Transcripts For CSPAN Justice Breyer Discussion With Harvard Hillel 20240712

Breyer. Welcome to one and all. We are excited to be hosting Supreme Court Justice Stephen breyer. The interview will be conducted by talia, my dear friend. Talia is in jerusalem. Talia, if you can hear me, turn on your audio and video. I think your audio is on. Weve asked you to start your video and hopefully you can do that. It is a pleasure to welcome everybody back to Harvard Hillel. We have Supreme Court Justice Stephen breyer. Justice breyer is on the United States Supreme Court and one of only 113 people to have ascended in our nation. I believe only 18 jews have done so before. For our purposes, he was a professor at Harvard Law School and at the Harvard Kennedy school of government. He served as chief judge of the United States court of appeals for the first circuit. Justice breyer, it has been a delight to speak with you over the past few weeks. You have been very kind, generous, so i thank you. When i was a kid i was asked to memorize, as an assignment, the nine justices and yours was the easiest to remember because my home was filled with breyers ice cream. In my mind, you were justice ice cream. A friend came to visit me last year and his twoyearold started calling me rabbi ice cream. Maybe after this we can get some ice cream. Justice breyer no relation unfortunately. Moderator talia is my very good friend and is currently in jerusalem. She earned a degree from oxford and completed her doctorate at Harvard Law School and is finishing up a phd in business economics of the department of economics at harvard and Harvard Business school. Prior to her phd, she clerked in israel and will be joining the faculty of Columbia Law School as an associate professor this coming july. It was hard for us to find a cv that could match yours. More than being so impressive in your scholarship, i have gotten to know you over the past few years. You and your husband are some of my dearest friends. You are incredibly modest and really down to earth. It is been a pleasure to get to know you. I will say my job, one of the highlights of my job, deals with our students. That means it is hard for me to accept invitations from friends. You give me an open invitation every time. You save a slice of your salmon or lasagna and there is always ice cream in the freezer. Im thrilled for you and your new position. Just a reminder to everyone joining us, we had around 1500 people who registered for the event so we will not be able to get to all questions, but at the bottom of your screen you will see a q a box. Can type in a question there. You can do so anonymously. We will only have the opportunity to select a handful and when we do so, my colleague and i will promote you to a panelist and you will be able to ask your question face to face to Justice Breyer. For now, im going to turn it over to talia to begin our interview. Go ahead. Talia thank you for the introduction and i hope to attend an inperson shabbat meal. Thank you, Justice Breyer, to take the time for us today. I thought i would start off by asking what does life look for you at the moment . What does life of the Supreme Court look like at the moment . Justice breyer thank you for taking the time. It must be about 12 30 at night for you and thank you for inviting me to the hillel. What does it look like . I told my son it is reading and writing. What i do is i read. I read a lot of briefs. They are not briefs, but nonetheless, i listen to oral arguments and i write opinions or join other peoples opinions. That kind of job you have to be on your toes. You have to be doing your best. You have to put out your best all the time. As i get older, i think that is more and more a virtue. I do my job. Of course, there are new members. Last year, byron white said with every new member there is a new court. People have their own basic philosophies. Much less often than you think controls the outcome of a case. Talia let me ask about how the pandemic has changed the way sessions are run by the Supreme Court. They are often know for rapidfire interrogation style. With the Court Sessions being conducted over the phone, there seems to be an orderly way in which justices ask questions. How do you think this has changed the dynamic of the Supreme Court . Justice breyer there is a minus and a plus. The minus is less of a chance of getting the best kind of discussion. Get thewhen you lawyer to forget the other he client. He just knows the bankruptcy or trademark or whatever. You reduce the conversation that advances the ball. There is less chance of that happening unless chance of communicating your views to others because there is less dialogue. The plus is it is more polite. Everyone gets a chance and you have to think about the questions and listen carefully to the answers. That is a big plus. I am not saying we didnt before, but that has improved. I would say on balance i guess the best would go back to the old system, but reform. Understanding how important it is listen to your colleagues. And the lawyers. Talia do you think, after this experience, maybe when you go back to inperson, do you expect it to change or everyone enjoys the dynamics of the previous system . Justice breyer i think it will be