tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN June 27, 2011 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT
coverage of visits with troops and families, high level conferences or press engagements in afghanistan or iraq, she always did those in a highly professional manner with considerable ablome. a distinguished accomplishment reflect reflects great credit on herself and department of defense. we would like to[applause] >> tara never gets to go to the mike, but before the finale, she
gets the mike. >> thank you. it has been an honor to work for geoff. in 2009, he said it would be a few months. it has been so great watching geoff work. he is a true professional. has been great. he is a great loss. i could not ask for a better job. it was good that we could spend multiple days together, shared rooms together, that service. thank you. it is been a great experience for me, and i will miss you all. [applause] >> we have another presentation. the staff want to present you with the secretary's flag and a plaque to commemorate your years
of service, from april 2009 until july of 2011. you do not notice that tara already has six years of government service, qualifying her for federal retirement and lifetime health care and all kinds of other perks. tara is going to be well taken care of. >> with that, we want to thank individuals for costuming. this is my color, so thank you. we would like to invite all of you to have some cape and -- cake and toast geoff. >> thanks a lot. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> and then the supreme court oral argument in a case involving a california law banning the sale of violent video games to minor. the court ruled the law violates the first amendment and it is unconstitutional. >> this c-span networks, coverage of public affairs at american history, available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media. find our content to the video library. we think he's been on the road localur digital tbus content vehicle. now available in more than 100
million homes, treated by cable, provided as a public service. >> minnesota representative michele bachmann announced her candidacy for the republican presidential nomination in iowa. she is in her third term and is the founder of the house tea party caucus. [unintelligible] ♪ >> good morning. >> it's great to be in iowa and even better to be in waterloo where i was born. the fitting to be here at snowden house, the place that
once served as the home of the waterloo women's club. i stand here today in front of many friends and family to formally announce my candidacy for president of the united states. i do so because i am grateful for the blessings god and this country have given to me, and not because of the position of the office, but because i am determined that every american deserves these blessings and that together we can once again strengthen america and restore the promise of the future. i want to bring a voice, your voice, to the white house, just as i have brought your voice to
the halls of congress to secure the promise of the future for our generation and generations to come. i often say that everything i needed to know i learned in iowa. it was at hawthorne and valley park elementary schools and my home, both a short distance from here, where those iowan roots were firmly planted. it's those roots and my faith in god that guide me today. i'm a descendent of generations iowans. i know what it means to be from iowa -- what we value and what's important. those are the values that helped make iowa the breadbasket of the world and those are the values, the best of all of us
that we must recapture to secure the promise of the future. waterloo was different five decades ago when i grew up here. that elementary school building was a lot younger and for that matter so was i. five decades ago when i went there to school the halls were teeming with young children who, like me, had dreams of their future. a future with promise and parents who wanted it to be filled with more opportunities than they had. five decades ago america had less debt, in fact our national debt was less than $300 billion. a gallon of gasoline was 31 cents, and owning a home was part of living the american dream. today our debt is over $14
trillion, a gallon of gas is still outrageously high, millions of homes are in foreclosure, and those dreams are distant for many americans. times have changed here in waterloo, but the people still have the same spirit we iowans have come to exemplify. we work hard, we live within our means and we expect to pass on a better life to our children. but our government keeps getting bigger making it tougher for us to pass on that life, causing our jobs to go overseas and spending more of the money we make, while we keep less of it. don't mistake my happy memories of growing up in waterloo as pining for the past.
i recognize it's impossible to turn the clock back and go back to a different day. instead, i want this moment to serve as a reminder about the best of who we are as a nation, what our values are, and what went in to making america great to capture its best for the promise of the future. i want my candidacy for the presidency to stand for the moment when "we the people" reclaimed our independence from a government that has gotten too big, spends too much and has taken away too much of our liberty. as americans, we have always americans have always confronted challenges. ours is a history marked by
struggles as well as prosperity. my early days were difficult as they were for many americans, especially during the time when my mother struggled to raise us after divorce. f my mother's struggles after a divorce, but we made our own way. we depended on our neighbors. we depended on ourselv. it was not the government that we depended on. because we trust in god, in our neighbors, and not in government. americans still have that same spirit. [cheers and applause] but government keeps trying to erase that spirit, because government thinks it knows better. government thinks it knows bett how to snd our money. government thinks they know how to make a better life for us. they think they create jobs. th even think they can make as healthier. but that is not the case. we have to recapture the founders' vision of a
constitutionally conservative government if we are to secure the promise for the i'm also here because waterloo laid the foundation for my own roots in politics. i never thought that i would end up in public life. i grew up here in iowa. my grandparents are buried here. i remember how sad i was leaving iowa to go to minnesota in the sixth grade, because this part of iowa was all i knew -- i remember telling my parents that we couldn't move to minnesota because i hadn't even been to des moines to see the state capitol. i grew up a democrat. my first involvement in politics was working for jimmy carter's election in 1976. but when i saw the direction president carter took our country; how his big spending liberal majority grew government, weakened our standing in the world, and how they decreased our liberties, i
became a republican. i remember standing in the kitchen of my grandma's house on lafayette street in waterloo listening to my dad, a democrat debating the merits of the great society with my grandmother, a republican. i remember her prophetic admonition to my father that the great society wouldn't work because it wouldn't be my father's generation who paid for it, but rather my brother, david and me. and now that prediction has come true and neither my democrat father nor my republican grandmother would have condoned this spending and debt.
inton't planned on getting politics. i loved the law and went to law school. i went on to william and mary to become a tax lawyer. together with my husband we started a successful small business. when i saw the problems with our local school district and how academic excellence was being eroded by federal government interference with the local schools, i decided to do more than just complain about it. one of those iowa values instilled in me was to always leave whatever you were involved with better than when you found it, so i decided to seek public office to make our local school district better. i didn't seek public office for fortune or power, but simply to make life better in our community and education better for our children. and now i seek the presidency not for vanity, but because america is at a crucial moment
and i believe that we must make a bold choice if we are to secure the promise of the future. we cannot continue to kick the can of our problems down the road, because they are problems of today and not tomorrow. we cannot continue to rack up debt on the backs of future generations. we can't afford an unconstitutional health plan that costs too much and is worth so little. and we can't afford four more years of failed leadership at home and abroad. we can't afford four more years of millions of americans out of work or in jobs that pay too
little to support their families. we can't afford four more years of a housing crisis that is devaluing our homes and making home ownership impossible for many americans. we can't afford four more years of a foreign policy that leads from behind and doesn't stand up for our friends and stand up to our enemies. we can't afford four more years of barack obama. as a constitutional conservative, i believe in the founding father's vision of a
limited government that trusts in and preserves the unlimited potential of the american people. i don't believe that the solutions to our problems come from washington: more than ever, washington is the problem, and n season, and it almost seems like the we've started another campaign season, almost when it seemed like the last one just ended. through all of the rancor of the campaign, let us always remember that there is much more that unites us than divides us. our problems don't have an identity of party, they are problems created by both parties. americans agree that our country is in peril today and we
must act with urgency to save it. and americans aren't interested in affiliation; they are interested in solutions, and leadership that will tell the truth. and the truth is that americans are the solution and not the government. this election is about big issues, not petty ones. when all is said and done, we cannot be about big government as usual. then america will lose. in washington i am bringing a voice to the halls of congress that has been missing for a long time. it is the voice of the people i love and learned from growing up in waterloo. it is the voice of reasonable, fair-minded people who love this country, who are patriotic, and who see the united states as the indispensable nation of the world.
