Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140703 : c

we still have problems like salmonella and botulism -- well, various health problems with these foods just because they aren't refrigerated. they are past their shelflife. there are others at -- other issues besides the thc. so that would be an area, the edibles. is like i said, this vaping quite a big deal particularly for our young people. it has become very ocular. the -- very popular. and make concentrates are very potent. desperately need this application program that the governor is working on to rollout. we should get a curriculum in our public schools go, to. schools, too. well, the data collection is extremely important. we really haven't been keeping great statistics on marijuana use in terms of people going into the er. they are starting to do it now. but to really create sound public policy, we need accurate data. i would argue that is very important going forward also. host: gina carbone with smart colorado. there is a website if you want to find out more abo on c-span, a discussion on the origins of the universe. an interview with the commander of the international space station. here is a look. >> in the beginning, it was hot, really hot. as the universe expanded, the heat would spread out. it diluted and cooled down. you can calculate how cold it should be today and it is about 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. that is the temperature of deep space. if you are in deep, empty space, the temperature -- you can go one step further. you can calculate how the temperatures should vary from place to place. it should vary on the order of 1/1000 of a degree. you can do these very precise measurements and see the temperature variation. >> what do you mean when you call something the fabric of the cosmos? >> it is a hard question. is space really a thing or is it just a useful concept in order to organize our perception of reality? you are over there. the table is further. is space really a thing? nobody fully knows the answer to that. in einstein's general relativity, i see space as a thing in einstein's the rate. meaning the fabric of space and time together. >> space and time are stitched together. >> even if nothing else existed? >> there has been a lot of debate about this. if you were to remove everything from space, what would be left? would you have an empty universe that still has space and time or would you have nothing? if you take an alphabet and start to remove the letters, when you remove that last letter, what is left? is it an empty alphabet? not really, it is like nothing. the alphabet comes into existence with the letters that make it up. >> a discussion on the origins of the universe and an interview with the commander of the international space station thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> tonight on c-span, reviewing the supreme court 2013-14 term. federal reserve chaired janet yellen speaks at an imf conference. later, the business summit in colorado. >> the current supreme court terms and it on monday with the release of decisions. next, supreme court reporters you a behind-the-scenes look at covering major cases. this 90-minute event is hosted by the d.c. bar. >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you so much for coming. i am arthur spitzer. ofday job is legal director the local office of the american civil liberties union. i am here wearing my hat as a volunteer for the d.c. bar. we apologize for the lack of adequate food for which you all paid. i understand that more sandwiches are being made as i speak. nobody should hesitate to get up and get some food during the program. nobody will mind. welcome to the 26th annual supreme court review from the press gallery program sponsored onthe d.c. bar section courts, lawyers and the administration of justice. i have a few other preliminaries in addition to food before we begin. thanks to arnold, in whose spacious room we are gathered. they are hosting us again for the eighth or 10th year. thanks to marcia tucker, the coordinator, for helping to host us and help with all of the arrangements. thanks to c-span, which is in the back, for covering us again this year. you will be able to see the broadcast of this program at various odd hours for the next few days and then it will be in their archive where you can watch it on your computer at your leisure. if you don't want the back of your head to be on national tv, you are welcome to slink to the side and avoid that. ornks also to fritz mulhouse , my colleague at the aclu, for being the producer of this program. making all the necessary arrangements. but he is not responsible for the food situation. bar tells me that i have to announce that this youion is on the record but need the bar's bruegel in advance if you're going to record. c-span has approval. but if you don't have approval you are not authorized to record. courts lawyers and the administration of justice is one of the d.c.ections bar through which much of the bar's work is done. that pertains to court administration and roles, the relationship tween the bench and the bar. this section also focuses on improving access to justice for everyone in d.c. the 10 other sections are cosponsors of today's program. they cover the range of legal practice and i would encourage all of you, if you are members of the d.c. bar, to think about becoming an active member. for those of you who are future members of the d.c. bar, you should think about becoming active in one or more bar sections. it is a great way to know other lawyers outside of your own firm or practice, to learn more about interesting areas of the law and make a difference in the profession. on a personal note, if you are not yet a member of the aclu, i have membership forms in my briefcase which i would be happy to give you after the program. we are privileged to have with us a panel of journalists who have been covering the supreme court for 107 years. i will introduce them briefly in the order of how long they have been covering the court, beginning with tony morrow on my far left. tony has been covering the court since 1979, first for usa today. he joined the legal times in 2000 and continues as a supreme court correspondent after its merger in 2009. his undergraduate degree is from rutgers. his journalism degree is from columbia. david savage has been covering the court with the los angeles times since 1981. also in the last several years, covering the court for the chicago tribune. he is the author of a book called "turning right." he has recently authored the latest additions of congressional quarterly's guide to the supreme court. david has degrees from unc at chapel hill and northwestern. joan on my far right covers the court for reuters. she has covered it since 1989. before joining reuters, she covered the courts for usa today and the washington post. she is a regular panelist on ebs washington week. she earned her law degree at georgetown law school and specializes in presenting the supreme court through the lens of judicial biography. she has written sandra day , and more recently, american original, the life and constitution of supreme court justice anthony scalia. joan is within weeks of finishing a new book called, "breaking in, the rise of sonia which has a publication date of the first tuesday in october. joined thees washington post in 1987 covering maryland politics. since then, he has served as deputy national editor in charge of domestic issues during the clinton administration. 2005turned to reporting in and began covering the supreme court in 2006. bob had been planning to go to law school but changed his mind after taking a journalism course. his biography on the washington post website says, it did not occur to him that he could do both. perhaps a better explanation is that he realized he didn't need three years of law school to not practice law. is they atkins washington bureau chief for the dolan company's publications, a nationwide group of specialized legal and business journals including the new york daily record, the wisconsin law journal, and about a dozen others. kimberly has covered the court and capitol hill since 2007. previously, she worked at some daily newspapers including the boston globe. before her journalism career, she was a litigator. she is a graduate of wayne state university, boston university school of law, and the columbia journalism school. kim is also a fashion designer and the owner of kim eileen designs, creating custom special occasion and bridal wear. if you need legal advice or a gown, see kimberly. last but not least, adam who covers the court for the new york times. he took over that beat six years ago. he has a long history at the times which he joined as a copy boy in 1984 after graduating from yale. times', he joined the corporate legal department, advising the paper and representing it in litigation. became alater, he reporter, covering legal issues including justices roberts and , and a series of deep reports about the contributions, the connections between the contributions to the political campaigns of justices on the ohio supreme court and those justices' voting records. his work has also appeared in the new yorker, vanity fair and other publications. unlike most of the supreme court panels, this is not a bunch of legal hotshots analyzing the cases as lawyers, although they are all hotshots. we will talk about some cases. our plan is to talk mostly about the court as an institution and about covering the court as journalists. i plan to save some time at the end for questions from the audience. i encourage you to think about questions you might want to ask and i will try to remind you about that as we get closer to the end. receivingou will be through e-mail, an evaluation formrom the d.c. bar. we would appreciate it if you would fill them out and send them in. we do read every one. we have made some changes in the program in response to comments and i encourage you to complain about the food problem so that the bar will do a better job next year. now i am going to sit down. let's start the discussion with yesterday's front-page story about the hobby lobby decision on monday. it seems to me it is a great example, a challenge, of squeezing a complicated decision with many facets into a few paragraphs in a newspaper or on a website. league of daily reporters on the panel was somewhat different. i am curious to ask the reporters about why they made some different choices. at the risk of taking up more time with my monologue, i am going to read some of the opening -- some of the story. the new york times story began, the supreme court ruled on monday that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the affordable care act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. it was a decision of startling breadth. opened the door to many challenges from corporations, over laws they claim violate religious liberties. the washington post began, the supreme court struck down a key part of president obama's health care law, ruling family-owned businesses do not have to