changed and probably for the better. I think one question that will come up is that we are now broadcasting the oral argument sessions to the country if they would like to listen. We might or might not continue to do that. I dont know. We will have to discuss that and see how people feel. Our private sessions, each week we discuss the cases we heard that week, and those we do over the telephone. They are not broadcast. They should not be. Talia it is exciting to talk given theike this landmark ruling of the Supreme Court that gay and transgender workers are protected from Workplace Discrimination under the civil rights act. I was wondering if you could say a few words about the case and its significance. Justice breyer the civil rights act, title vii, says you cannot discriminate, in jobs, on the basis of race, national origin, sex, and other things. The question was, did discrimination against a gay man or a gay woman or a transgender person, did that discrimination was that on account of sex . People disagree about it but six people came to the conclusion that if you look at that word, sex and you see this person who is gay was dismissed, and imagine as say, situation. E same and shetracted to a man wouldnt be dismissed. That is with the majority held. Talia i imagine a case like this the day the ruling is made public it was no surprise to me what the ruling was. It is so highprofile the Supreme Court is doing. How did that feel on your side . Justice breyer i have known about the case and i am pleased when i am on the majority side. I am pleased when other people agree with me and perhaps when i agree with them. There are articles in the newspaper and then it is onto the next case because what we are going to do is we are going to do our job. That is how it works. What was interesting in particular is that some of the papers went through public opinion. Public opinion is something that shouldnt, and normally does not, have much influence. It may be that 92 preferred different results or 47 , but the point of independent judges who are not responsible from elections to the people if you were the least popular person in the United States, you are entitled to the same rights as the most popular person. If you are the least popular person on trial or any case, you should not popularity should not enter into it. If the public through the press or some other way has a view relevant to the law it will be, in all likelihood, be expressed. Nothing popularity, but the view that motivates it and why. Talia did the polls surprise you . It did not affect your decision, but compared to other cases there was overwhelming public support for the decision. Justice breyer that is fine. Public opinion could not matter because it is a different legal issue than the way it is presented to the public. In a sense public support for the court is important. You go all the way back to cicero to discover that. He says a leader cannot lead through force. A leader has to convince people, who ever he is, he has to convince the public he should be followed. I do not know if that is true of all leaders, but i know it is true of courts. The time of segregation. I have probably explained this the woman who is the chief justice of ghana was trying to get justice promoted and said, why do people do what you say . Good question. I gave her a few examples. The cherokee indians, where they didnt. Brown v. Board of education, for a long time nobody did and that problem has not gone completely away by any means. But eventually, despite a desire in the south and many places to just ignore the court, they went along. Why . It took Martin Luther king, it took the bus boycotts. It took a lot of people who are not judges to understand the rule of law is important. Since then i feel the risk of not obey or not following the court has gone way down. People will follow with the court says out of habit or because they understand the rule of law and that is what i told her. I said the people you have to convince that the rule of law is important are not the judges. They already think so. The people you have to convince to follow a decision they may not agree with are not lawyers, they already agree, they understand it. But contrary to popular belief, 324 million inhabitants are not lawyers. Those are the people you have to convince. Go to your villages, go to the towns, explain to ordinary people why they should accept a decision. It might be very unpopular. It might be wrong. If it is 54, somebody is wrong. It is better to accept it than not have a rule of law and when they understand that, you will have a rule of law. By the way if you want to know something i found interesting, i was telling a group of stanford students, bush v. Gore. I was dissenting. Even though it was wrong, and even though it was important and made a difference, people did not throw rocks, they did not go the streets and have riots, they did not start shooting each other. They accepted the rule of law. I said i know about 20 or 30 of you are thinking too bad there werent. I replied to my conversation i am having with these people before you come to a final conclusion turn on your Television Set and see how people decide matters of importance, legal matters, others, in countries