my voice is part of a movement to take back our country, and now i want to take that voice to the white house. it is the voice of constitutional conservatives who want our government to do its job and not ours and who want our government to live within its means and not our children's and grandchildren's. i am here in waterloo, iowa to announce today: we can win in 2012 and we will. our voice has been growing louder and stronger. and it is made up of americans from all walks of life like a three-legged stool. it's the peace through strength
republicans, and i'm one of them, it's fiscal conservatives, and i'm one of them, and it's social conservatives, and i'm one of them. it's the tea party movement and i'm one of them. the liberals, and to be clear i'm not one of them, want you to think the tea party is the right wing of the republican party. but it's not. it's made up of disaffected democrats, independents, people who've never been political a day in their life, libertarians, republicans. we're people who simply want america back on the right track again.
we're practical people who want the country to work again. this is a powerful coalition the left fears, and they should because, make no mistake about it, president obama is a one- term president. in february 2009 president obama was very confident that his economic policies would turn the country around within a year. he said, "a year from now, i think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress. if i don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition." well, mr. president, your
policies haven't worked. spending our way out of this recession hasn't worked. and so, mr. president, we take you at your word. waterloo holds a special place for me, but also holds a special place for our country. you sent and still do send your sons and daughters off to fight for america and to protect the freedoms that allow us to gather here today. i honor my dad who served in the united states air force. i honor my step dad who served in the united states army. and i honor my stepbrother who retired full united states navy. we will never forget those sacrifices; it is part of our past we must remember to secure the promise of the future.
it is those values that make our country unique and make us the most powerful force for good on this planet. i believe the united states of america is the indispensible nation. it is that spirit that separates us from those who would give their own life for others from those who sacrifice others, like terrorists who use little children as human shields. perhaps the valor of our american fighting heroes was never captured better than in the sacrifice made by the sullivan brothers from right here in waterloo. the sullivan family was much like other families in america during the depression. they were fortunate to get by. most of the family worked here in waterloo at the local meat
packing plant. when a close friend of the family died at pearl harbor, the five sullivan brothers enlisted in the navy, but under the condition that they be allowed to serve together. one of the brothers wrote, "we will make a team together that can't be beat." born and raised here in waterloo, the five sullivan brothers had always stuck together. however, one fateful morning after a long night of intense battle, a japanese torpedo struck the uss juneau, the ship on which they served killing most of the crew and launching the rest into the water. the oldest of the sullivans, george, searched tirelessly for his brothers, but they were not to be found. he had survived the attack, but later perished at sea. all but 10 of the 697 brave men
of the juneau, gave their lives for their country. in spite of the intense pain of losing their five sons all at once, the parents of the sullivans became an inspiration to america speaking to millions on behalf of the war effort. to honor the sullivans two ships were named for them. the motto of the last ship -- we stick together. theirs was a demonstration of the holy scriptures that says "greater love hath no man than this, but that he lay down his life for his friend." that is the kind of love we americans have for our country. we americans stick together. we triumph together. in the words of daniel webster, we are, "one cause, one
country, one heart." that is the kind of commitment it will take to face the great challenges of today. the people of this great country have that level of courage and they are longing for a president who will listen to them, who will lead from the front, and not from behind. i'm michele bachmann, and i'm running for president of the united states. together, we can do this. together we can reign in all the corruption and waste that has become washington and instead leave a better america for future generations. together we can make a team that can't be beat. together we can secure the promise of the future.
then the supreme court arguments in a case involving a california law. the court ruled today that the law violates the first amendment and is unconstitutional. later, we will air representative michele bachmann 's statement that she is a candidate for the republican presidential nomination. a couple of events the about tomorrow morning. the senate armed services committee will consider several military nominations. members will consider the nomination of john allen to replace general david petraeus as commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan. that is at c-span3. at 10:00 eastern, c-span,
massachusetts senator john kerry chairs a hearing of the senate foreign relations committee. >> there is three days of "the programming this weekend. join a heritage foundation forum with ann coulter. and then a native american experience and responsibility that people have to the environment and to other species. weekend schedules in your inbox. >> a brookings institution discussion on u.s.-india economic relations. panelists include u.s. treasury
which focused on the economic and financial partnership opportunities between our two countries. while many industrial speakers, government speakers, regulators, institutions air their views and debated several topics during the course of the day, this was a session that we have been waiting for, to hear our two leaders. and we are honored to welcome them in the midst of this fantastic gathering of had in washington today. and while we welcome our leaders, what we have discussed over the course of the day have posed several issues, and have identified challenges we have in taking this collaboration and partnership forward. we talked about the u.s.-india two-way trade which has grown
exponentially since 2009. and india featuring high in the administration costs goal of doubling imports by 2015. we have seen india's ambition by doubling imports by 2014 to $500 billion. india is looking at the united states in this regard. the possibilities we listed were limitless. also when we talk about india wanting sustain economic growth in the coming years, we talked a lot about the massive infrastructure needs for india. we said in the five years, in the estimates a total amount of investment of $2.50 trillion. several models we have talked
about, and several opportunities emerging at how the u.s. would participate in it. we saw new sectors we which -- which have come up where we acccan partner together. and so on and so forth. especially, india house financial services sector. there's no one else who can expand at about and give us thought and ideas to take this relationship forward in the years to come. i present to you most proudly and mr.y bgeithner mukherjee. >> let me thank you for bringing this to to get there. thank you for talking about what is our agenda. i want to welcome the minister,
and they give for making this a long trip, and we will have the chance to night over dinner and tomorrow to talk about all the great issues between our two countries. we view this alicia as having enormous potential. we are at the beginning of unlocking this potential, and we will spend our time talking about a list of the list of foreign challenges between us. as we always do, we will start by talking about the global economy, the risks and challenges ahead, and talk about economic to the elements in both countries. our main purpose is to look for ways to expand and strengthen the economic trade, investment relationship. from our perspective, the key thing is the outlook for reform, economic reform. that is true in the united states. fiscal reform is true in india
as well. india is reaping the benefits of the past reforms set in motion by a minister in 1990, and india is at the point where future growth will depend on success in the next wave of reforms, not just in the financial sector, but in many ways the indian economy has outgrown its financial system, and with the huge needs for capital financing and business, the success of the indian economy is going to depend on the success of this next wave of the next generation of financial reforms. we hope to be a significant part of that. we faced challenges in the united states as well. on the trade investment side, we thinking there are substantial opportunities to improve access for indian companies in the
united states and for u.s. companies competing in india. indian technology and ideas and talent already plays a major role in the american economy, and that is only going to grow over time, and we are committed to not just running an open nondiscriminatory investment regime, welcoming indian investment, but we want to find ways to make indian companies have a greater role in our economy. we will talk about things that are important to us in the indian market, as the authorities look for ways to improve the quality of the investment environment. growth requires capital and investment and ideas, and there is a lot of room for improvement. we are working carefully to build a strategic economic relationship. we do that in the budget areas. we have very productive technical working exchanges under way on things like that management or how to build a more effected -- regime, a whole
range of issues. we work closely together and all the major international economic and financial furm, an indy g- 20 in particular, not just because of the credibility experience of indians economic leadership, but india is a model for with a more balanced system. a good example for the rest of the world in that context. that is one reason india plays such an important role in the g- 20 process to bring the emerging-market economies it together on things that are good for growth. that is our agenda. it is a personal privilege for me to take part in these talks. i spent a large part of my youth
in india growing up. i think i spent more consecutive years in india than any other country by the time i was 20. it had a huge impact on my view of the world and that makes it a particular privilege for me to have the chance to work to build a much stronger economic relations. i look forward to our conversations. >> thank you. i would like to express my deep appreciation to the brookings institution for organizing this conference. in particular, secretary geithner. i will have the opportunity of discussing with him in detail not only how to respond between
india and the u.s.a., and also there are issues on which we share common perceptions. one of the fundamental principles of our relationship is we share many common patterns. we have now engaged not only in strategic partnerships but also to expand the relationship in various international forums, particularly the g-20, as an important forum to address the problems [unintelligible]
it has developed into a major financial crisis. the weaknesses inherent in the system, and too much dependence on market results. effective regulations point out the weakness in the system. we have taken certain measures in this forum and a full cup summit, the latest one, which has clearly outlined the measures to be taken by the various countries to ensure that there is a proper and orderly development on a sustainable
basis. i would like to share with this audience the problems and prospects of the indian economy. many economies were badly hit, but not to the extent that many others suffered. one simple fact will point out the depth of the problem. at the beginning of the year to designate, our economy was growing almost at the same pace with the previous year, that was around 9%. but with the growth scenario, we
noticed -- in the last quarter, and indications were it would be as low as 5.8%. therefore we had to step then, and like many other countries, we had to provide the fiscal based by injecting a stimulus package, almost 3% of our gdp, but it had its cost. the fiscal expansion literally created a distortion that we prevented the [unintelligible] of the gdp growth and we had modest growth of 6.6%. the next. with 8%, and in 2010 it was
8.5%. of course in my budget, when i presented the details are predicted the 2011 level would be around 8.5 to 8.75%. but that does not mean that we are coming back to the path of higher growth scenario without any problems. one of the problems is inflation. inflationary pressure is putting a serious constraint. if we can have a moderate rate of inflation and a reasonable
level of growth, the monetary and fiscal policy must move in tandem. in india, where growing slowly. therefore, the point i would like to emphasize is that india, the growth potential is there. the rate of savings and the rate of investment is reasonably high. the various -- it will insure there is investments that can attract investment from
different parts of the country. sometimes questions have been raised, looking in the short term, in the initial months of the current calendar year. the question was raised, almost every year in the past few months of the calendar year, there is a slow down, but in the latter part of the year, it makes up. this is not in one year, but it has happened in the past.