offer employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the owner's religious beliefs. the decision deeply split the court not only on its holding that the freedom restoration act protects businesses from offering contraceptive coverage, but also on how broadly the ruling will apply to other challenges. the los angeles times began, the supreme court ruled that private companies had a religious right to be exempted from federal law, saying businesses owned by devout christians may refuse to cover contraceptives for female employees. the ruling was a victory for social conservatives. reuters, a story by her colleague, said the supreme court on monday ruled that the owners of private companies can object on religious grounds to a provision of president barack obama's health care law. the decision which applies only to a small number of companies means an estimated several thousand women may have to obtain certain forms of birth control. from one of her papers i found on the internet, says that the affordable health care act requirement that employer funded health care plans cover contraceptives violates the statutory rights of religious owners of private companies. the stories emphasize potential breadth of it. some stories emphasize the narrowness of it. -- emphasizedut that it was privately owned companies. some said that it opened the door to challenges by many corporations. i am curious about some of the choices that were made and why. adam, would you like to start? >> i thought they all sounded pretty good. i think we can spend the rest of the session reading our stories aloud. case had many moving pieces. you could focus on the first couple sentences on one aspect or the other. like the aclu's position on education, i think diversity may be a good thing. >> i was thinking about the emphasis. it is very slight in each of them. from reuters point of view, we had several stories that day. the first one is going to have some emphasis on what it means for business because reuters has an emphasis on business. then, we followed up with another story that talked about where this fits into the whole scheme of the whole term and another story about how this might change the corporate landscape. even hearing you read, you thought there were a lot of differences. i thought they all captured the essence of the morning with slight nuances. we all serve different audiences. seemed to mehat quite important was the question of whether any women would actually lose free access to contraception. i didn't see anything about that. anywhere near the top of any of these stories. david savage has it in the sixth sentence of the fifth paragraph, which was higher up than anybody else. he addresses the question of whether anyone would lose access. in other stories, it was much further down. >> i wrote about four versions of that story. we are all in the same business of trying to write a very quick version for the web and an updated version for the web and another version for the newspaper. with each version, i get questions from editors. e women really going to lose contraception? by the end of the day, we got a few sentences that says not many women will lose coverage. , sayingyou had here was that this decision was very broad. opinion saying, it is actually very narrow. they went back and forth on these two things. ginsburgered, was making it a bigger decision than it was in the way she wrote about it? others say, what she did was force the majority to go back and say, it is not about this and it is not about this. it is just about contraception. i think it remains to be seen. it was interesting that the two sides went back and forth at each other about this. it is a little hard to tell whether it is really broad or narrow. >> did you see what justice kennedy did? he writes a separate opinion that justice kennedy who usually straddles the middle, he stepped back and wrote a current opinion saying, let's just lower the temperature here. the decision doesn't mean as ginsburgy colleague, says. but it is narrower. it was almost like he tried to bridge the rhetoric in that moment. >> justice ginsburg is not ordinarily an alarmist. the goals, she didn't have to keep those passages. yet she saw it the way she saw it. ,hat kind of alarmist dissent there is history of it. justice scalia in two big gay rights rulings, he turned out to be right. question still focusing on hobby lobby, the cases for separate issues, any one of which could have been determinative, whether a corporation was a person for the religious freedom restoration act, whether the law imposes stone statue -- substantial burden on their religious it was thed whether least restrictive means, how do you deal with all that? is that only of interest to legal geeks? how do you make it understandable? >> i definitely had to get all that in my story. i write in part for lawyers. the legal issues are definitely what they are interested in. i write for business papers, legal papers. we have a daily business paper in oklahoma city where hobby lobby is based. that story had a different focus and came out looking different than our legally -- then our weekly legal papers. you have to sort of explain what it means in a way that is understandable for lawyers and others who read the paper. it is not just lawyers. to understand what the impact of it means. there is a lot of rhetoric. there are a lot of people on tv saying a lot of things. it is difficult to find out exactly what the law is. sometimes it takes a couple days for it to settle down and for people to analyze it. >> do your editors give you all the space you want to detail a case like this? >> they always have -- they hold the scissors. i just give them a big long story and they can trim it to their individual needs. i normally don't get cut off. my stories tend to be in the 1200 word range. >> i am glad you focused on hobby lobby. at least this one, we knew what the bottom line was. it was relatively easy. about a week before, there was a greenhouse gas case. starts reading the majority opinion. very rarely is on the side of the environmentalists. you assume epa is going to lose. there is rhetoric about how this regulation goes too far. after heitten version, said why epa loses, he turns and says, however it could be approved against power plants under a different regulation. he said upstairs, epa has basically won most of this case. that was a really interesting scramble. a lot of people put stories on the web saying, court strikes down greenhouse gas regulation based on what the court seemed to say. at the end of the opinion, it basically said, epa won most of this case. i am glad you didn't take that one. >> that was like the aca decision to years ago. the chief justice went into all the things that were wrong with the decision and then said, but, it is constitutional. a lot of news organizations reported that he did then -- that it had been struck down. with the hobby lobby decision, it seems that justice alito went out of his way to lay out what exactly happened. maybe it was an attempt to avoid a situation like the first aca challenge. nobody really understood what happened because the lead -- peoplept, i used to tell to find out what the majority ruled, you should read the dissent first. i think the common thread in all these discussions is that there with a spin going on majority saying, this is very saying and the dissenter this opens a big can of worms. challenge to figure out which is the right tone to set in writing our stories, especially when we have to do it within seven minutes after the decision comes down. ins was also the case harris versus quinn. they stopped short of striking down agency fees altogether. that theyvery clear stopped short of doing that. how do you really know what is going to happen next? >> i thought that decision by justice scalia that you were talking about was a good example of what happens at least once or twice a year. i am edge and it must present special challenges to the press. here is a summary from the lineup of the course syllabus. justice scalia announced the judgment of the court and delivered an opinion. chief justice roberts and justice kennedy joined the opinion in full. ginsburg, breyer, soto mayor and kagan joined as part 2-b-2. justice alito filed an opinion dissenting in part in which justice thomas joined. how do you even figure out -- >> and your editor is on the phone saying, should we call it 5-4 or 7-2? >> you look at what really matters going into it. the interesting thing about that epa case and the harris versus quinn one on monday, we all have certain expectations on how far the court might go. the union won, we knew what was at risk. the idea that maybe public employees weren't going to have to pay union dues. thought the court was going to challenge. they didn't end up reversing, but they ended up with a setback for public employees and unions anyway. as adam was saying, you have to figure out what vote really matters in the recess appointments, the unanimity, but also the 5-4 rationale. you have to work them both together. out to your bosses right away that they can put on the wire will make a difference to all the readers. you have to really give them one vote and keep revising. >> one thing that we are all lucky about is that we cover the court full-time. that means we can really concentrate on the court and know the arguments. if you have been at rural arguments -- oral arguments, these decisions were not surprising. wrote awe probably all version of it after the oral argument. caseemed clear in the epa that there was a majority that didn't believe they had the power to do one thing but they would be able to do it some other way. i think we got that feeling after the recess appointments too. i think a big advantage that we have is that we do have that background so that when one of these complicated decisions comes down, we still know what the arguments were. we know how the court seemed to accept them or reject them. >> we struggle after going to an argument about how much we want to predict the results. --en, the safest thing to do the justice is divided over whether to ban abortion -- ban protests near abortion clinics or allow police to search cell phones. that seemed divided. turnout to be wrong. they were unanimous. addition to the front page story like hobby lobby and cell phone searches, even at the end of the term, many of the cases handed down were quite technical and may be of great interest to a fairly limited audience. for example, whether the trustee's of employee stock option plans get exemption of prudence. halliburton. can a defendant in a stock fraud class action try to show that the alleged fraud had no affect on market prices? how much time do you need to yourself inersing the details of cases like that? how much room do your get from your editors to report the details of cases like that that may be of great interest to a small audience? >> those two cases had very different answers. the halliburton case was a real case that i think most of us wrote substantial stories about. awayd the potential