metabolic changes. we haven't been any studies

specifically differentiating adults and kids. if you're using too much digital technology there are other things where can affect your or affect your musculoskeletal diseases. the burden of these kinds of diseases. other things like how is affecting the economics. $45 billion. our children are more just looking at the screen all the time. one of thed that professors once mentioned that the muscles keep on eating muscles. our spines start growing like this. that is not very good.

all these minor things can have an effect in the future with this generation grows up. it will be immense. much bigger than what is happening now to the health care costs. >> you talked about the bonding. two people are on a date and they are facedown with their phones. i just find it said. i am not the best listener. my wife would attest to that. i do try to look her in the face during a male and have a genuine con for station. conversation. that is the kind of society we have become.

>> being able to understand the feelings of other people is very important to society as a whole. i think we can all see a reduction in that. there have been surveys that have been compared from the 1960's or 70's to the present that have shown a reduction in empathy in the united states. >> the mere communication of something in an e-mail rather than telling somebody. it does not go over too well in an e-mail. either good bad for a joke. see the person's emotional reaction. might go on and on and the reaction is getting worse and worse. if you are in a conversation you might see the reaction is not so great. is quite different.

it is quite different. block: the time-sharing is very interesting. you have a norma's number of people doing two things at one time. peoplenormous number of doing two things at one time. it is actually very difficult to do that. i'm wondering if people are not getting valuable meaningful conversations because you see that in meetings a lot. can you really pay attention? >> without it didn't really

matter if you read something on paper on screen but what did reduce the comprehension was if they had an opportunity to multitask. uphaving the computer hooked with a working internet connection. >> i read this book on the plane. discussing einstein's theory of relativity. amazingnds of intellectual compliments require full attention. people going to be able to concentrate in the future? >> that was one of my fears. to be able to quiet the mind and focus on something. that is what it takes to get something done for value.

the places where i could go for refuge like a plane or a car or vacation have all been taken over by technology. to find that place where i can and i usei connection that to not check my e-mail so much. i hopefully will have my best thoughts and give my best work done. >> re-creating lots of problems psychologically. no one'sgh i know someon going to send me an e-mail i have to check it.

maybe that is our future. that is scary. the next generation will lose that social skill. those are some of the concerns. community organizations, policymakers. what we can do so that the technology will be there and that is a good thing. children are taking the tests through technology. how can we minimize the negative effects of this baggage?

>> let's launch into that. what are some things we can do in our lives and other things technology companies or governments or other policymakers should be doing? we've all seen the problem. >> our educational system is adapting in a not very positive way. tests.multiple-choice we privilege these individual facts rather than putting things together. my daughter would try to do her homework watching tv. i didn't want her to. she said she could do it perfectly well. wheres in a french school she had multiple choice test

here in america. we went to paris, and they made her write essays. she had to turn the tv off. illustrates that her workded -- for extended you need to not have the stimulation of the media. we did this camp study. we were looking for a control group. apart from computer camp, they don't exist. they all want the kids to unplug. block: we have to focus a bit on sleep hygiene.

you was read stories about people bragging about how little sleep they need to get by. you can't really catch up on the sleep. the damage is done. maybe making the bedroom safe spaces where there are no electronic devices. most people need seven to nine hours of sleep. almost no one can get by with less than that. part of this is a refocusing on the importance of sleep in children. it is not something to be embarrassed about the need to sleep. it is quite dramatic how much it is changed in 50 years.

i am pretty sensitive to it. you use these activity monitors to try to get your 10,000 steps per day. you have to set a goal for sleep as well. somehow i'm going to get seven hours of sleep. figure out strategies to do that. the younger you are, it could be up to nine or 10 hours. as they get older it could be eight hours. adults it's usually about seven to eight hours of sleep. i get about seven hours. >> setting up a goal of the individual level is very

important. right now we live in new york and during winter if i tell my computer andg the go and play. he says where will i go? it is so cold outside. i tell him to unplug. there times he actually use that. the other thing is when we are talking about what will he do starts where they should providing the infrastructure where the kids can go and play. so they have an alternative. when you're talking about making our cities and communities the issue of safety also comes up.

it is not safe, i'm not going to send my children over there. there is a big issue there. together tok provide these things. outdoor and indoor parks. what is the alternative? any consumers actually don't know the effects. we need to bring in more awareness. using smartphones for 10 hours a day. it will affect you this way. those kinds of numbers can have an effect.

they stop knowing what is going to happen to me. if i am using too much of the iphone or other gadgets. consumer awareness is actually important. we feel that we know everything. but we don't really know that. we need to be more educated about that. there are many companies that have started encouraging their employees to have standing desks. that is good, but you cannot be standing for eight hours. you need to know how much you should sit and how much he should stand.