as i was mentioning, inflation is an important constraint that we will have to tackle. to be very frank, a tolerable level of inflation is difficult to define. but in our economy, we have seen that if we cannot give the inflationary pressure -- keep it within 5% to 6%, it would have been ideal. this year i hope it will be a little more, not because of real supply constraints.
we have substantially address that by taking appropriate measures. but the international commodity price is causing serious concern. we are appreciative of the 60 billion barrels for the month of july, but when i look at the $90 billion, the 2 billion barrels is not very significant. nonetheless, it has had its impact. the prices have started coming down.
recently finalized the guidelines. we have also decided that all investment of policy to be more friendly -- more user-friendly. it has been consolidated into one comprehensive document that will be reviewed every six months. we have gotten the specific intent of our policy. it has been clearly defined in this regard.
certain important legislation like reforms of the banking regulations act, the announcement on the insurance sector [unintelligible] these three important legislation as i have introduced in the last session of parliament, and i do hope it will be possible for us to get these legislations past, but i will -- as i was mentioning to secretary geithner, in our system, we have to have the consensus from the other party because we do not have that simple majority to get the laws passed in our parliament.
the talks about the consensus are going on and i hope it will be possible, with the help the parties concerned, we will be able to get these decisions past. in that area of taxation, we have allocated new reforms. i hope from the next financial year we will be able to it.ational lieize the goods and services tax, we are trying to evolve a consistent as part of our constitutional practice.
there are areas of taxation which the constitution has authorized the federal government and provincial governments to enforce taxes. unless the state agreed and a solution is introduced fast, this is not possible to make it effective. for that constitutional amendment, a special majority and 50% of the provincial government. the consensus among the major political parties, we are working on that to get this legislation passed.
we have decided to allow the internal cost to directly affect the investment from foreign investors who meet the guidelines with a view to facilitate investment opportunities in india. only to the foreign institutional investors. [unintelligible] it has been enhanced considerably from the existing $15 billion. the original limit being available for the bond offerings. for this announcement also there
will be a lockout. three years. introducing this subject, during the next five years from 2012 to 2017, our infrastructure investment will be very substantial. is about $1 billion u.s. 50% of that is to come from the private sector. we do expect that these immediate measures including the recent guidelines which we have issued, it will be possible for
the present sectors to come and make investments. in order to make it successful, we are providing a funding mechanism which is quite effective. the last point i would like to emphasize, as i mentioned at the beginning of my observations, that in order to prevent the dissolution of growth, in 2008 we had to lessen the fiscal expansion. today with the problem of fiscal consolidation, while presenting the defense budget, with the
mandate of the people, i declare that we shall come back to this sooner than later. i am happy to inform this this thing which gathering that we have been able to do so. for the year 2010-2011, i predicted that the fiscal deficit would be 5.5% of our gdp, but we have been able to manage it to four 0.7% of gdp -- 4.5% gdp. for the next year we have predicted 4.6%. i hope in the next couple of years it will be possible for us to come back to the fiscal deficit to the level which we had before the crisis.
thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i have taken more time that i intended to. [applause] >> thank you, mr. minister. thank you, mr. secretary. we will now join our discussion session. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure and an honor. perhaps the first question to secretary geithner, i know that you and the obama administration or admire in india's growth rate. >> and fiscal deficit. [laughter] >> but there is some time of feeling in the advanced countries in europe and the u.s. that this growth rate somehow subtracts from progress
in other countries. how do you explain, how do you elaborate on the interdependence of economies on how, in fact, wrote in the emerging market economies, particularly in india, in some circumstances is actually quite beneficial to the u.s. economy and u.s. consumers and investors? it is sometimes a hard thing to really explain and get the message out. maybe you can take this opportunity to say a few words on that. >> it seems self-evident to us, but it is not necessarily accepted immediately by anybody. the way i think about it is this. if you look at the american economy today, the most rapidly growing and strongest parts of the american economy are those most able to benefit from the rapid growth we are seeing in
india and other parts of the world. export growth has been good in the early stages of recovery. if you look across agriculture, high technology, manufacturing, the most resilient and dynamic parts of the american economy are those most exposed to the growth opportunities we see in india and the emerging economies. with that export growth, you see more jobs, more opportunity, you can demonstrate to the average people why we have such a strong taken this relationship. growth in india is good for the united states. it is no threat to the united states, and the more successful they are in putting in place reforms to help a lot future growth, the better it will be for the united states, just as is true that we benefit greatly from the sheer scale of indian
talon we have operating in the u.s. economy, the ideas and innovations they bring is good for our economy. as president obama was so successful in doing in india, you can point to the tangible benefits that come from more investment opportunities and they understand it better. >> this morning there was discussion on the world economy on current account deficits and so on. one point that was made by several speakers is that india contributes to world a man. >> as do week. >> in terms of absolute size, maybe you want to reduce your as a little bit. >> you are right. let me step back and make a general point. for the world economy as a
whole, to grow at the kind of highest, most sustainable level possible, we need to see more balance across the economy as a whole. we need to see more modest deficits over time in countries like the united states but you need to see more modest surpluses over time in countries like china. if you are not able to achieve that, the risk is that future growth will be more volatile. you see more volatility in exchange markets they can put pressure on governments trying to develop. for the united states, that means that we have to see the basic pattern of growth shift dramatically from what we saw in the last decade. it was an expansion built on a more tenuous foundation of
consumption fueled by borrowing and a substantial decline in savings rates. to be successful in the future we need to see a growth strategy were driven by investment and export growth, and we need to see a shift to more responsible saving pattern, not just by the average american, but by the government itself. we are seeing that pattern start to take shape in the united states. >> these are the questions much debated in the g-20. india is now a member of the g- 20. it is a wonderful development to be emerging economies like india. how do you see the role of india in the g-20 and cooperate -- cooperation with the u.s.? exchange-rate policy issues --
how would you about your weight the discussions and the progress made at the g-20? -- how would you evaluate the discussions? >> the establishment of the g- 20 has clearly demonstrated the -- 85% of the world economies are represented by the countries of the g-20. it is because of the g-20, [unintelligible] to prevent money laundering and to counter terrorist activities,
the positive contribution made is the contribution of the g-20 to ultimately [unintelligible] it compels the jurisdictions to cooperate to prevent money- laundering effectively. i am just giving you one example. there is a sustainable framework as you look for sustainable development. without taking into account [unintelligible]
but we are basing the current crisis by providing resources and there is an important ingredient in that some that is an important contribution. the most important piece, the free and frank discussions which take place. at least that is my experience. the secretary will agree with me, in most of the issues, we arrive at consensus. this practice should be encouraged at all times.