to do with securities for class actions. >> it is a balancing act. during oral arguments, you don't know in which order the decisions will come down. washington reporter for all my papers, i am only one person. i covered oral arguments. it was an issue for lawyers that could be of interest. it came down in a flurry of other much more impactful cases. i ended up not writing a story about the decision. some of the publications may have run ap copy. i tried during the course of the year to pace so that the decisions will come down the same way the oral arguments did. >> there are a lot of cases that are not that interesting. the court deserves a lot of credit for style points for presentation and drama. every year, there are a series of big decisions. on the last day, there will be some big decisions that divide the court, the whole country. it happens all the time. a lot of people who are paying attention like in the health-care case, the gay marriage case, you genuinely don't know how the supreme court is going to rule. it is an unusual part of government. they decided with a bang. then they take off for three months. boy, they really know how to do drama. they reserve all the big cases for the end. i thought roberts might send a note around that said, why don't we slow down. if we release this in may, it will let the air out of the balloon. there is always a big case at the end of june. it always strikes me that congress does it wrong every year. they had the state of the union in january, the president comes up. then two weeks later, it is clear, we are not going to legislate this year. one side says, we can't make any deals with the people on the other side. they are unreasonable and obstructionist. by this time of the year, who cares if congress is in recess or not? they are not doing anything anyway. but the supreme court knows how to do drama and presentation. >> they are doing so much drama in the courtroom. we went through a period where a lot of people weren't showing up because you could get it quicker online. we have a decent section watching the proceedings. which of course are not televised. the justices are still playing to that. there is plenty of back-and-forth that has given us grist for drama. >> a number of people have asked me, why did alito have those decisions? one took much longer to decide than the other. the union case was argued in january. it took this long to get agreement, which suggests there was something that fell through. a majority opinion that somebody was not ready to go along with. it just so happened that one argued in january and one argued in march happens to be the last >> people have been wondering term was whether the going to end the previous week on thursday the 27th or whether they were going over to the last day of june monday the 30th. it made me wonder, term was going to end the previous week on i remember an adam, you did several about how justice backman's law clerk urged him to postpone the decision from a to friday to a monday ecause a story on a friday or saturday newspaper in the summer doesn't get much attention. i wonder if anybody suspect may have got obby pushed from last week to this precisely from the style and impact that david with a talking about. would have made more sense if it issued on friday. it applies to nk the thursday decisions. i think it was good p.r. advice but i don't think i attribute to why monday. monday was since the beginning f the term the last official day of the term so no particular reason to think it was something else. y--resident obama: >> you said something a minute in the t upstairs courtroom and downstairs in the press conference. you can tell us what that is and choice? made the >> i really am in a lucky position that i have a partner fast and ually very handles our on the top stop copy. so he's down in the press room minute he can get a copy of the opinion he runs to his up what and types happened very fast and pre written a lot what we call snaps hat are urgent lines that will go out immediately to our customers. that gives me a real luxury of which p in the courtroom u.s.a. today and washington i could do all the time. you en you're sitting this get to hear the justices in their own words tell you what hey think that is so important about the ruling and you get to see the colleagues react to it spectators section react to it. it's wonderful drama and play into what get into what they have actually done because justices will highlight what justice sayse and the government gets it so we with that understanding. and also just because cameras always bringwe can that into our stories and i think enhance what the readers get. fortunate to be able to do that. >> but it's important to emphasize the cost. cost is the moment they start talking, your competitors are downstairs with the hard of the decision and they ill talk as they did in the hobby lobby case for half an hour and you're in the courtroom hrebg electronics and they can't get a hold of you so there's a real cost to this benefit of having the case explained to you by the people who wrote it and they're decisions their ahroloud aloud. >> they didn't sit through the opinion where you do hear the new answers and hear that here are two parts to it and one that the affordable act is on one ground l and constitutional on another round but the people who raced off with the hard copy got kind of side tracked. would be think that it more accurate if you had the piece of paper in your hand but in idn't work out that way some instances. in fact, i think there are some thinking that maybe if they the opinion to the reporters until the end of presentation it might work out better. press hat something the gallery wants to ask them to do? would doubt y -- i there would be unanimity on that point. > and it would be faux an himty. >> there is more food if you didn't notice it coming in. >> i wanted to add a postscript what you said about coming in the room. observing during rollout. you have a few ssistants and spectators who are cleanly interested in this and for example, laurence gold ho was very interested in the union decision on monday and you can see how they reacted and i during the course of the healthcare ruling, we both when itthat he tightens sounds like the government has him loosenen you see up as chief justice roberts says, no you won. a lot as adam observed it can be at a cost if you're up there for your news organization. >> there are other times when are dramatic moments you're not the only 1 and 1 was they announced the decision, the affirmative action decision. was a very day that heavily covered case. cell phone y it was searches. >> it was susan b. anthony which real case. so we're hoping to be there for arguments and then the decisi decision wins. quite a powerful and interesting moment and something something that is not broadcast. release justices will statements that have their remarks. if you weren't this you missed and it just so happened a lot of reporters were there. when the stories you had this that that you itmally in any other day, if was a run of the mill sort of habeas case or something nobody they have been there and would have missed it and wouldn't be able to see t there but value in being there you can't always be there. >> in a situation like that, do you do? do you stay upstairs to watch the argues in these two cases and rundown stairs and file a story? >> i went downstairs because i a dramatic moment and i thought it was a case that people were going to be really wanted to in and i get something on the web. so, even though i had thought at would stay and watch the arguments i decided that it wasn't worth it. it was more important to get a out on the web. that the aouunanimous -- i just do what bob does. argument. d for the >> do you have the same time pressure to get something out to publications? >> not quite as much as some of the folks who need to get the hour.out within i have daily -- some of the apers i write are daily so i needed to get something out, but i'm one also realize person. >> again, i'm not even knowing sewed meier is andto present this great decent what i did i thought, i knew my colleague could do whatever i hour to do for that fir and it was more important to of us to up there, so it was tough especially since the first two rows emptied out completely. and adam and dave knew it to rundown for their purposes which kimberly knew for purposes to wait and fang rankly it was worth it and i quickly typed up what what happened in the oral argument and shifted gears. constantly to make those calculations and some years you might be off in an rgument or two and some years you might be lucky and it will all work out but nothing is easy in the moment. to make calculation the s the story to be on first front page and the ffirmative action decision was a front page story. help you t would sure to write the decision. so you lose something. his is all an instance of a general problem for journalists which is that we cover a not that ard working court does of its work seven mornings a month. so they compress into those decisions to hear cases merits and s on the arguments and they happen simultaneously and we have to do figure out what parts to cover. we really r parts helped as all of you know is of the oral pts early in are fairly the afternoon. i ended up writing a story about he case by reading the transcript later in the day. at not the same as being the argument but you get points we're basically in businesses.nt i'm not sure about kimberly on this. that we're serving a website that wants news immediately and not an hour from immediately and we work for a newspaper where it's going to come out the next day that reflective.re i do the opposite choice of adam and bob. oftay downstairs on the days the decisions and listen and get the opinion. but i do it basically because of website. my choice would be i'd rather go up and listen to them deliver the opinion. demand ong as there's a for the website to get something up immediately i don't feel as said there's a cost to it and take a half hour and 45 minutes listening upstairs. always torn thinking i'm in two ifferent -- i've got different jobs at the same time. >> i wondered this year if the had -- was showing maybe a little consideration for the ifss although not as much as they spread their work around -- no. he answer would be >> there were never more than three opinions a day. and there certainly have been ays in other terms when they were 4, 5 opinions. do you think that's just because do heir own convenience or you think they actually may be and their the press staff? it would have been much more if they did deliver and spread out the big ones which do. didn't really it clearly we weren't in mind. >> if you look back just a ago we had a s week of two decision days in june already where they cleared out every dog nd save every big case so you couldn't help get the final days getting two big decisions a day. particularly us. ined to help >> we spoke about how you advance to cover these cases. going to the arguments and guys g the briefs, do you do