after eight hours i'm going to go to the gym. is we were sitting for such a long time your body starts to behave and starts to hear that you should be in that position. if you go on the treadmill your body cannot take it well. the solution might be that in your eight hours you get up and the kind ofif it is office where you can walk around. look at others and what they are doing. it reminds me of the movie office space. [laughter] people might think you are weird but actually it is helping you. the demands for instant to medication in the workplace are

so great. it used to be if you answered a letter in two weeks you are doing fine. if you don't answer within a couple of hours people think you are not responsive. to the point where you can't concentrate because the expectation is so great. we could do something in the workplace but realizing the cost of that is great. sometimes i don't answer my e-mail for a day. if i were doing what my colleagues want i would be answering it all the time. i think that being more aware of his expectations and moderating them would be a big help in terms of being able to concentrate and not being interrupted all the time.

going to so refreshing my child's open house in middle school. she said i do not answer any of my e-mails once the bell rings at 3:00 until the next day. it was a strange response. setting boundaries and expectations. she said look, i am off the clock. it can wait. that is something we need to do in our lives? block: a big monitor sits on your desk. he spend your day interacting with the computer. only 25 years ago that whatever device you had which your deskwriter at

was clear and you are sitting and thinking. people expect you to respond quickly. you are considered rude if you don't respond quickly to an e-mail. it prevents deep thinking. have to become more disciplined. i don't know how this is going to change. there is an now a very rapid response on the part of e-mail messages. it is something will actually have to address. >> if there was an institutional response of the top about it, that might help. [laughter] dr. block: you don't want to policy. a policy. [laughter] checking my work e-mail is the appearance of being productive. i feel responsible.

i could think that i'm working hard. is that what we are doing? >> i think what has happened is that when your head snail mail and you are in an office that has assistance they were reading the mail. they can prioritize. they could determine what you needed to do today and what you can wait a few days for. the problem now is that there is no prioritization of e-mail. it just comes in all the time. you have to at least look at it to determine what it is. is a very complex and frustrating methodology. youhere is no one ahead of and you could do that and have all be selected.

that is not the culture now. incan create real problems disrupting workflow. there are some positive things we have gained from technology like health apps and tracking our steps. we can do television it's with a televisitselly -- with doctors. >there are some positives. >> and noticed there are so many immigrants. back in the day when you immigrated you would completely lose contact. ,ow with the skype and others people can keep contact. >> and the potential for monitoring and we take responsibility for your health

because you have more information, we could become extraordinarily beneficial in health care costs. you can help your doctor keep up-to-date. you can discuss it with your doctor and i have found that doctors have become more receptive to keeping with you in this way. and they cannot keep up with everything just like we can't and our field. medical group, you now get test results everything electronically. previously the doctor said something and i thought i understood, but by the team -- by the time the test came back i did not understand. now we have evidence. how much was my glucose level? those things are healthy. -- those things are helping.

even getting your drugs or from pharmacies. there are technologies monitoring your heartbeats and all these things. from two years , the organization for medical devices sponsored it. canaw that medical device reduce the overall economic burden to society. using an insulin pump. if you're mostly type one diabetes, and you can regularly monitor what is going on, that helps a lot.

you can reduce him a time you end up in the emergency room. i want to talk about the social costs of medicine. hospital and the doctors spend all their time in front of the computer and barely talk to you. because they can get other test results on the computer they don't ask you about them and they do not come into your room stop everybody knows that the human touch is important for recovery -- come into your room to find out. everybody knows that human touches important for recovery in that is almost gone. i think we have to also consider the social costs and try to at the same time

we are making use of these advances. seen examples where they are clicking away and not looking at the patient the whole time. not when the doctor because they are tasked with doing that but you are right. pressure onlots of doctors from insurance companies, what they need to find. whether they are writing it or typing it. if they can type faster, they can save time to do interaction with face-to-face. but there are pressures on them so we might have to think about those kinds of issues. >> we will open it up for questions here in a minute. determined that we

need a surgeon general warning on every smartphone? what do you think? >> what i wanted to talk about in closing, some of the research on the changing values connected to media. we did one study. decades of theve most popular preteen television. the 1960's, through the 1990's, the most important value being expressed with community feeling. 2000s, the most important value being expressed was fame. we can see this in our current election, the importance of televisionquent

thing, subsequent research connected for children in a big survey connected the aspiration to be famous to watching a lot of television and being very act social network sites. the value being shows,e to popular materialism was also going up in a significant way. what we are ending up with is a society that values materialism and wealth. in values fame. it has been a precipitous decline in the value of community feeling. we found that the big change was in that deck where technology became so important. bunch did it for me. >> my 13-year-old is getting her

values from all the buzz feed video's and i am worried about that. perspective -- my perspective on this is largely impacted through technology. i think it's an ongoing concern and we have remained concerned about it. there were concerns with the bright life in hong kong and these bright lights shining through all the time from nearby apartments so we have to be mindful of sleep hygiene and the need to regulate our environment and a way that is healthier so we can maintain a primitive process but actually necessary. earlier, thereed --uld be a conscious effort

whether it is business communities are consumers, everybody should come together to start thinking seriously what can be done. there are different ways that can be done. the conversation should be carried on. we see that you have to take ipad, we using the also have to know how we can counterbalance that. we need to start thinking seriously about that. >> i think we will open it to questions? >> indeed. there are two of us going around with microphones. this is being recorded and it will be up on our website tomorrow morning.