i think the g-20 is doing well and we should encourage it to play a more effective role in the coming years as we reach sustainable growth. >> there is sometimes a simplistic view that says in the g-20 you have the old d-7 and then there are the developing countries. there are quite a few issues. on some issues, maybe it is closer to the emerging markets. would both of useppa few words on the dynamics of the g-20? are there two separate groups, where is it much more intact and flexible -- would both of you say a few words on the dynamics of the g-20? it goes across that line of emerging markets.
>> it might be cultural, there will be convergence in india. one of the characteristics of in the yet, we say there is community in diversity. therefore, when we meet in the g-20, there are countries having different perceptions, different culture, different values, but having a common approach of approaching the issues that affect all of us in a consensual way.
there is a convergence of views in certain issues in all of the emerging economies, whether g-7 or g-10, all are converging into the g-20. the divergence will be narrowed down. >> i agree, there for coalitions depending on the issue. one of the things we have done together over the last few years was to build consensus on reforms to make the governing structure of the international financial institutions more balanced and open and legitimate. in that context, many of the europeans have a somewhat different view. our position was closer to india than to them. there are lots of other issues.
we all recognize that for there to be better economic outcomes for the world as a whole, we have to find a way for countries to work together more carefully to make sure they take into consideration the external effects of our policies. think about international financial reform. you cannot create a more financial -- more stable financial system by leaving the design of capital requirements assembly to national authorities. if you do that, you will just raise them in one place but shift all the risk to somewhere else. we saw that happen in the years before the crisis. there is a compelling compared to for closer cooperation because we are more integrated now. the g-20 is doing a good job of building a foundation to take advantage of that natural interest we have together,
mutual interest in negotiating better, and outcomes. >> the projections in india, very convincing projections for growth of to 10% in a couple of decades. china may go down a little bit, but growth is more likely to be rapid. we hope the u.s. will grow at 3% in the long run, it seems possible. all this when you add it up, given the bigger weight of this rapidly growing economy, adds up to world growth that is unprecedented. are there any worries about natural resources, environment, climate? how to manage an economy that grows so rapidly and provide so many new benefits to billions of
people, but do we have the natural resource base, are we investing enough in new technologies to allow this to be sustainable from an internal point of view? >> i do feel there are areas of cooperation. many of the countries, including india, require technological support. the cooperation we are having with a usa, education and development, in our concept of sustainable development, the climate is most important ingredient. we cannot allow all the internment to be disturbed further.
it will have to be preserved but essentially there is no confrontation between environmental protection and development. we will have to synchronize it in such a manner that development takes place, maintaining the environment as required. sustainable development, the most important ingredient is maintaining the environment. >> the world at the moment is such an interesting mix of huge promise in terms of the growth trajectory of the emerging economies, not just india, and much of the rest of the world still digging out of a crisis
that could have been a second great depression. there is huge promise in the growth potential of emerging economies. that will help the world heal the damage caused by the crisis more quickly. it will bring tremendous pressure on resources, and demands for capital, and a lot of pressure on the system as a whole. that is why it is important that we build a better framework for cooperation so we have a better capacity to manage the inevitable tensions that come with that growth. >> we will have to request is. you'll have to tell me when we are out of time but want to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity. i have to give someone in the back the first question.
>> i have a question for each of you. what do you perceive to be the biggest obstacle to greater u.s.-india economic and financial partnership? >> clearly there is a different in the perception, but for discussions and negotiations, we have been able to remove the obstacles which were there. for example, after the visit of president obama, the restrictions on exports in the
entities from the list of the u.s.a. is a major step forward. of course the cooperation agreement is an important landmark. therefore, i do not think there is any big hurdle. sometimes there are concerns to be addressed and we will be doing exactly the same. >> i cannot improve on that. i think if you look at this relationship, one of the things that is so encouraging is the relative absence of trauma -- of drama.
there is a complementary interest that the private sector has ample room to take advantage of but there are a lot of things that stand in the way of that. we will try to work through some of those things. >> i think we can do with a less drama in some parts of the world. we'll take to questions as a group and then go back to the ministers. >> in the context of the u.s.- china relationships, secretary geithner laid out exactly what the u.s. wants from china and what china wants from the u.s.. despite the notions of generic cooperation, do you have a similar specific list for india? i would be interested in mr. -- minister mukherjee's views.
>> i am really happy to be here because i have a slightly different view on the economies. i have lived both in india and here and identify with both equally. what i am trying to do is add a little bit of drama, but it will depend on your answer. you talked about strategic bought -- partnerships and there is definitely room for collaboration and mutual benefit. one industry i am curious how this applies to is the outsourcing industry. obviously, india faces inflation or if they are able to cope with inflation, it has an impact on the u.s. economy. i would love to your boat your views on that.
>> i will talk about our side of the ledger, our objectives. from our perspective, the most important things we would like to see our progress on financial reforms that provide a deeper, more liquid market for corporate debt, infrastructure financing that allow more access to american companies. our interest are pretty complementary as a whole. we are working with the grain of the reform imperative as well, which is the only way to make progress. i do not see any conflict between our interest or objectives there. that is where writer at a good motors -- most of the near-term emphasis. -- that is where we put most of the near term if this is. if you look at what is going to happen to wage costs, the cost
of doing business, in india and in china, to, they will be increasing more rapidly over the next decade or so. what that means is the economics of the decision about where a u.s. firm may decide to produce or build something is going to change. it is tilting back in the direction of investment in the united states. you can hear more people talking about reintegrating the supply chain, bringing some things back. i think that is encouraging for the long-term competitiveness of the u.s. manufacturing industry, but it creates no risk for india. most of india's growth is going to come from the natural dynamics of an economy that has a huge amount of room.
that will not be affected by this modest shift in the relative competitiveness of where some services locate going forward. it is good for us at the margin but i do not see any risk to india's growth and development agenda. >> i would like to clarify one point, that india's growth is essentially [unintelligible] a 2014 we have a $500 billion. but still, the momentum coming
from domestic demand, and our inflationary problem, apart from high oil prices and international commodity prices, it is the supply constraints. from the demand side we hit take appropriate measures by adjusting the crucial rate and controlling the demand side. appropriate steps have been taken. from the supply-side constraints, i mentioned my observations that it was largely related to the bottle neck and supply constraints which have been addressed.
[unintelligible] it all contributed and this trend is going to continue in subsequent years. secondly, even the growth in highly developed countries is slow down as far as expanding our cooperation. we did not have any defense cooperation with the u.s.. it has started within the last couple of years. it is expanding very fast. therefore that areas of cooperation whether it is in the
area of technology, knowledge, education, agriculture, you can have cooperation. growth, inflation, these are temporary measures to be tackled, but let us not stand in the way of long-term cooperation and understanding. thank you. >> is there anybody from the press? >> both of you touched on the importance of the g-20 meeting. it is clear that for the past two years, one important point
of the g-20 was to reform the international institutions to ensure [unintelligible] tomorrow there will be an executive board meeting to decide the next managing director. it has been reported that china has already expressed their support, and it is an important opportunity for both countries to express your views for the future of the financial institutions. how are you going to cast your vote tomorrow? [laughter] and based on what kind of thinking.