anything on the back end in erms of following up about the consequences of the case? trackbody going to try to how many companies seek exemptions under hobby lobby or towns start l having christian prayers at town meetings in the wake? >> i definitely will be keeping were that one of the we discussing before the discussion. one thing i'm not doing which done in the past is a wrap-up because i think for me our publications after hobby zone case he buffer and all these big cases in the last couple of weeks it's not necessary at this moment but exactly what you said. over time i'll revisit and see of these rulings are on the ground and it's always going to take a little time for that to happen. nd also do some previews of up and keeping an "on what's coming up next term. looking at ple are whether the state law bands will next year the term and where those are and things of that nature. the summer is a nice time to be able to think about this stuff some analysis in a way that you can't do when you're deadlines when day. a decision >> i plan to talk about next end. as we closer to the let's hold that off for a moment. panelists mentioned how you're not allowed to have electronics in the courtroom. was not a who reporter did get some lectronics up in the courtroom one morning this year and toni, were you there? not. was it was on ned during february 26th, a young man pro up during thetood session of the court and started speaking to the justices and it mccutchen case and said money is not speech. before.happened somebody else who had a pen tooka or some other device him ture of our video of and that statement ended up on the internet within a few hours and another piece of did, too, from another and time literally the first ince 1937 that a photo of any kind of the court while it was published had been anywhere. it's sufpl a rare event. it was amazing in the room. it was a patent days. i happened to be there. it was almost like the equivalent of five semis each other.o that room is so orderly and i could hear le of us chairs crashing because police had trouble getting to the fellow. was in the middle of the row and so they had to knock over a chairs to get to him complaining about the ree speech campaign finance cases and he said corporations are not people sort of thing and he was able -- what do you think about seven sentences out before they actually arrested him? >> i thought he was a pretty advocate. >> yeah. he got people's attention. justices didn't say anything from the bench but boy did things change up there. all happened -- it happened very fast though too. he said a few sentences. you saw the marshalls and he go down. just it almost seemed like there was a trap door. withs there and then there you he was do not. it was right before an attorney was giving his rebuttal argument and the chief justice said, counsel you have four minutes after that t on momentary breech. it's funny because i was just in the to my editor weeks before that happened. bring phonesdy can recorded devices in. nowadays people have smart watches and there are the spy ens and they never check for that and i was saying, i'm to rised no one was trying record things and i'm surprised there aren't more protestors. all you have to do is stand in line and get in the court. in a big way in or two. week there were two footnotes to this. that the audio of the redactedment was later spoken byte the words this young man and the explanation was it wasn't part regular proceedings and that's all we record. other one is that he was rosecuted under a law that prohibits harangues at the court and one wonders why justice skoe hasn't been prosecuted already. many a 's given harangue. the general counsel of the court was there and very much involved in the hallway negotiations over newkirk was sentenced to time served. he had actually been held incident buter the the was enough punishment judge felt. mccutchen there are that.al cases like i don't want anybody to raise their hand here, but there is apparently some people in the their free feel like speech rights are stifled if than ould not give more $123,000 this year to the congress.s for as i say, some of you out there fit this category can just smile. but don't identify yourselves because now you have a free speech right to go up to capital hill with a check of to john ion and say boehner or nancy pelosi i want the entire team to the max. that is what this case is about. thankfully we now a have free right to give more. news. good >> another way to frame the uestion nobody disputes there is a $2,600 limit per election cycle. there's a separate law that says to the 've given 26 first 16 candidates the 17th one ill be deeply corrupted by her $2,600 check. that's not obviously a corruption interest. think my choice would be $3.5 millionok the check up to the hill, don't you? opinion john roberts says there's nothing that allows to stop the use of money just to buy influence. can't do a bribe. but you can use money to buy influence because that's part of being a citizen. i think it's an interesting thought. you u got the $3 million can buy influence and no corruption there. your voice having being heard. i think you would have a lot about an u care industry, you have a lot more influence you can take 3 million and e speaker of the house if you give $2,600 to elect different members. what good is that? >> speaking for the a clu there ways to buy other influence than making campaign contributions. we can debate this and we will for the next decade. going back for a moment to the in the of electronic courtroom. nother place where that has become an interesting story which s to a live blog i'm sure many of you have atched some time in the last couple of weeks and yet they are not upstairs in the press or in the press room where the folks on this panel could be. they're sitting in the cafeteria and i wonder if and someone would like to tell us a little why that's so and what's going on with them trying equality. lyle is in the press room, o he is able to take the opinion and go back to his phone and on an open phone line and feed the information to others are d that managing. how he's how -- that's blog.to convey this to the but you're right. some of the others are ncamped in the cafeteria for part of this process. press passy wanted a is to -- asons, one they wanted a senate press pass press pass soonal events in over or a ss, a budget hearing confirmation hearing but they also wanted to get a press pass rom congress because the supreme court traditionally sort of honors those press passes and can give a credential to somebody who has had a credential.l to make a long story short they were denied pie the senate press gallery which is the standing committee of correspondents made up of media reporters and they were and it's a legitimate concern in many instances that give on't want to credential to somebody who lobbies congress. they want have to the press corp to be somewhat and to have integrity in that way and one of denying the pass to -- or the credential to the was that they felt that supreme g before the court and the publisher is arguing before the supreme court often that they felt that the supreme fore court is a form of lobbying the you could ernment view it that way. so they were denied. think a lot of people -- it's robably not unanimous on this panel but feel that the proof is in the pooudding. and such rn list tick a public service the process the blog.exclude there has to be a panel way to criteria to accommodate something like skoet tuesday tpwhrog ask there has to e some accommodation of new of media. the question is the government access to the onlyc institutions and the grounds should be content neutral and motive neutral and the rving as a proxy for public to get access to allow citizens to see their government t work particularly in a setting where there are no cameras. amendment matter very hard to understand why skoet tuesday blog doesn't have a credential in either place. >> joan, you mentioned earlier, finishing up a book justice skoet sootomayor. i went into it thinking i would talk about her trajectory and matched the rise of latinos but she gave me a good story by what she's done over last five years on the court. end of the book does focus on her as a justice and her own tour and what a public figure she's been. everybody's commented on the that decent was her first from the bench and it was she thought it was too much of a dramatic move to even do it but decided to do this case and i know it was evident that she said since this mattered to her and she able to e had been persuade her colleagues and it was really not even a close call. were only two of them in decent. justice soto myier joined by ginsberg. a fourth justice was out of he case and some felt that justice kagan had a hand in lower court litigation was of eved in part to be out the case because it was a thorny difficult and inspired passions as played out morning. oom that >> there was one sentence that caught my attention after going or 10 pages that the benefits of affirmative actions decrease in diversity that is a result of nti-affirmation action in places like california. she then has a sentence and mean to be clear, i do not to suggest that the virtues of adopting policies should inform before the estion court today. and that was the first time i ould remember someone having written more than a passing sentence or two about some topic nd then saying, but it doesn't -- we shouldn't think about it in connection with the criticizing. does anyone remember another situation like that where not ce says, well, i'm writing what i just -- what i told you is not relevant but i it anyway? y do you think this is anything that?ropriate about days union case just two ago has a ten page long has one and then ends with never mind. >> i think what was interesting decent by justice sotomayor was one that was which is why i think it got so much attention and because it directly called out chief justice. few is famous line from a years earlier that way to stop discrimination on the basis of ace is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. backwards. have that i think i have it right. it was very clear what she was and then the chief justice felt that he needed to he ond to that and so responded to that too. i thought a s -- very personal moment there at you saw thesehere people who disagree about quite strongly wanting to get that view out there. thought it also -- this year we saw a number of us have an interesting thing about justice sotomayor being more and comfortable in dissenting on her writing separate things and ecisions and in that way she seems very different from the courtobama nominee to the justice kagan who does not do that so much. kagan writes some very tough decents but they're joined that side oflse on the issue. saw a real t we differences between the two of hem this year in the way they handle those things. for'd like to put in a plug kagan. she's a terrific writer. who writes anybody opinions that are so readable as one of those opinions ear this stop and dog page because you're going to have to come back to this. she's a terrific writer. smart and terrific questioner in the courtroom and as togood sense of timing when to ask questions. he seems to be a real inside player. where justice sotomayor is a public figure. she's a warm engaging public figure. i think justice kagan is the influential t within the court. >> >> i think if i remember the numbers right, correct me, this which kennedyr in in tt most. but kay began was third which i is new. it.n knows how to work > >> you've now written books justices. is justice kennedy scratching his head and saying i'm the most important in this court. 