that do not have rule of law. See what you would prefer. Talia not all countries have a legal system in which justices publicly disagree with one another in dissent opinions. To what extent do you think the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in the u. S. And respect for rule of law is related to that kind of public disagreement that is so frequent in the system of the Supreme Court . Justice breyer people have different opinions about that. Where there are no dissenting opinions, many people think that is a better way to have rule of law because the public will think all of the judges are telling us to do this. That is what they will see. All of them are telling us this is the rule. My personal view, and i think many in this country and other places would accept the opposite view. I think most people will believe not everybody agrees on many cases. About 40 of the time we are unanimous, but nonetheless let us be upfront about it. Let us tell them the truth which is we are not agreeing always. I promise you, on most of these cases that are the most controversially politically or socially or generally, there are good arguments on both sides. If people take the time to read it, they will understand it. I think that will help the court. I cannot guarantee it, but i think it will help the rule of law in this country. Talia to bring up the decisions that were disputed recently, the pandemic has raised many complicated legal questions. One issue that came before the court and relevant at Harvard Hillel is limiting the attendance at religious events. Talk about the delicate balance between Public Health and other considerations. How should we think about the role of the judiciary . Justice breyer i thought we out to stay i thought we ought to stay out of it. We have no idea how covid spreads and the people who are more likely to know, even if they do not have perfect knowledge on the governors and other parts of the government, they are likely to know more about the science that we are. There is a tendency to stay out of it and we could in that instance legally stay out of it. I was with the majority that kept us out of it. Talia i related because the places of worship are so central to that decision. Perhaps i could ask you about how your jewish background has played a role in how you approach being a judge and the notion of justice. Justice breyer justices are central to judaism. Justice shall you pursue. I do not know which book that is. I think it is exodus. [laughter] throughout the torah and throughout the books that compose it in the history of the jewish people you see considerable interest in placing of great importance by the ability of human beings to live in this world together, peacefully, harmoniously, and productively as a society. Of course other religions have the same idea, but i think judaism emphasizes that. That to me is what law is about. It is not just going out and saying whatever you think will be good. Absolutely not as you will know from your profession. It takes a lot of study and a lot of time. It takes a lot of learning and there is law here in law there in law all over the place and you to try and figure out how it fits together. If i were to say one general objective of the way americans see law and the way jews see law, is to help bring about that productive and harmonious society. We are far from it, but nonetheless we tried. Talia the Supreme Court is of different religious backgrounds that also have a notion of justice embedded in that religion. As you know and mentioned before the question of justice also comments on many Legal Systems in the world. To me one of the things that interests me in your work im quoting an article from 2010 you called it an adventurous an adventure in law. Why would you bring foreign law into those discussions . Justice breyer i think you might learn, sometimes, through certain decisions and from certain circumstances, that take place abroad. Knowledge does not end at the shore. Relevant knowledge does not end at the shore and today we have seen we interact in dozens of different ways. We hope more and more there will be, and there are situations that i can remember there is an ever increasing number of democracies, belief in human rights, of working things out together. Diseases, the economy, the environment, all things like that are beyond one country. Boy, have we seen it. I have been here with my grandchildren in the house for 10 weeks. Of course, with problems like that either we help with other countries to find solutions or they will go their own way and we will be stuck with their solutions. There is not much choice in general and specifically if i find which i do more often find a Foreign Court or relative foreign legal people facing a problem like we have and in that country they have a document like our constitution and the judge has to make a decision i say read it. Read it and use it if it is relevant. It cannot hurt. Sometimes, more than you think, it might help. That is what i mean by following law beyond our own shores. Talia i think part of your appreciation for learning is related to your academic background, but one of the things i am really interested in is when you look at both the fact that you were an academic