>> secretary geithner era, banks were too big to fail before your bailout, and now there are even bigger. when you talk about financial for -- reform, what do you think of that? it is widely regarded that you have not had the political will to push through reforms. the thing that is true, and if so, are you going to change that action? >> we will go back to the ministers for their final remarks. who would like to start? >> i would like to answer the question about the internal
institutions, [unintelligible] i must say that the institutions when they are established in a particular context, and when that context no longer demand irrelevant, new institutions are to be formed. the world has undergone a major change since 1925. this is in the process of these institutions. at the same time i am quite confident that these
institutions will be in default. other institutions have attempted under similar pressures, but it did not materialize. after 30 or 40 years, we could establish [unintelligible] therefore, institutions ought to just -- ought to adjust. the point is a continuing one. [unintelligible] in india we are going to work
the structural differences, i have given some examples as my colleagues have stated. , rabatin the bond market's -- reforms in the insurance sectors, the banking sector, pensions, the necessary legislation have been introduced to ensure its passage. there has to be a consensus and get support from the others. they will have to carry on the process of default. >> on the first question, i have no interest in announcing our position to you right now. [laughter]
i do think we are on the verge of having what i felt is necessary, which is an open, contested process two excellent candidates and a quick resolution. i am sure we are on the verge of having someone emerge that will be able to command. it is a time when you need strong leadership. on the question about the u.s. financial reform, let me sell you things quickly about this. if you look back at the top 20 financial institutions in the united states before the crisis, almost half of them no lumber exist today as independent entities. we had a huge restructuring of the american financial system, huge amount of failure of very large institutions. the ones that survived had to meet a market test. could they raise enough capital on their own so they could exist going forward?
the surviving institutions today are on average, much better capitalized than their major international peers. but is better than that. if you look at our system in comparison to that of any other major economy, it is a much less concentrated banking system. look at the shares of the top five u.s. firms compared to the top two banks in most of the other major economies today. our banking system is smaller as a share of gdp. banks at the root in the united states together are only about one times r annual gdp. a comparable number is about five times gp in the u.k., eight times in switzerland. despite the fact that we had such a lot of restructuring or
because of it, we are less concentrated and there is a much better capacity to withstand the risk of failure of a major institution because there's more capital in the system. one of the great strengths of financial reform in the united states was that we took away the ability of the executive authorities, regulatory authorities, to intervene, to sustain nonviable institutions and give them a chance of living again. women did that discretion because of the moral hazard risk -- we limited that discretion. we are at the early stages of preparing reforms, but we have a lot of work to do. i am confident we will have a much more stable system and better capacity to withstand
shocks in the future and to insulate well-managed institutions from the barriers and mistakes of the less prudent. >> thank you very much. the way addressed in a very substantial way and an open way the questions that asked and engaged with the audience conversation was wonderful. i would like to add my hope that these two democracies will cooperate together and both will contribute to the rest of the world economy for the many countries that will benefit from the good performance of both the american and indian economy. i will turn over to our chairman. >> it has been an expanding -- outstanding session by the two leaders today. thank you for your time and giving us this honor and this interaction. it has been one of the most outstanding sessions in the
recent past that we have had between the united states and india. we saw several opportunities as we discussed the challenges throughout the day. the outstanding team from india, including the chairman, the chief economic adviser, and the deputy governor of the world bank. also a very strong team from the indian industrial. it has been an outstanding day and thanks to both of you we get so much on the table. the support we have received from the indian embassy and the u.s. treasury has been exemplary in making this conference a
success. thank you so very much. [applause] >> thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house recently debated and voted on two measures related to u.s. military involvement in libya. both will continue debate in the house and senate at c-span congressional chronicle. find video of every house and senate session, daily schedules, committee hearings, and information on your elected officials access c-span.org /congress. >> in a few moments, the supreme court oral argument in the case akaka california law banning sales of violent video games to
minors. in an hour, represented michele bachmann announces that she is a candidate for the republican presidential nomination. then we will we are the forum on u.s.-india economic relations. and "washington journal" tomorrow morning, transportation secretary ray lahood previews his tricks focusing on the auto industry and transportation jobs. you can: with your questions about energy and national security to david pumphrey. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern >> blackberry users, now you can access our programming anytime with the c-span radio app.
it is all commercial free. you can listen to our signature interview programs each week, all available around the clock, wherever you are. download it free from blackberry app world. >> the supreme court ruled today that california's law banning the sale of violent video games to minors violates the first amendment and is unconstitutional. the law, passed in 2005 but never enacted, prohibited the sale or rental of violent video games to anyone under 18 years old. retailers. up next kamakura oral arguments in the case.
>> where the your was -- new york was involving -- that can be no less harmful to the development of miners. when a long was crafted to permit children access to materials, it did for reasons that are equally applicable. this rule permits claims to develop the upbringing of their children. this rule promotes this the's
independent interest in helping parents protect the well-being of children. this morning california asked the court to adopt a rule of law that permits states to restrict the ability to purchase deviant video grams that the legislature has determined can be harmful to the element -- >> what is a deviant, violent video game as opposed to normal violent video game? >> yes, your honor. deviant would be departing from and establish normal. >> are there established norms of violence? >> what is the difference? if you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut
it off with video games? what about films? comic books? terry tales? why are video games special the principle extends to all deviant, violent materials and what ever form? >> that is why california inc. the three prongs of the miller standard. it is not just patently offensive of violence. >> i think that misses point. ginsburg's >> it is the individual acting
out this obscene level of violence, especially harmful to minors. >> b. you have studies that show video games are more harmful to minors than games are? >> the authors note video games are not only exemplary teachers of pro-social activities, but teachers of aggression, which was a concern of the california legislature in enacting a statute. while scientists develop and engage, it appears studies are being released every month. >> in california could regulate movies just as it could regulate video games? >> there is literature regarding the impact of violent media on children. for decades, the president, f.
t.c., have been uniquely concerned with the level of violent media available to minors. >> that is not answering the justice's question. study says that violence is the same for a bugs bunny video. can the legislature say we can all the bugs bunny? there are people would say the cartoon has very little social value. it is entertaining, but not much else. this is entertainment. i am not suggesting i like this video, the five minute clip. it is not entertainment, but that does not point. to some it may well be. >> cartoons made not the farmer -- the part from the established norms of a level of violence to which children have access orchid exposed to.