'm in the majority most of the time. hero , here he is the new of the gay rights movement, the will probably bring same self mare rog to the united states it strikes me he's not getting attention in a personal way. >> i think he is. profiles and ne we've done our versions of the we all know as though to stains a book you want omeone whose life story tends to be broader than what he or court. doing on the sandra day o'connor has done justice so does sotomayor. nd the seeds of a justice kennedy book are in some academics mind. denied.think he'll be same-sex when marriage returns i can't imagine will take the e lead on that. there might be another moment to talk about him. turns 78 this month which in supreme court years is quite young. he'll probably be with us for years or so. >> people were talking about the coming up and was someone said i want to be the first one to say that it all kennedy.n that is sort of the supreme burden in a way how do we keep finding new ways depends on it all kennedy. as you point out, it really does. there's no way around it. >> you would be surprised how call from acs get a major newspaper cover willing and they thinkrt imparting some massive wisdom saying that. audience i'll the be opening the floor for questions in about ten minutes. thinking wants to be about a question now would be a good time. let's talk about the future. i understand you have been ollowing the same sphefpl marriages in the lower courts. be taken up could first justices in the term. in that case it involved utah. we had more district court judges rule recently. so i think this thing is easily marching toward the supreme court. the big question is will there circumstance the and i how deep will it be. every court has been the same. hat these bands are unconstitutional and we need to in how things will may out injure /* jurisdictions. i think without an i don't think they'll leave it hanging out there. so i'm hoping for our benefit a big issue we love and because this thing is faster than we ever would have expected that it does next year up and you're asking us how we wrote marriage story. >> the 6th circuit has a day set aside for same sphefpl marriage in which every state in the circuit has a case before the appeals court and so i think going to be a solid day of issue.g that it's clearly moving around in some circuits faster than the other, the fourth circuit could virginia's case in which this ban was struck down. it is moving. i think the court is surprised at how quickly it's moving and fast it could come back to him. >> after the decision the affirmative action ruling there were filings because of the court's reasoning that even if it's a difficult and states have to did he said on these issues. the states to decide what the definition of marriage is so it put a new twist on these cases as they were going forward. t's interesting to see if this is a circuit virginia's case split. >> among all these cases that are they all basically the same or are there favorable to more came?ame-sex marriage >> i think some cases talk about recognition of marriage that has perform elsewhere the arguments in the cases and the similar re remarkably and everyone of them mentions the justice's decent from the marriage case in which the stat of wrote down here's a similar t for how you challenge a state's ban based on what the majority has now said and it's worked out for him. the same all arguments what is fascinating to watch is the blood sport among who want to side.sent the winning in the a lot of stuff is flip.ed by a coin about 40 cases that will be have any of you have had time take a look at them and thoughts about there is ne redistricting case from alabama where mine tkwrort are complaining. couple of years ago has to do with whether congress can secretary of state to of ider jerusalem part passport. a lot of stuff is any prediction about what the ourt is likely to do with those? > we all look forward to digging into those briefs >> i think the court so far has a blockbustert #g docket for next term. certainly cases about re and we talked accepted a s not case involving gun laws that go exactly ry to find out what the court meant in the decision. everything that has come up before the court, the court has turned down that gun rights are getting really annoyed irritated by the court's refusal to take another one of cases. it's all speculation but i speculate not long ago it's they aren't sure about what justice kennedy would do then i think each side is a little worried about bringing up without ose cases out.ing how it would come and the court so far has not tond a case that its willing accept. >> i like two up coming cases, art. one is how it applies to postings and whether muslim prisoners have religious to wear beard. do. find out if people left or e 13 minutes so. does anyone in the audience have a question they'd like to ask? of the thing i found nteresting it was aend der based decision which i find then also sort of the second insinuation was that it was a women's rights decision as opposed to a decision about of corporations. writtentice that in the media it wasn't so characterized. two actually have questions. one is for you to comment on the difference between broadcast -- and verage where written media and then secondly has been a e really decision you've seen where you genuinely been skwrepder. by do you think's inappropriate to mention -- because i don't know answer is.ght what do you do -- you could say liberal he four more members of the court and the case that three of their women. think i did both in different versions of the i wasn't sure whether you should mention it or not mention it. remember.maybe you i feel like justice ginsberg has made the point when justice the court they were different in so many ways, from om arizona and one brooklyn and one republican and one a democrat ask yet they were together on all the women's issues. she seemed to think it mat mattered. >> she did. would say they're coming to -- in my story on monday played up the women's rights background because they talked her decent from the bench and her opinion at length about reproductive rights and how important they've been. i felt like that was a good talk about even though say the did not factor vote. in the decent there was a three justices and roman catholic of the i went back and forth to put in or not and i i thought not because some ld frankly detour readers and make them get off on some things i wasn't trying to force the issue on. i think you can't help but avoid the kind of sensibility that the to n justices will bring this but i agree it's matter of gender. rather than >> what i heard from women's that justice as ginsberg's decent pointed out hat birth control is healthcare. and that the majority of seem to think it's sort of a subset of healthcare and of set off by tself and i thought those were two different >> was it a decision about about are or decision religion? david, i think it was your story it was maybe the most important decision on religion in most recent years. >> it's been many years since has decided any case involving the right to religious freedom. most of the cases are involving the establishment of religion. early '90s justice scalia said we won't grant religion xceptions and then we had the religious rest toration act. supreme court limited the restoration act and aid it didn't apply to state and local laws. they knocked down a good part of the law. very s -- there have been few statements on religious liberty for the last 20 years think of any decision that's as close as this one. than >> any as significant as this one. >> any questions? >> if you look at the story is read at the beginning, each of you is not just reporting on what has happened but on the implications of what is and the implications actually color the public policy debate. how do you decide how far to go in that portion of your stories? >> for one thing, it is often hard for us to know that day. i think this case is a good example of one that is going to play out for a long time. you have already seen that the court has sent back to lower courts some cases that involve businesses that don't want to cover contraception at all in any form, and they have sent those back and said, take a look at this with what we've said. the most natural thing and the questions you get from not just editors but anyone you talk to about these decisions is, what does it mean? what does it mean for people? i think you do that to the best of your ability, judging from what is written down there, and then say when you don't know how it is going to play out or what the decision doesn't say or what the decision is careful to say we're not deciding. that's really the only way to do it, i think. >> yes? >> why don't you wait for the mic? >> i hope you have time for two quick questions. is, since harris v quine was argued in january, what took so long -- what was going on behind the scenes to cause it to be decided at the very end? what was going on behind the scenes? >> based on the arguments come it wasn't clear that justice scalia was going to be with the majority as it turned out to be. there must've been a lot of negotiation about the passage we mentioned before, about whether a key 1977 precedent should be struck down. >> somebody mention justice -- the long segment about star a decisive as it was possible that the majority at first was going to strike them decision, and then somebody got off the train. it possibly could have been scalia. >> she already liked what she had written so much, she just left it in. >> two years ago, the decision had sort of forecast trouble for abud. there is this theory about the court these days that there are a lot of decisions that are one-two punches. the first decision trash is a president -- precedent, and then the next decision overturns a couple years later. if that's the case, the decision was forecasting the end of abud. quickly, i have to say i'm quite jealous of the fact that you all were in the and witnessed justice sotomayor s dramatic dissent. how do you go about cameras in the courtroom? >> this is tony's issue. it, speak too much about but it just seems so obvious. it's crazy in this day and age that that medium is excluded , and unlikert almost every other institution in america, open in some way or the other, and there's just no rational reason why they are not doing it. that said, i don't think it's going to change. i don't think the court is going