before becoming a judge and moving from that to a judge, i am interested in that move what you see as the similarities and dissimilarities between being an academic professor of law and on the judiciary. Justice breyer academics do get to know a field pretty thoroughly and they understand pretty thoroughly with the law is and they can make good recommendations. They are very helpful to judges and quite a lot of what we do is try and figure out, under the law, what is the better legal result . The main difference to me is you have to keep in mind that a court is an institution in the job of that institution is to decide. Therefore, you have to stop dithering. I am not saying all academics dither, but you decide the case. It may not be a perfect decision, but you go onto the next case. We hope to have nine people who agree. That means you cannot get your own way all the time. You have to work out what is important enough to take a stand and what is not important enough. How do you create that group . How do you become a member of that group . That is a major feature of a court of nine people. It neednt exist in academic environment. Get people together, get a decision, decide it, and onto the next case. Talia would you say in that respect your experience in government is more useful . Justice breyer the most useful was when i worked for senator kennedy in congress. I have a mug with the sayings i would quote from him. Two of them at that i think are terrifically important one is well known if you have a choice between getting 30 of what you want or zero the correct path is obvious. It is the first. Try to get 30 rather than nothing. That is absolutely true. The second thing he said which i think is terrifically important and helpful is credit is a weapon. People want credit for what they do. But do not do that. Remember that credit is designed to help you get what you want. Who cares about the credit . If our objective is successful, there will be plenty to go around. If it is a failure, who wants to credit . I cannot tell you how many times i saw him, the senator, go over to some republican who disagreed with them, sit down and say, look, we disagree, but let us talk about it. That person will Say Something eventually and you will say, maybe we can work with that. If you do work with that and success is achieved, you will say thank you. When the time comes to get the credit in the press is there how often i have seen him push the other person in front and say, so and so was so helpful to us, so helpful on this. The next time you will be able to work further. That is hard to do and i cannot say anybody else always does it, but it is a valuable weapon when you are working with a group of people who might disagree. Talia i dont think everyone on the Supreme Court has that type of experience from what you are describing, it sounds like what the stereotype people often have of the court and of justices, a lot of tension, does not fit what you are describing in terms of the importance of that communication in building those coalitions. Justice breyer we all get on personally and that doesnt change. At the conference is where we are discussing cases, i have never i have said this many times i have not heard a voice raised in anger. I have not heard one judge Say Something mean about another, not even as a joke. It is professional, it is calm, it is polite, you go through what you think, you talk if there is room to achieve an agreement and listen to what the other person says, and then it is onto the next case. You can be friends with people with whom you disagree, a lot. It is a helpful experience to be with nine people who have different views quite often and that doesnt affect how true that was when i worked in the legislature, or the executive. There we are. Personal relations are a different thing. Senators argued on the floor and people got upset, and the leader of the democratic side said in explanation later, you may not know this, he said to another senator, but last week, the senators wife had cancer, he called senator kennedy and senator kennedy arranged for terrific treatment. Business is business and personal relations are a different matter. Thats what i learned working in that senate. I think it is so important now. I think it is so important. Talia i will kind of end my part of the questions and asking how you see these challenging times. We are not only in the middle of a pandemic, but there is a conversation about racial justice. I am wondering if you have any thoughts about how the Current Situation relates to the past and how this might relate to the current conversation we are having on that political participation. Justice breyer i hope everyone of course, we want this to succeed. Of course, we want to build a multiracial society. Of course, we want to be able to prove to the world that our society of many races, of many religions, of many points of view, of Many National origins can work because we can pull together. I believe in that. I think most americans do. When i was in fifth grade, our teacher assigned to us fifth graders, in groups of four, a task about writing about something about San Francisco and be regraded, but not individually. We regraded as a group. So you had to get