we believe the level of violence in the games -- >> the same argument could have been made when movies first came out. we have never had life on the screen. every time there is a new technology could make that argument. beauty of that yoe incorporating the three-pronged miller standard. >> how is it any different from what we said we do not do in the first amendment where we said we do not look at a category of speech and decide that some of it has low value? we decide whether it -- whether a category of speech has a history of the -- position? other than state statutes that you point to, some which are clearly the same as those that we struck down, is the tradition
of regulating violence? , california submits when the rights of miners are at issues, the standard should be more flexible. the constitution should recognize that when the audience is minors, the same standard should not apply. the question should not be whether it is regulated, but whether the constitution guarantees minros a right -- >> could you get rid of rap music? have you heard some of the lyrics of rap music, violent songs that have been some about killing people and other violence directed to them? >> i agree it is egregious. >> is that not of seeing in the sense you are using the word? or deviant? >> i am not sure it is directly harmful to the development of
minor. it appeals to a basic instinct in especially minors -- >> when you talk about minors, what age are you talking about? if a video game manufacturer has to decide where each game stands, what age of a child should the manufacturer had in mind? 17-year-old? 10-year-old? >> although the california law has not been applied, i submit that the jury the instructed to consider and minors as a class. >> how can they do that? isn't the average person
thinking what is a preference for a 17-year-old not be appropriate for a 10-year-old? >> juries and judges do this every day. >> california does not do that. california has in big letters 18, so it is not -- is it ok for a seven-year-old? part of the statute requires labeling these video games in big numbers, 18, so it is 18 in california. it does not make any decisions between 17-year-old and four- year-old. >> i think a jury would be charged with the standard of what the community believes an average minor, the manufacturer would consider -- >> an greater thanminor would be half way -- an average minro
would be halfway between? >> why would you not simply say that a video game that appeals to the prurient or more but interests of those 18 or under -- let's take a team -- and it is not suitable in the community for those 18 and it has no redeeming importance of any kind, no serious literary, but at least as to those who cannot sell without a parent by for the child. you cannot sell to a 12-year- old, something that would be horrible for an 18-year daschle. are you willing to accept that if necessary, to make this ok? >> absolutely. >> could i take it back to
justice scalia's question, what counts as deviant violence? the only thing i found he said was covered by the statute was postal 2. what else doesn't apply to, how many video games, what kind of video games? how would you describe it in plain english what war but violence is, what you have to see in a video game for it to be covered? >> i would go back to the language of the statute, and it covers video games were the range of options available to the players includes maiming, killing, dismembering, torturing, sexually assaulting, and those types of violence. i would look to games -- >> anything that has those kinds of violence would count?
how do we separate violent things that are covered from just as violent games that are not covered? >> i think a jury could be constructed with expert testimony with video clips of games played, and to judge for themselves whether -- >> i am concerned about a producer of the games who has to know what he has to do in order to comply with the law, and you are telling me a jury can -- of course, a jury can make up its mind, but a law that has criminal penalties has to be clear, and how is the manufacturer to know whether particular violent game is covered or not? convene its own jury and try before -- i would not know what to do as a manufacturer. >> i am convinced the video game industry will know what to do. they rate them for the intensity
-- -- >> what is covered here is the mature category? >> i believe some mature rated games would be covered. >> but not all. >> just like with sexual material. we can have panderers of sexual material to -- >> it seems to me a great majority of the questions today are designed to probe whether or not this statute is big, you see the beauty of the statute is it utilizes the categories that have been used in the obscenity area. there is an obvious parallel there. the problem is that for generations, and there has been a societal consensus about sexual material.
sex and violence have been around for a long time. there is a societal consensus about what is offensive for sexual material and there are judicial discussions on it. those discussions are not precise. you could have had the same questions today with reference to obscenity statutes, and we have said that with reference to obscenity, there are certain rules that are protected. you're asking us to go into an entirely new area, where there is no consensus, no traditional opinions. and this indicates to me the statute might be vague. i just thought you would like to know that reaction of mine. [laughter] >> justice kennedy, as with the sexual -- the regulation of
sexual material, we have to start somewhere creeks california is starting to choose to start now. we can build a consensus as to what level of violence is offensive for minros, just as case law has developed over time with sexual addictions. i believe that he is the similarity violence has with sex. >> what about excessive glorification of drinking movies have too much drinking? i suppose so. i am not just concerned with the day this. i am concerned with the first amendment, which says congress shall make knoll law abridging the freedom of speech, and it was always understood that the freedom of speech did not include obscenity. it has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of
violence. you are asking us to create a whole new prohibition which the american people never ever ratify when the ratified the first amendment. they knew there were -- that obscenity was bad, but what is next after violence to drinking? smoking? will that affect them? i suppose it will. are we to decide day-by-day what else will be made an exception from the first amendment? why is this particular exception ok, but the other ones that i just suggested are not ok? >> i would like to highlight the fact that the material at issue in ginsburg was not obscene. under no existing definition of obscenity did this court allowed states --
>> what the justice wants to know is what james madison thought about video games. [laughter] did he enjoy them? >> i want to know what james madison thought about violence. was there an indication that anybody thought of first amendment was adopted that there was an exception it for speech regarding violence. anybody? >> as to minros, looking at statutes, there was a recognition that there is a level of violence -- >> what is the earliest statute? >> your honor, i do not know the earliest statute of the top of my head. they go back into the early 1900's, perhaps later, but i apologize. >> it has been quite some years since this court has held that
one instance that the country that does ledger's can regulate are fighting words, and we regulate fighting words, don't we? the provoke violence. the american psychological association and american pediatric association has said that certain kinds of video games here treat violence when children are exposed. there are 80 people that say to the contrary. there are two huge studies think not to the contrary. what are we supposed to do? >> i think going back to that justice must question, i find it hard to believe and i know of no evidence that possess the founding fathers intended to guarantee videogame retailers -- >> what just as car was asking
-- this court with respect to the fighting words, in your face, provoke immediate reaction. the court has been very careful the cordon that off so it does not have this bill over potential. he did not like-on to fighting words. your analogy is to obscenity for teenagers, as i understand it. >> yes. with regard to fighting words, this silent interest in preventing acts of violence is different than the concern at issue today. >> could i just make sure i am understand, because i understand the state has given up its argument that the interest protecting minors who cds into going out and committing violent acts themselves, the state is saying that as of the interest
in law, but the state is saying the interest in the law is in protecting children's moral development generally? >> the primary interest with the internal harm to minors, that is what the state of california is concerned with. >> may i have a point of clarification. justice ginsburg talked about the labeling parts of this act. the circuit court struck this part of this act. you have not challenged that ruling. there are two sections of the act, criminal act for selling to a minor and the other is a requirement that you label in a certain way each video, that the district court said both were on -- i think the circuit court said both were unconstitutional, correct? >> yes. one holding hinged upon the
other. the restriction on the sale, the court found since it is not illegal to sell these games to 18-year-olds, the government of purpose served by the label itself was in fact misleading. under a case law, i did not have the case before me, lawyers advertising of services, the government can require a labeling so long as it is necessary to prevent misleading the consumer. the ninth circuit found because they struck down the body of our law, the label would be misleading. >> that is an interesting concession on your part, that the labeling does not have the need support from the restriction on sale. i would have thought that if you wanted a lesser restriction that you would have promoted labeling as a reasonable scrutiny
restriction to permit the control of sale of these materials to minors, which he seemed to have given up that argument altogether. >> i did not attempt or intend to concede that the night opinion -- >> you have conceded it by not challenging it. >> at this point, i would agree, your honor. >> gather if the parents of a minor want the kid to watch this stuff, they may like violent kids, then the state of california has no objection, right, so long as the parent buys the thing, it is ok? >> they are entitled to direct the upbringing of their children in the manner they see fit. it is important to california
that the parent -- that we ensure that parents can involve themselves in this decision. >> so that is basically all this as, a lot to help parents, is that right? >> it is one of the two fundamental interests served by this law. california sought to erect a barrier with regard to violent mature, just as we allow for access to sexual material. california sees that the allowable hard that can be caused to minors is no less significant than that recognized by this court in ginsburg with regard to minors being exposed to sexual material precaution >> is there any barrier to minors' access to sexual material in california? >> i believe california has a.l. l law -- >> california has a ginsburg-
type law. >> there is a prescription on the sale of sexual material to minros. is defined as harmful to minors. california's act goes even further than the ginsburg law at issue. >> you have been asked questions about the vagueness of this and the problem for the seller to know what is good and what is bad. the california have any kind of advisory opinion, an office that would view these videos and say, this belongs in the deviant violence, and this one is just violent, but not deviant? is there any kind of opinion that the seller can get to know
which games can be sold to minors and which ones cannot? >> not that i am aware of. >> consider the california office of censorship. it would judge each of these videos one by one. that would be very nice. >> we asked juries to judge sexual material, and its appropriateness for minors as well. i believe if we can view -- >> let the government did that? juries are not controllable. that is the wonderful thing about juries, also the worst thing about juries. [laughter] dewey let government has upon a court of sensors to i do not think so. >> california is not doing that here. the standard is similar to that in the sexual material realm. california is not acting as a
censor. is telling manufacturers and distributors to look at your material and judge whether or not the level of violent content needs the prongs of this definition. >> even if we get past what i think are difficult questions about vagueness and how to interpret this all, is there not a less restrictive alternative with the v-chip? >> you are referring to the parental controls available on new machines could as we submitted, a simple internet search for bypassing controls brings up video clips in striking miners and young adults how to bypass that parental controls. work?v-chips don't >> they work only in television.