to allow cameras unless they are dragged kicking and screaming. >> yes? just in the last few days as all of these major decisions have been coming down, a gallup poll has reported that the public approval of the job the supreme court is doing is around 30%, which is the lowest it has been in decades. as astute observers of the supreme court, i would like to ask you what you think the cause of that is, and what do you think the invocations of public disapproval of the court might be? >> among the causes is that there is a distrust of government generally, and those numbers rise and fall with all of the branches together. they tend to fall when the court is close -- is perceived to be a political institution, whether the evidence is stronger not. for thethe implications court, case-by-case, year by year, are fairly small. >> there is an interesting thing to pulling about the court, as well, which is that the people who tend to approve of the court's performance are people who are in the party of the president and that the court, even though it is independent, is perceived to be associated with the president who is in office at the time, perhaps because they often have appointed the latest members to the court and gotten attention that way, but if you go back and look, it's a strange sort of connection that democrats will now approve of the court more than republicans right now. i was different when president bush was in office. >> do you think the evidence for the court is a political institution is not strong? >> i don't think it is especially stronger than in years past. for the first time in american history, all of the republican appointed justices are more conservative than all of the democratic appointed ones. that sounds like it should be normal, but in fact, in closely divided courts, it has never been the case. all you need to do is think back to justice stevens, a republican appointed by president ford. by the souter, appointed first president bush. there were lots of examples of people overlapping and not doing what you think they're appointing president might want. for the first time, we have a court that is divided not only ideologically or by judicial philosophy but also by this partisan affiliation. >> i also think there is a sense that with each new appointment on the court -- it has been a few years -- there was a flurry where i felt like there was one every year. process, it seems, has become so much more politicized than in the past. in the past, supreme court justices were confirmed by the senate nearly unanimously. it is a political process to put them on. i think people expect that to continue based on the spectacle around the appointments. i know that was the case with justice sotomayor and some other justices. think back on some of the nominations of current justices. my colleagues will correct me if i have the numbers wrong, but i think kennedy and scalia, unanimous. ginsberg, three votes against. dreier, eight votes against. that is not the world we live in. 2:00.that note, it is we hope to see you all back here next year. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> coming up on c-span, federal reserve chair janet yellen speaks at an imf conference. then the first cannabis business summit in colorado. later, a d.c. bar review of the 2013-2014 supreme court term. on the next "washington journal," former u.s. ambassador to iraq james jeffrey is here to talk about the latest developments in iraq and u.s. options regarding the terrorist is.up issi then a look at a proposed $.12 increase in the federal gas tax. andguests are curtis dubay beth osborne. later, the emergence of electronic payment systems and efforts to regulate the industry. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> remind your children in this bicentennial year when we are the first generation of americans who have experienced the continental united states, we are the first generation of americans to have felt what it was like to have our government buildings attacked. remind your children that freedom is not free and that our country's greatness is found in one another. that is what "the star-spangled banner" is about. that is what this commemoration year is about, to tell that story and to lift every voice and to sing. three-day fourth of july weekend starts friday on american history tv, including the 200th anniversary of "the star-spangled banner." saturday night at 8:00, visit the college classroom of professor joel howell. eastern, a:00 p.m. preview a presidential historian 's manuscript on george h.w. bush in the peaceful end to the cold war. >> federal reserve chairman janet yellen was the keynote speaker at the imf's michel ca mdessus central banking lecture series. this is 90 minutes. >> i am jerry rice of the imf. the principles are about to join us. please take your seats. one other housekeeping thing -- if you wouldn't mind to please stay in your seats until the conversation at the end of the event is concluded, that will allow the chair yellen t -- the chair yellen to leave in a timely way. i would just ask that you stay in your seats until we conclude. with that, we are about to start in just a few minutes. enjoy. [applause] >> i am delighted to welcome you all to the inauguration of the lecture series, which we hope will become an annual event. it is a tremendous privilege to open the lecture series in the actual presence of the person to whom this series is actually dedicated. for being michel, with us. it is indeed a momentous occasion to welcome here at the imf the chair of the u.s. federal reserve, the distinguished janet yellen. [applause] indeed, all of your distinguished guests are also recognized collectively and very much welcome. i applaud you. [laughter] this lecture is at the heart of what we do. of fund has a core mandate overseeing the global financial system, and over the years, the mandate has evolved with changing global conditions. we initiated this lecture series to meet two important goals. the first one is to reflect on the current crisis, what we have learned from it. the second goal is to build stronger bridges among those preoccupied with central banking, and that includes central bankers indeed, but it grows beyond that circle. let me start with why we need to reflect on the recent crisis period and take stock of the lessons learned. at the global financial crisis has been a bit like an earthquake. it has shaken the financial system, afraid many of our assumptions and traditional policy prescriptions. it has changed the policy .andscape wascentral banking world formerly flat. about 25 basis point at a time, but otherwise, no major changes. terrain, central bankers are quickly learning to be mountainous. they've been busily developing new ideas and new tools. central banking has suddenly become a very exciting sport. so much so as to attract a global audience. not as much as what the world cup is attracting at the moment, but still. you would be very surprised to hear that whenever you give a press conference in this institution, you have a group of total aficionados who get together in front of the screen, watching with great impatience -- i'm even told they bring coffee and popcorn. monetary policy and central banking has come to the forefront of the policy landscape because of the role they have played in fighting this crisis and returning us to stability and because of the role they continue to play today and the role they will probably continue to play in the future because it will not be business as it was. 's global membership, 188 countries, recognize this. they recognize this, and they question us more and more regularly on those issues. the questions are getting more and more technical and sophisticated. we need to provide answers. onneed to provide directions paths yet untrodden, which brings me to the second objective of this lecture, the need to bring stronger bridges between those who have a stake in the important issues of central banking. we need to re-examine, refine, and modern -- and modernize our policies. this is a task that is too large for one single institution to undertake alone, and this applies as will to the imf, notwithstanding the fact we have those 188 members. the knowledge on these issues does not exclusively reside in one central bank, however big it is. it doesn't reside in one single institution, even though it is the vis or fsp. it results in multiple conference rooms altogether. it is all of those with knowledge about it that need to be together. can bring our cross-country expertise to bear, our experience and collaborating international efforts and our expertise at looking at the big the big picture of economic policy. at the same time, our goal is to join hands with academics, to join hands with central bankers, to explore together, and to move forward together to build stronger bridges. this lecture series is intended to be a pillar on which these bridges will rest by creating of monetaryid fans policy, a meeting that would bring the central banking community and the fund closer together year after year. before i leave you to the wisdom of our speakers, allow me to highlight three of the main questions on the future of monetary policy. -- the crisis was a stark reminder that price stability is not always sufficient for greater economic stability. put morentral banks weight on growth and employment? mandate toral banks cover not only price stability but also financial stability? what role should monetary policy play in preserving financial stability and how to make sure that central-bank independence is preserved? second, with increasingly complex financial interconnections, many small, open, and emerging-market economies have found a challenging to deal with large changes in exchange rates. economies retain monetary policy independence in such a policy-setting, and what tools should they use? finally, the crisis has galvanized a broad effort to reform the global regulatory framework. there has been progress on various aspects, but much still remains to be done. how will financial regulations and the new structures of the financial system affect the functioning of monetary policy domestically and abroad? to all of these questions, i'm sure some of you have the beginning of the answers. i know that our speakers will offer their proposals, but i hope that it begins here. before i give the floor to chair yellen, it is my real pleasure to introduce the person to whom this lecture series is dedicated and who has kindly agreed to be camdessus.ay, michel [applause] his legacy is well known to us all. over theou presided years.r 13 you were its longest-serving managing director, and your stewardship was transformational for this institution. soon after you took the helm in 1987, the world as you knew it, as we all knew it suddenly went and it was undone radically and unexpectedly. you managed the fund through the fall of the berlin wall, the unraveling of the soviet union, the mexican crisis, the asian crisis, and the russian crisis. yet when you announced your intention to retire and some frivolous