with friends and family and colleagues who could not make it out tonight. this will be rebroadcast nationally at a later date. you so much for what you talked about. i am a scientist and a mother of three children and i am extremely concerned about the psychology. i have a 13-year-old daughter as well and so far she does not have a cell phone. is aboutcern as well the radiofrequency emitted from wireless technology. do you have anything to say about this? there is so much research out there showing health effects from cancer to neurological effects and icy universities like ucla pouring money into this technology and at the same by u.s. --h research

by ucla showing the harm. what do you have to say about that? >> i'm not an expert on this but it's my understanding that it's pretty equivocal. a number of studies have looked at radiation from levels of a cell phone and there are some recommendations to lower the energy levels which i think they have done over time and i think the data is equivocal. in less you know of studies that suggest otherwise i think there has not been a convincing group of studies to show health risk. that on ato reply to different level. proud that you are your 13-year-old does not have a phone, but one thing that you have to realize, and this has

come out in our research, at this point, a teenagers social life is on the phone. if a teenager does not have a phone, they will be excluded from social life. you have to really consider the social cost of approaching it in a black and white way of no phone. >> [inaudible] >> we have another question over here. hello, my name is robin. can i hold it? ok. i was wondering if we can look at this, i see parallels with wheregarette industry they knew cigarettes were addictive and dangerous in the did not tell anybody. it was part of their market. it seems to me that the cellphone issue is like a sanctioned in diction --

addiction that our society has denial about. studies thats of show that it is addictive, a baylor study that showed young women in school were on the cell phone for nine to 10 hours on social media, undergraduates. i want to know what you think quality anddictive the responsibility of the cell phone quality forgiving smartphones to entire families for great prices to get children addicted. they do not need to necessarily have a smart phone with all that access all the time. >> does anyone want to take up addiction? [laughter] my one thought would be that addiction is a strong word medically and it makes me think

that people can be addicted to any number of things but the technology can -- doesn't it make it that much easier with pornography with online gambling , timmy addiction can mean many different things with the technology we have. it can be addicted to the device. in 1984, wrote my book i thought what they were talking about was kind of crazy, i thought nobody would say there is an addiction to video games. nobody says if they want to finish a book that much -- that my child is addicted to reading. if a kid wanted to finish a video game thought that was very reasonable. since, the data have changed. using this american psychiatric manualtion diagnostic

using the criteria for addiction, there is the same used for alcohol and drugs. if you apply them to video games there is such a thing as addiction. panic ink we could find there is such a thing as a cell phone in the future. because who would of thought. you jim addiction can be extremely serious. now research has started to be done where they do use the same criteria and it is a real thing. >> a way to add something. in asian countries this is much bigger than here. in south korea, there has been an addiction treatment option set up for children. it has started. maybe not in the u.s. but other countries and that's what i was mentioning.

butill take a few years people will start thinking about that. whether you have addiction treatment or college addiction what you are thinking about getting treatment or health for that it will be coming by. >> is interesting because the current new diagnostic manual with the american psychiatric decision has been a game addiction as a canopy. what's really interesting is what has come out of it. narcissistic personality disorder has been removed from it. it's now the new normal. [laughter]. >> my name is albert lee and i was going to ask about addiction but that has already been asked. ow do we navigate this?

technology has always had an impact on humanity but it has turned up a notch. >> i think we're just becoming to be aware. at the beginning everybody was so enamored with all the pluses and we are just beginning to be aware of the minuses. processes, weion don't know anything about how you bring up children with technology because it's also new. we don't even know how to weep a as parents with technology or as adults with technology because it's all so new. i think we have to develop ideas about this in the same way we have had ideas about etiquette. it wasn't technology. we need to develop some concept of etiquette with technology for example. responds torarely

my text, forget the phone. he's getting better but he's deaf really getting a lot better. it's definitely a learning process. . we didn't realize that we would have to teach about this. >> just related to what he said earlier, i think the oculus rift was released about a week ago and coming up later this year the ps four is coming up with its virtual reality take. what do you think the next step in virtual reality will have with respect to our emotional and physical health? notch three more? fully immersed with your goggles on? i think that was a yes.