>> mr. smith? >> the california law at issue mistress the distribution of expressive works based on content. california does not contend it can satisfy the usual first amendment standards that apply to such all. it is asking to grant a new free pass, eakins birdlike exception to the first amendment that would deny constitutional protection to some ill-defined expressive works and i submit not just video games, but books or any work that it describes or portrays violence in some way that some court somewhere someday with the fight -- someday would define as offensive. >> but the child is not sitting there passively watching something. the child is doing the killing, that child is doing the main, and i suppose that might be understood have a different
moral on the child tos's development? what was the state of the record present before the court at ginsburg? aware of the our science on both sides, that of sensitive -- that obscenity -- in that particular area, an exception that goes back to the founding, they felt it was proper for them to adjust to the outer boundaries -- >> but the material was not obscene. would seemldren they rather tame, but they were not seen with respect to adults. >> that is true, but one thing about the case, they did not pass on that material before the
court. they said, this somewhat larger definition of obscenity -- -- >> why isn't it common sense to say if a parent wants his 13- year-old child have a game where the child will imagine he is a torturer and impose gratuitous painful excruciating torturing violence upon small children and women and do this for an hour or so, and there's no social or devalue, it is not artistic, literary, etc., why is it common sense to say a state has a right to say, if you want that for a 13-year-old, you go by purcell, which i think is what they are saying? >> the state has to have a reason -- >> it does, and i have looked as the studies, but it seems to me that doctor ferguson and doctor anderson are in a disagreement. they're not in that much of a disagreement actually, but they
have looked at a lot of video games. the american psychological association sign on to lead all list on the paterson side that this does hurt children. i have to admit it finds this to be a sociological expert, i cannot choose between. if i say can a legislature have enough evidence, i can say yes. >> whether parents need additional help and exercising the role they have played -- >> because many parents are not home when their children come home from school. many parents have jobs. we hope. when their children are there, they do what they want, and all this says is if you want that
which was this torture of babies, what you do parent is you go buy it. did not let him by encore his own. what is the common sense for what is the science of that? >> there is a whole series of things parents have available and are using today to deal with concerns they have. >> any 13-year-old can bypass apparent goal controls in five minutes. >> that is one element of about five. >> parents are doing the purchasing 90% of the time. the game is being covered -- of harm that is supposed be inflicted is supposed to take place over a period of years. hat parent has eample
opportunity, plus, there are parallel controls. >> much do these videos cost? >> $50, $60. >> not too many walking in with a $50 bill, do they? >> it seems very unlikely. >> you are away from the common sense. if you go back to the common sense of it, what common sense is there and having a state of can forbid the child buye it cannot go in and a picture of a naked woman, but can go in and buy one of these videogames, which would as torture of children, ok?
you cannot buy a naked woman, but you can go and buy that, you say to a 13-year-old. what sense is there to that? >> violence has been a feature of works week free for children that encourages them to watch the other hit streak of this country trade we have a different sense of whether violence -- >> love is not something that people have tried to encourage people to know about worldcom what is the difference between sex and violence? >> airs a huge difference. >> fenty. -- thank you. we make films for children where graphic violence happens. they now we do not have a tradition of telling children they should watch people actively hitting school girls over the head with a shovel,
decapitating them, shooting people in the leg so they fall down, poured gasoline over them, set them on fire, and urinate them. we did not expose them to that. >> parents have been doing that since time immemorial. whether parents need to have a new exception created and you could figure out what the scope of that exception is -- >> is it your position that the first amendment could not prohibit the sale to minors of the video games that i just described? >> most people would think that is inappropriate. --did not try to sosell at >> is the first amendment
protect the sale of that video to minors cov? >> your position is the first amendment does not, cannot, the state legislature cannot passel a law that says you cannot sell to a 10-your-old and a video in which they said squirrel girls on fire? >> there's no way to draw an exception to this constitution to the first amendment -- >> what if california to the list of the games your association rates as mature as there is a penalty -- not want vendors selling games to minors? one of california said there is a civil penalty attached to that? >> that would transform the private system that exists in to
the censorship commission that this court struck down. when the government does that and you have to go to them for permission to allow kids into the movies or play this game, it is a prior restraint. you have way too much discretion. is this a licensing authority -- >> are true that there is no reason to think that exposure to video games is bad to minors? is that right? >> there is an and forced to draw the distinction between harm and -- families have different judgments they make -- >> is there any way that the states could make it that would satisfy you? you understand the current studies did not suggest anything about harm? are there studies that would be enough?
>> i could imagine a world in which expression could transform 75% of people into murderers. the reality here is quite the opposite. the vast majority of people playing games will grow up and be just fine. he acknowledged the facts are not one whit different from watching violent cartoons. >> but you do not want argue the case on those grounds? i gather you do not believe the first amendment reads congress shall make the law of bridging the fees germ of speech except those that makes sense? >> my main ground is exactly that. it does not have an authority to create an exception to the first amendment after 200 years and this is a test of that. >> but we have here a new
medium that cannot possibly have been and vision at the time when the first amendment was ratified. it is totally different. it is one thing to read a description has one of these video games has promoted as saying what is black and white and red all over? perhaps the answer could be disposing your enemies in a meat grinder. seeing it as graphically portrayed -- and doing it is still a third thing. this presents a question that could not have been specifically contemplated at the time when the first amendment was adopted. nobody -- scrippses in a book of consideredere not discov a category of speech at her with four control.
>> we have a history of new medium's coming along and people overreacting to them, thinking the sky is falling. it started with crime knowledge. it started with comic books and movies in the 1950 cost. there were hearings where social scientists talk to the senate that half of the juvenile delinquency in the country was being created by comic books. we have television, rock lyrics, the internet -- >> b. you think all video games are speech could be the last at these and say the modern-day equivalents of monopoly. they are used as games to compete. the first video game was pong. how is that speech at all? >> the games characters and
plot, and that is what the state is set up to regulate. if these events occurred, violence occurs, it is done in a way which is found offensive, we are going to regulate it. >> are we going to separate games into narrative video games and non narrative video games? >> if the loss that we should not play games that have read images that appear in them, not content base, that might be a closer base. >> what about health law that tells you cannot sell to minors a video game that does not care what the plot is, but no video game in which the minor commits a violent acts, may iming, killing, sending people on firepro?