reporter asked you, what should your successor have as a main attribute, you said immediately without thinking about it, a solid sense of humor. [laughter] throughout these difficult and dynamic times, you steered the fund with a remarkable vision, vigor, and tenacity, but also humanity. interactions with country authorities were characterized by a unique skill in galvanizing towardst forces favorable outcomes. you were so invested in helping members of the soviet bloc through their transition, for example, that you became a tosehold name from moscow bishkek, providing an element of continuity amid a continuous turnover of political and public figures. untiring efforts brought a more human face to the fund. indeed, it was your compassion for the poor that took the fund and its most important direction towards poverty reduction through the establishment of lending through the enhanced structural adjustment facility, and its successor, the poverty reduction and growth facility. your compassion extended well beyond the fund. i'm supposed to show you something, which some of you will recognize. it is the seven pledges of michel camdessus. to ourto pay tribute guest in the back who was kind enough to let me have his card of the seven pledges. the seven pledges on sustainable development that became part of the 15 principles of the u.n. millennium development goals. still are awere and staunch supporter of multilateralism and cooperation, of openness and friendship between nations, and under your leadership, a decisive effort was made to curtail exchange restrictions. mid-1990's, by the making a public commitment to openness was no longer controversial in many countries. with openness came the need to better integrate. you witnessed the globalization of financial markets, and as a central banker yourself, you had the foresight to recognize that there was needed better integration of monetary exchange rate policies. it is those products on which we cooperate very well. thanks to your efforts, the imf fromble to transform fiscal two also monetary and financial. thank you, michel. finally, you and your wife always harbored a deep respect and genuine defection -- affection for the staff of the institution. you were deeply concerned with their well-being and stood up for them. fund staff reciprocated with her trust, respect, and abiding affection for you two. staff and mayer you personally and admire what you have achieved for this institution and the membership. we thank you for it. as a music lover, you referred as the worldtaff orchestra. [applause] there were plenty who made up this huge orchestra, which today, michel, you have another opportunity to engage with. we cannot wait to be part of it. thank you. [applause] you could imagine that i am a little bit overwhelmed by what i've just heard. i had the impression you were talking about somebody else. [laughter] you -- thank you for this kind introduction and also for the pleasure of being here, back at the fund. like comingle bit welcome.very warm and i could go back -- [indiscernible] that the time i've spent in the imf, 30 years, is exactly the same as the time today when i am back here, but it is my good pleasure to see many familiar rows, not only in the first in this hugere audience. of course, i will be happy if i over there some time later. [applause] also is plenty of moments coming to my mind, all of these moments of very high pressure, and you have mentioned a few of them. , highs of high pressure excitement, i should say, and all of that contributing to create this great atmosphere of this institution. dynamic, professional, focused, people never satisfied with what they have just done and looking forward for finding a way to do better. this is my judgment of the imf. thank you again for this great and for the great honor, undeserved honor, to get my name for this lecture. totally undeserved. this is something you and i will have to discuss further later on. [laughter] that.roud of with us today, the ,hair of the federal reserve brings prestige to the series of lectures. i will have to get used to seeing my name on that. ok. [laughter] sense to devote further intellectual efforts to the issues around a central banking. even if many of you know that i have not been all my life a -- i started as minister of finance in my country. at the time, the bank of france was not yet independent yet. the bank must be in the hands of the fate, but not too much. i did everything i could to comply with the second part. [laughter] the bank of france finally got independence. the change is certainly one of the most profound changes in central banking during the last decade. today, perhaps even more than in that the we recognize economic well-being of nations depends on the quality of their monetary policies. one couldn't imagine a more important topic for new luck cheers here at the imf -- new lectures here at the imf. why is central banking so crucial? obviously, because the monetary stability is a key component of , the globalood commons, as they say in new york. yes, and by stability we mean low and stable inflation, and we s in from bitter experience the archives of the imf about the damage that high and volatile inflation can do. also theh better now effect of deflation. we also understand clearly now that in order to achieve price stability, we need some policy framework directed towards the financial sector, something which was not that all that familiar when i joined the imf. the financial sector was an area where we were were not allowed to go. i remember a tremendous when wetion about that started discussing about togestions i wanted to make the banking community, and then she told me, never lecture the bankers. never! of course, we continued lecturing a little bit, but nevertheless, we were wearing difficult counts -- gowns. something which is very unique, their ability to respond quickly . fiscal and social polities -- policies are important, but they are not able to change course as quickly as monetary policy. had arse, we have just very good demonstration of that with the crisis in 2007. the timely and decisive actions of the united states federal reserve and all the central banks around the world. the crisis could have been much, much worse. ,f we go back to the history christined helped us, -- we see many examples of the changes which have had to be introduced in the central banking universe. transformatione in eastern europe and former soviet republics. course, the imf staff ,ad to do an extraordinary job providing technical assistance and coordinating efforts to create central banking in a universe where monetary policy did not have the same meaning. as a matter of fact, it had no meaning at all. that had to be created from , creating the central banks, along with the supporting banking, accounting, and financial infrastructures. the work was enormous. then we had the asian crisis. kind of very different problem. we had central banks there. tested in therely affected countries. we had a few false starts in some cases. you may remember them pretty well. also, decisive stabilization measures. more important probably are the lessons which were learned from imf, in them and by the that occasion. one was that financial former nerabilities can even be when macroeconomic fundamentals appear sound. this was the surprise of that moment, one of them. fromer was that the risk large and volatile capital flows create larger foreign exchange offers. we had some difficulty in convincing our membership that you had to add a zero to the numbers of our loans in several countries. we had some problems with that, but we did it. then we had the change in central bank policy frameworks introduced with enormous effort from the staff, and they have paid off. of this demonstration in the fact that all of these countries have been extremely quick in weathering the recent global crisis. regret thatne could the advanced economies have not theized deeply enough after crisis that their own financial --tems might be [indiscernible] world. surprise in this we have paid a certain price for that. after expressing this regret, i must say that on the positive , whichat in europe launched the extraordinary experience of creating a new europe, we have s, and morentral bank broadly, the governments draw two important lessons from this crisis. one, the importance of adhering .o fiscal rules this adherence is changing the landscape. this is a lesson which has been well received. ofther one, the importance banking supervision and crisis resolution, an issue for which our predecessor has made a very superb job over the last few years. another change was the inflation targeting. a canadian invention at the end of the 1990's, which has finally -- which went around during my last stay here, and this was an condition that continues running its course. i see that time is running. one of the features of the central banking, which was for , it'sg an archetype always changing. the definition of central banking is changed now. small, and at times at other times, deep and widespread. change is often induced by outspread -- outside pressure. it can also happen by design. in any case, it is important that the implications of such changes be carefully considered. , i would take that. when i was appointed central , i wenternors in paris immediately to see my predecessor to have his instructions. -- he said,nly one remember, my friend, in central urgent. nothing is take all the time needed to about, and then finally, either the crisis will be over -- [laughter] or you'll make the right decision. i was not 100% sure that he was nevertheless, i cap to that in my mind -- kept that in my mind. -- conclusion i did draw invest inngs -- one, capacity, talent, applied research, analysis to try to , andin the cutting-edge remain open to new ideas. period of in a new questioning due to the global financial crisis, of course, and i couldn't agree more with what the managing director just said. whereisis has taught us in the past years, a little bit policy --, monetary [indiscernible] you can deploy unconventional measures when necessary. financial stability tools, like macroeconomic policies and the eternal lesson that preventing crises is a substantial less move then managing and containing them. this crisis has left us also questions.unanswered uncharted field that central banks have in common, the international monetary system. here, i couldn't do better than to echo the words of my elder brother in central banking, paul volcker, who in his remarks at the annual meeting one month ago speech,urse, in that there were plenty of interesting points. you alluded to the so-called exorbitant privilege. invention -- [indiscernible] yourself the kind of emissary around the world since the beginning of the 1970's. history should keep that on record. say is that i would like all hearted late to repeat -- wholeheartedly to for attentionea to the need of developing rule-based, cooperatively-managed monetary systems. i look forward with high expectations to the measures the central banking community will