along with the other three people. If you wanted a grade. That is what we are supposed to be good at. Pragmatic understanding, other peoples points of view, a city level, a local level, we have seen that with covid, the neighborhood has sometimes risen to the occasion and they think about it and we Work Together to build something. That is a pollyanna attitude and there are lots of obstacles, but we have overcome many, so we keep going. You look at it is corny, but it is true you read George Washington and he wrote to a friend of his, this Great American democracy is an experiment. We dont know if it will work. Abraham lincoln, our grandchildren memorized the gettysburg address, why . Because lincoln says, if any nation can long endure, it is an experiment. That is what i like talking to the students at stanford or elsewhere, because i usually end by saying, you know, i cant tell you what kind of a life to lead, but i can tell you that this document i have it on my desktop as the constitution the people who wrote that document knew that our experiment would succeed only if we understand it, if we have a rule of law, and if we Work Together. So i hope that comes out of the present focus of attention. Talia thank you so much for thoughtful answers. I hope we continue to appreciate points of view, so thank you very much. Justice breyer thank you. Thank you so much for those questions. We have almost 1000 people on this call and many questions coming in so we will not be able to get to all of them. We will begin with marty. I will ask you to start for video and unmute yourself. Marty is an old teacher and mentor of mine, it is great to see you. Marty steve breyer and i were classmates at Harvard Law School and we were in the same study group until i realized i could not keep up with him and dropped out. The question i wanted to ask, help us understand the difference between truth and justice because i think they are often confused. Justice breyer very nice to see you. What a pleasure. Thank you. But, sure. It is not so much we are not exactly looking for truth as judges. Maybe newspapers look for truth. We dont want falsehood, but the primary goal of the court is justice. How to bring that about, that is not so easy, because, as you know, it gets immersed in detail and you know when you see a result that you think is an unfair result but it is commanded by the law, you are upset and you try to work hard within legal techniques and so forth to avoid it and you are not always successful. But there are different goals, maybe it was moses, said justice, shall you pursue. Giving people their rights and so forth. It is a different task, but related. Thank you. Marty, it is good to see you. We will go over to a sophomore. Im going to ask you to turn on your video, maybe it already is. Unmute yourself. All right, go ahead. Thank you so much for being here. It is a pleasure to hear from you. You previously spoke about the importance of the rule of law in the United States. Im curious to hear what you think about the stability of law and how it has been affected by President Trump selection President Trumps election and current events. Can you imagine a scenario in which you would face a tension between what you believe is the legal decision in fear of able mentation of that decision by the executive branch . Justice breyer im an optimist, i think that is unlikely. But i dont know. What we do is our job. If i go back to the senate, it is because i learned a lot there. One of the things that i learned i dont know if you will like this answer or not one of the things i learned is that the elected members of congress tend to do what they believe their constituents want them to do. The more you think about that, the more you understand that in the United States, what i believe is when you want reform, you dont begin with the politicians, you begin with your friends and classmates and others who might disagree in the way you convince them or try to convince them is by talking to them and participating, so thats what i tell students. I say, whether you continue or not, work toward the goals of democracy and human rights and fairness, the way we do that is we do it and you do it slowly and we convince others and we dont just go and say, everything is terrible, i cant get anything done. Please dont do that. I say, it out there and participate and try to convince others, and you might not, they might convince you, but if you dont, you are not going to like this, but i did say it. If you are worried about the way things are going, if there is too Much Division and people are too harsh when they speak about each other, i will tell you the first place to look. He said, what . I said, look in the mirror. You see . You try, too. That is again, slightly corny. As you get older, what you say is more corny. I do, in fact, think that. So im an optimist, i think that is what will happen, that is within our traditions, and i think we will succeed in convincing people, participating, and that will help the country change and improve. Thank you for that question. Michael in chicago. Go ahead. Thank you for being here. Ask, what is the most meaningful thing in your life right now . My wife, grandchildren, children. Are you married . You will see. That is of overwhelming importance. Your home organize, then you can organize other things. You better listen to the others around you. There we are. Thank you. Michael, thank you for that. Uestion im going to ask you to turn on your video. You should be able to. Thank you for speaking with us. It has long been believed that humans are imperfect. It is this imperfection that is essential to who we are. Justice has a unique way of interpreting the constitution, and that endows them with a sense when deciding cases before the court, are justices truly impartial, and to what extent should justices be partial . They should, and they are. Nothing is perfect. Extent peoplee disagree. Cases thee of our decision is unanimous. 