is that free speech? what the law will be directed at is not the plot, not the video game itself, but the child murder.of committing >> the invention -- what happens in the plot is a combination of what the game gives you and what the player adds to it. there is a creative aspect to it. some refer to it as a dialogue. i submit that both are protected by the first amendment -- >> the child is speaking to the game? >> you're acting out certain elements of the play and it treating to the events that have occurred. that is what makes it different -- >> your challenge is a facial
challenge? >> yes, your honor. >> if there is any applications that would satisfy the constitution, a facial challenge, fails? >> it is clear that those challenges did not apply to the first amendment. >> i thought we referenced this last year, and the only reason we did not have to decide is we adopted an approach that said this statute is over broad, but did not decide whether to be applied in that case . >> that is correct, but there is no argument that if you can find one game out there to which this can be applied, although it would be unconstitutionally applied -- >> that tenor of much of the questioning is there may be games, less violent games sold to a 17-year-old, pilots the
first amendment, but something like postal 2 sold to a 10-year- old might well not violate the first amendment. the way we approach the issue in stevens, hunting videos come up with say it is too broad to apply the law to everything, so is tracking down, but we have open the possibility and more narrow statute might pass muster who why is that not a good approach? >> you certainly couldn't do that. i with some of it here is no way anybody come back and draw a statute to what the klan, because english is not susceptible to that level -- >> have argued your point which is fair. he had experts who favored you and you make that point strongly and your point is a good one, that it is hard to draw this line under
traditional first amendment standards, but i would like to deal with their point. their point is that there is no new first amendment thing here. there is a category called and x, which involves things like torture and children. maybe you do not like it. they exist. they fit within a millard-tight definition. they are much worse than this simple girlie magazine involved there. and they will use the traditional first amendment test, that is the sake of there is a speech at issue, that speech is being limited, it is being done for a good reason, compelling interest, namely, this problem with the x videos and the torture and living in the room, and there is no less restrictive alternative that is
not also significantly less effected. i want you to do with that directly because when you have been doing for the most part is saying we have to be in some total new area, etc., but their argument is you do not have to be in the totally new area, etc. apply traditional first amendment standards and the wind. that is their argument, and i would like to hear what you have to say about that, specifically. >> they do not suggest there is any existing exception to the first amendment that would apply. >> this is not an exception. this is a traditional, strict scrutiny, first amendment test. >> they make a feint -- >> i will say i have made the argument. there you go. >> if you apply strict scrutiny, they do not come close to the showing that would be required under the first amendment. they have not shown any problem,
let alone a compelling problem, requiring regulation in a world where parents are at howard to - parentse calls, -= are empowered to make these calls. in a world where parents are fully aware of what is going on in their homes and aware of the rating systems. >> why don't you make the same argument with respect to the obscenity statute? >> because it does not have strict scrutiny applied to it. >> why shouldn't violence be treated the same as obscenity? >> we do not have the same history of it, and there is a difference actually which his kids were works well because we take everything that is sexually
explicit and that appeals to prurient interests, we say it is not corporate. violence would require you to draw and much different line for minors, and given the lack of historical pride agree, but given the nature of what you're trying to do -- >> the accord still struggles with obscenity. they came up with the miller standards and the state has said this gives us a category that we can work with with respect to violence. >> you take out explicit sex and nudity and you take out an appeal to prurient interests, what do you have left of your left with a structure with no apparent meaning. there is no way to apply a standard, let alone decide which video games have redeeming
social value. the value of a video game is in now i of the beholder. >> you could make all those arguments with reference to obscenity. we know -- gilbert works well because if it has sex and it and it is designed to be appealing, he did not give it to minors -- >> when you started ginsburg was something that is prescribed herbal with regard to adults, you know there is such a thing as obscenity, which can be prescribed even as to adults, whether in this case i do not know if there is such a thing as war and violence which could be eliminated from ordinary
movies. >> this court has dealt with loss attempting to regulate violence works in the past. .ne was in the 1960's city of dallas had an ordinance where it had a commission that would review each movie -- >> argument is there is nothing that the state can do to limit minors' access to the most violent said this graphic video game that can be developed. that is your argument. is it or isn't it? >> given that the problem is well controlled, parents are empowered -- >> your answer to justice alito
is at this point there's nothing as they can do because there is no problem it needs to solve -- >> the answer is yes. >> how can you say that? there is plenty of proof that children are going in and buying these games, despite the restrictions. there's still prove out there that kids are buying the games. there is proof that some parents have not been able to supervise that. i have started from the proposition that there is a problem, a compelling state meet -- why are you arguing that there is no solution that the state could use to address that problem? >> the existing solutions are perfectly capable of allowing this problem to be addressed --
>> but it is still about 20% of the sales that are going to kids. >> is no evidence that actual children, not testers, are disobeying their parents and secretly buying these games, playing them with their parents and aware. there's no evidence of that at all. >> could you have a law where the dealers have to put the violent video games in a particular area of the store -- and minors not allowed in that area? >> you will have a limit on the ability theminors to buy them. >> your answer to the first question was yes, you're saying there's nothing they can do.
am i right about that or not? >> yes. >> so they cannot say all the highest rated videos have to be on the top shelf out of the reach of children who can they do that that is what they do with cigarettes? >> cigarettes are not cerise beach -- speech. >> i know that, mr. smith. >> if you think the studies at face value -- >> there is a study by the fcc --question is whether violence
can be restricted during the hours when most children are way just the way pornography. i do not remember what are the hours -- something like from 10:00 in the evening until -- but didn't the fcc say we could do the same thing for violence that we do for sex, except we do not think we ought to do that. we think congress should do it. >> they spent several years trying to figuring that out, and he eventually punted. we cannot do it and they planted it back to congress to try to come up with a definition. this is a difficult task trying to use language to differentiate violence or types of violence in a manner that would tell people
what the rules of the game are. if you think there is a problem out there that needs to be solved, the need to think carefully about whether or not you're right authorize the creation of some new rule where nobody will have an idea of what the scope of it is. >> you are saying there but will never be a problem because children will never have $50 to go in to buy these games, parents are always home watching what to do with their video games and video games have features that allow parents to block access, to block the placing of violent video games, which cannot be overcome by a computer savvy californian 16- share daschle. >> if we're going to judge the constitutionality of wthe law, problem is the line between 16, 17, 18 is so finely will not be
able to identify the category of game that fits into that category. california has not told us whether we need to judge -- if it is 17-year-old, it would not restrict anything because nobody will convince a jury that this is an 18 year-old game, not a 17-year-old game. >> we do it for drinking, driving. >> here you are assessing works of expression. i do not think that works. if that is the test, the test just as boris just, then the statute restricts nothing. >> maybe it would restrict the
gratuitous torture, and if so, why is that such a terrible thing? you could discover you could limit it to that. >> then maybe is telling, your honor. subject of hundreds of millions of dollars of penalties. >> why when the first step be they follow your rules, the x things would be limited to people who are over 18? if we ever get prosecuted -- might never. >> our rules would not help you at all. these ratings that the state wants to -- a conflict with the packaging that is being used by parents everyday to make these judgments. it is interfering with the
prospect of the information already on the packaging. >> thank you, mr. smith. >> i want to address one point raised by the ability to access these things. the law regulates the rental of these games, which is a few dollars per game. minros can access them. i want to draw the point that california's law is not an ordinance that is directed to the plot of the game. it is directed to games with essentially no plot, no artistic value. this is the nature of the third prong of the miller standard. it goes after the nature of the game where the child -- >> if it has a plot, it has artisan value of is that test? >> that is one factor to be
considered, justice scalia. >> you are not telling us that as long as it has a plot is this ok? >> this court has held in a case that a single quotation from voltaire was not want to make that work non of scene. >> we cannot have artistic videos involving mamiming? >> if the level of the violence causes the game to lack -- it is a balance, as it is the sexual material. that is why violence and sex -- >> artistic for home, a five- year-old? moral combat prohibited
by the statute? >> i believe it is a candidate, but i have not been exposed to it to judge for it by myself. >> meaning a reasonable jury could find mortal combat, and iconic game, at the clerks who work for us spend half their time -- >> i don't know what she's talking about. >> i meant the industry should look at, should take long look at it. i do not know off the top of my head. i am willing to state that the video game postal 2 become hurt by this act. i'm willing to guess that these games described by this brief would be covered by the act. the video game -- >> with a video game that portrayed a vulcan being