challenge in this the continuing quest for frameworks and policies that would lead us to greater global stability and prosperity. i have no doubt that the imf, tothful to its purpose promote economic cooperation and to provide the machinery for consultation and collaboration on international monetary --blems, will contribute these are your own words -- to provide the necessary analysis and well conceived approaches that could command support in this long journey towards a better system. contribute lectures to it. thank you, thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, michel. i wanted to you, revisit our traditional thinking about central bankers. no, they are not boring men in grey suits. they are capable of changing, and they are even capable of not being then. [laughter] which is why i'm not going to spend any more time -- [applause] and leavingto you with you an extra ordinary woman who i greatly admire. i have about five pages of complements and reminders of all of her achievements and how much she has done, but i will spare you that. well asall convinced as i am. the first woman to take the chair of the federal reserve -- janet, webruary all look to you and your deeply experience and everything you bring to the table to guide us in this difficult time. i know you are going to navigate us between price stability, financial stability, and many other issues. the floor is yours. [applause] >> thank you, christine. it is an honor to deliver the inaugural michel camdessus central banking lecture. michel camdessus served with distinction as governor of the banque de france and was one of the longest-serving managing directors of the international monetary fund, imf. in these roles, he was well aware of the challenges central banks face in their pursuit of price stability and full employment, and of the interconnections between macroeconomic stability and financial stability. those interconnections were apparent in the latin american debt crisis, the mexican peso crisis, and the east asian financial crisis, to which the imf responded under camdessus's leadership. these episodes took place in emerging market economies, but since then, the global financial crisis and, more recently, the euro crisis have reminded us that no economy is immune from financial instability and the adverse effects on employment, economic activity, and price stability that financial crises cause. the recent crises have appropriately increased the focus on financial stability at central banks around the world. at the federal reserve, we have devoted substantially increased resources to monitoring financial stability and have refocused our regulatory and supervisory efforts to limit the buildup of systemic risk. there have also been calls, from some quarters, for a fundamental reconsideration of the goals and strategy of monetary policy. today i will focus on a key question spurred by this debate -- how should monetary and other policymakers balance macroprudential approaches and monetary policy in the pursuit of financial stability? in my remarks, i will argue that monetary policy faces significant limitations as a tool to promote financial stability -- its effects on financial vulnerabilities, such as excessive leverage and maturity transformation, are not well understood and are less direct than a regulatory or supervisory approach. in addition, efforts to promote financial stability through adjustments in interest rates would increase the volatility of inflation and employment. as a result, i believe a macroprudential approach to supervision and regulation needs to play the primary role. such an approach should focus on "through the cycle" standards that increase the resilience of the financial system to adverse shocks and on efforts to ensure that the regulatory umbrella will cover previously uncovered systemically important institutions and activities. these efforts should be complemented by the use of countercyclical macroprudential tools, a few of which i will describe. but experience with such tools remains limited, and we have much to learn to use these measures effectively. i am also mindful of the potential for low interest rates to heighten the incentives of financial market participants to reach for yield and take on risk, and of the limits of macroprudential measures to address these and other financial stability concerns. accordingly, there may be times when an adjustment in monetary policy may be appropriate to ameliorate emerging risks to financial stability. because of this possibility, and because transparency enhances the effectiveness of monetary policy, it is crucial that policymakers communicate their views clearly on the risks to financial stability and how such risks influence the appropriate monetary policy stance. i will conclude by briefly laying out how financial stability concerns affect my current assessment of the appropriate stance of monetary policy. when considering the connections between financial stability, price stability, and full employment, the discussion often focuses on the potential for conflicts among these objectives. such situations are important, since it is only when conflicts arise that policymakers need to weigh the tradeoffs among multiple objectives. but it is important to note that, in many ways, the pursuit of financial stability is complementary to the goals of price stability and full employment. a smoothly operating financial system promotes the efficient allocation of saving and investment, facilitating economic growth and employment. a strong labor market contributes to healthy household and business balance sheets, thereby contributing to financial stability. and price stability contributes not only to the efficient allocation of resources in the real economy, but also to reduced uncertainty and efficient pricing in financial markets, which in turn supports financial stability. despite these complementarities, monetary policy has powerful effects on risk taking. indeed, the accommodative policy stance of recent years has supported the recovery, in part, by providing increased incentives for households and businesses to take on the risk of potentially productive investments. but such risk-taking can go too far, thereby contributing to fragility in the financial system. this possibility does not obviate the need for monetary policy to focus primarily on price stability and full employment. the costs to society in terms of deviations from price stability and full employment that would arise would likely be significant. i will highlight these potential costs and the clear need for a macroprudential policy approach by looking back at the vulnerabilities in the u.s. economy before the crisis. i will also discuss how these vulnerabilities might have been affected had the federal reserve tightened monetary policy in the mid-2000's to promote financial stability. although it was not recognized at the time, risks to financial stability within the united states escalated to a dangerous level in the mid-2000's. during that period, policymakersmyself includedwere aware that homes seemed overvalued by a number of sensible metrics and that home prices might decline, although there was disagreement about how likely such a decline was and how large it might be. what was not appreciated was how serious the fallout from such a decline would be for the financial sector and the macroeconomy. policymakers failed to anticipate that the reversal of the house price bubble would trigger the most significant financial crisis in the united states since the great depression because that reversal interacted with critical vulnerabilities in the financial system and in government regulation. in the private sector, key vulnerabilities included high levels of leverage, excessive dependence on unstable short-term funding, weak underwriting of loans, deficiencies in risk measurement and risk management, and the use of exotic financial instruments that redistributed risk in nontransparent ways. in the public sector, vulnerabilities included gaps in the regulatory structure that allowed some systemically important financial institutions and markets to escape comprehensive supervision, failures of supervisors to effectively use their existing powers, and insufficient attention to threats to the stability of the system as a whole. it is not uncommon to hear it suggested that the crisis could have been prevented or significantly mitigated by substantially tighter monetary policy in the mid-2000's. at the very least, however, such an approach would have been insufficient to address the full range of critical vulnerabilities i have just described. a tighter monetary policy would not have closed the gaps in the regulatory structure that allowed some sifi's and markets to escape comprehensive supervision. a tighter monetary policy would not have shifted supervisory attention to a macroprudential perspective. and a tighter monetary policy would not have increased the transparency of exotic financial instruments or ameliorated deficiencies in risk measurement and risk management within the private sector. some advocates of the view that a substantially tighter monetary policy may have helped prevent the crisis might acknowledge these points, but they might also argue that a tighter monetary policy could have limited the rise in house prices, the use of leverage within the private sector, and the excessive reliance on short-term funding, and that each of these channels would have contained, or perhaps even prevented, the worst effects of the crisis. a review of the empirical evidence suggests that the level of interest rates does influence house prices, leverage, and maturity transformation, but it is also clear that a tighter monetary policy would have been a very blunt tool. substantially mitigating the emerging financial vulnerabilities through higher interest rates would have had sizable adverse effects in terms of higher unemployment. in particular, a range of studies conclude that tighter monetary policy during the mid-2000's might have contributed to a slower rate of house price appreciation. but the magnitude of this effect would likely have been modest relative to the substantial momentum in these prices over the period; hence, a very significant tightening, with large increases in unemployment, would have been necessary to

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , Canada , Alabama , Bishkek , Kyrgyzstan , Marshall Islands , Brooklyn , Boston , Massachusetts , California , Susan B Anthony , Virginia , Wisconsin , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Chapel Hill , Illinois , Mexico , Arizona , Boston University , Iraq , Colorado , Maryland , Ohio , Capitol Hill , France , Paris , Rhôalpes , Berlin , Germany , Utah , Chicago , Americans , America , Marshalls , Canadian , Mexican , Russian , New Yorker , Soviet , American , Anthony Scalia , John Roberts , Nancy Pelosi , Marcia Tucker , Los Angeles , Arthur Spitzer , James Jeffrey , Janet Yellen , Fritz Mulhouse , Kim Eileen , Barack Obama , Beth Osborne , Michel Camdessus , Gina Carbone , Joel Howell ,