15 ,4 cases are typically 25 , sometimes 25 . Up, there i looked it were 18 out of 70 something, and the 18ose, six out of were what the press would call the usual suspects. I think each time, what about those . If people say they are doing this because they have different politics, the answer is no. That is politics, you know . That is not Supreme Court, not they are. You enterprise person or troublemaker . That translates into improving the world and they tried not to do that, but i did grow up in San Francisco. I did go to the high school. I have lived the life that i have led. You will see. Happens, you have grown out of your experience, you cant jump out of your skin, and you shouldnt. Thats where we get this agreement. You can decide. Tatutory meaning they are important. Look at the tradition. Look at the history. Look at the precedent, values, ad purposes that underlie particular phrase and the consequences. Theerms of the purposes of statutes, everybody thinks that, but some put more weight on history, language, tradition, judicial precedent. Emphasisuestion of that often leads to different results. When i was first on the court, i whyght, gee, i dont know people dont agree with me all the time. I am so reasonable. Then over time i change my view. It is a big country. People,e 325 million every race, religion, national , andn, every point of view thatnt so terrible different president s different certainnd they may have emphases that show up in certain occasions, and that isnt bad in a country like ours. That describes my own feeling about what the Supreme Court is like. Thank you so much. Thank you for that question. We are going to cassandra johnson. You should be able to unmute yourself and ask your question. Thank you Justice Breyer for sharing your kind wisdom. , if yourious to learn voice is not recognized historically, how do recommend overcoming institutional prejudice . That is pretty interesting. Whether it is race, sexual orientation. Difference of opinion on that. She suggested and got me and my friends to read three autobiographies written by Frederick Douglass, really interesting. He started off and came to the north where he found lots of saw itce, still, and he change in the civil war, but said Abraham Lincoln is first and foremost a statesman and politician, not free the slaves, but we believed it, and that is the difference. How should these former slaves behave to overcome his prejudice . He says get out there and do your job. Get a job, then do it, do your best, and that will do it, or it will help. Others disagree with that. I would, the impeachers. Read what they say. Read what Frederick Douglass says, and they dont often say the same thing, then try to work it out for yourself. Thank you so much. Going to begin with hannah miller. Go ahead. You should be able to unmute yourself and turn on your video. There you go. Hi, Justice Breyer. So nice to meet you. Wasirst question is what your proudest moment while on the Supreme Court . Good point. Good point. , it is hard to remember the pluses. That is when you get people to agree with you, and it is a dissent i am pleased with her was and still am is in the affirmative action case. Can you have affirmative action . I thought you could. We also been a lot of time on that, a lot of time, so you become proud of the work that you do. That is what Oliver Wendell holmes said. He calls it jobs winship or workmanship. Because necessarily youve made a plus on an issue in the country needs it or whatever. It is more likely related to the time, effort, and work you did, in the direction of a writer, and thats why cases may seem insignificant, like a copyright case, even though you can get a copyright on a womans dress design. I put a lot of effort into that. It was fun, interesting. I didnt convince many people, but i was proud of the result. Whathere we are, that is works men ship is about. Thank you. Thank you for that question. We go to matt miller. Go ahead. As for question. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us today. I am the second miller in a long line. I was wondering if you can answer question my mom and i were discussing, which is if you could talk about Supreme Court decision that had an effect on society that was underestimated or underappreciated . The problem is we dont know. Its like history itself. Things happen. Is write a decision and it later events that will tell you. Im sorry not to be able to give you an answer to that. I doubt. We dont know. Obviously the abortion decisions were important had an effect. Obviously the decision not to was into gerrymandering important, and probably had an effect. Effect v gore had an effect. You see the next nation every day of why the stock market the day before was up or down. What happens is people find an expedition afterwards an explanation afterwards. Quite a lot is true of the decisions the Supreme Court makes. School,ave been the law you will read about one case, which at the time nobody heard said state law governs state law in state Court Decisions decide state law and the Supreme Court cant say anything about it. Impact,normous enormous, but it was a technical case. Marshall, the great chief justice, new that when he set down an Opinion Court willsupreme whether last word as to a particular statute is consistent with the constitution. They can decide that and they will decide that. Ah, he probably knew that was pretty important, and indeed it has turned out to be pretty important, but there arent too many like that. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Well go to the third of our three millers. Jacob miller, ask your question. Thank you Justice Breyer for speaking with us. My question is about proposes to expand the Supreme Court. I wonder what your opinion is and whether you think that is a good idea . , that is a very good question which to take the truth i will not answer, but i will tell you why. The reason is i dont want to have something i say this evening to be a headline in the newspapers tomorrow. It, itpress my view on is my view. There we are. Is you, about what happened when Franklin Roosevelt had his plan to back the court, and that will inform you. , it may eventually be or not, but not now. Im sorry. Thank you for the candor, Justice Breyer. We will go with the final question of the evening, a recent alumni. It is great to see you. Just ask you to unmute yourself and go ahead. Justice breyer. Thank you again for taking the time to talk to us. How do you think you have changed over your 10 year old the court . Tenure on the court . The truth is we are frightened, nervous, but we dont show it. I thought i could do this job, but how do we know i really can. Yearses two or three before you become used to get, and eventually in one form or another you see the questions that arise in our court. ,ou become a bit more confident then after a certain amount of time you into thinking, well, i dont know if i can get these right or not. They are difficult questions. The most i can do is the best i can do. Do your best and there we are, and you become more satisfied with that then you would have at the very beginning. Thank you for that question. Justice breyer, when i started here at harvard, i also thought i would what i was doing, then you came along and gave a competing sermon at the high holiday service. That put a little bit more fear in my own eyes. It is wonderful to have you back at harvard this evening. I do have some special breyers ice cream i will be eating for dessert this evening. Hopefully we will be able to get some ice cream together. Thank you for being generous with your time. I know your wife wants to make sure you have dinner before another event this evening, so thank you for joining us. It is a pleasure to see you and hope we get to see you again soon. I wish you and your Family Health and thank you all for joining us this evening and staying up late and conducting a wonderful interview. I wish everyone a wonderful evening, wonderful week. Stay healthy. We are currently scheduling if vence and you will be receiving email invitations to those in the future. Once again, good evening to all. Announcer monday night on the effect thers, the coronavirus is having on telecommunications. Despite the billions of needrs we are investing, congress to strengthen the Publicprivate Partnership for universal service, to provide adequate resources, the funds necessary to put in the infrastructure and close the Digital Divide once and for all. Telecom president and ceo of monday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on the communicators on on cspan two. This is a crisis. People are losing their lives. Announcer with Police Reform taking center stage, watch live the latest developments. Plus, the governments response to the coronavirus pandemic. We were going down from 30,000 to 20,000, then flat, now up. Announcer briefing from the white house on Foreign Affairs and progress on health care, insight from former administration officials. You think there is a line where one should not cross were governmental power is used essentially come exclusively for personal benefit . Pres. Trump we will stand proud and we will stand tall. Announcer in the latest from the campaign 2020 trail. Join in the conversation every day, live callin program, washington journal, and if you missed any of our live coverage, watch any time on demand cspan. Work or listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. President trump and First Lady Melania Trump took part in the salute to america for the july celebrations at the white house. The president s remarks were followed by an exhibition of military planes flying over the event. Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States and First Lady Melania Trump