>> you touched a little bit on empathy on sleep, hygiene and melatonin response. potentially brain level changes and i was greatly struck two weeks ago in the new york times with an article that talked about how -- it wasn't really thet gps, it was about relationship of the loss at the brain level, neurodevelopment wayfinding. -- and thelated constant use of gps and somebody is seeing a brain level difference and i wonder what research is going on at that or onof brain development

development. >> different parts of the brain. reading affects the brain, for example. it just so happens that we have technology at the same time we have mri and all of that. activity affects the brain, certain connections are enhanced and others become weaker. i would say yes. this is not a value judgment, but with your example, i believe the connections, the neural connections we use for wayfinding are getting weaker but there are other parts of the brain having to do with technology that are getting stronger. >> i would agree with that because some of this is really practiced and concentration. if you have a shorthand way of

doing this with gps you don't practice the skills. you will end up losing the circuitry. >> protecting children from things that can be a lifetime of disability. >> one thing that's going by the wayside are manual skills. tying shoelaces and things like that. at l.a. unified, they want to give every child and ipad. that's just going to move things further. there is nothing about the cost.e -- possible social it was all considered positive and a think that we need to want childrenwe

to learn and if we want them to have manual skills we need to give them those opportunities. when he to give them those opportunities. from mosts gone schools, etc.. >> my name is stacy ray. i was wondering if you could speak a little bit on what the effects are on your eyes. you mentioned it. are there any studies that have come out that possibly could give us some feedback on that. >> does anyone want to take a stab at eyesight? >> i'm fine. data.haven't lost any the main thing is when we will -- to have any relationship

or the tie to evidence, that's a big issue. you want the numbers are need evidence than the should be places that start gathering the data. i'm not aware if there is a study right now showing exactly that relationship. studiesroblem with about the cost is the government doesn't want to fund them. for the last five to 10 years all of our research which is focused on social cost has been unfunded. certain kinds of cost such as eyesight do take money. the federal government is so enamored with technology that they really want to fund studies that show enhanced learning and this kind of thing. nothing about the cost of technology. that needs to stop. we need a more balanced view of technology in high places.

say you may be ruined your eyes but we cannot with this new product that will fix your eyes. we have you both ways. >> the next question is on your left. >> allow me to come back to the electromagnetic radiation. the world health organization the city of berkeley as a path, an ordinance saying at the point-of-sale for cell phones, it has to be disclosed that there is a potential health risk. view, wedata point of are living in an unprecedented overexposure from all of our devices and everything. what can be done from a regulatory point of view with the research to do something about it?

>> i'm not an expert in this area but the question is, what is the risk and the benefit versus the risk trade-off. clearly there are a lot of elektra magnetic waves out there. you mentioned the world health organization and i don't know what the data looks like. is this a highly significant risk? we have to balance that. i hope that people are looking that -- looking at that and considering whether this is something that requires special legislation. it was required with blackberries that you carry it in the carrier and keep it in your pocket. nowadays people tend to carry cell phones much closer to their

body. my blackberry keyboard . >> that will conclude our program. we want to thank you for defending this program tonight. i would like to thank all of our speakers as well. we will see you up stairs at the reception.

[crowd chatter] >> nasa administrator charles bolden speaks tomorrow but engineering and math education at the u.s.. we have it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. later in the day a look at the rise of terrorism and europe and why certain groups are being blamed for promoting a jihadist agenda in the region. -- 12:30 live at 1230 p.m. pt on c-span. >> monday on "the communicators," the republican -- fcc commissioner michael o'rielly.

he is joined by howard is kirk, the communications daily administrator director. >> he takes the most aggressive, leftist approach to policymaking makes little ground when that becomes the primary goal of the item. when the policy of the direction they want to go to becomes the first goal rather than any consideration of collegiality or any attempt to develop consensus you wind up with the scenario we have today. when there's little interest in bringing my opinion on board, you'll find i'm less likely to be supportive. >> on c-span, newsmakers is next with the puerto rican governor l.a. hundred garcia -- alejandro garcia.

formerhat, the halilzad onzalmay k "q&a." "> this week on "newsmakers, the governor of puerto rico, l.a. hundred -- alejandro garcia padilla. jonathan miller and the national tax reporter for roll call. governor, you tell us how puerto rico is $70 billion in debt? to get a very short history, in the 1970's due to a recession from oil prices, congress

reacted and approved the ricotitive tool for puerto -- with the help of that code, puerto rico will get out of the recession. but then later congress thought it was too much and repealed the section. what governors did since 2006 on 2012, the empty space wealth creation that's created in puerto rico through this section was filled with loans. the total death -- debt of puerto rico in 1935 with