than the government of the united states. that's why the focus of authority is here, and we have a very good working relationship with the governor there, and we believe we're making sighted progress to realizing a new crossing. hopefully before i leave office. [laughter] . .

>> the fact of the matter is not withstanding all of the deficiencies of canadian immigration policy -- immigration has been overwhelmingly suppressing canada. the diversity and the dynamism and the energy and hope that

immigrants bring to our two countries -- i don't think we can really overstate how important that is. you can look at immigration just as people who contribute to the economy, but they provide a vitality and excitement about our nation that really is unmatched anywhere. there are few places anywhere in the world -- canada, we like to think we are number one in the world where people can come anywhere -- from anywhere and become a part of our community. that is where we are increasingly living much closer than we realize. this is a tremendous advantage. you go to a country like japan. japan is a wonderful country. but japan has aging population problems. they also have a diversity

problem. it lacks the item -- economic benefits and cultural advantage, which i think are substantial. they say not withstanding all the critiques, immigration has been a great thing for both our countries, particularly for canada to it however, our government has said that in the context the labor market challenges that we face through an aging population, but making sure immigration better serves our economic and labor force is a priority. we are in the process through the budget and other options of making some significant changes to our immigration system so that it is more targeted on those economic and labor enforcement. it serves their needs well, but often not as much as by design as it should be. >> and that is an ongoing subject of discussion here too, as is comprehensive immigration reform, which we came close in

enacting two years back, is strongly supported by president bush. sadly, we missed just buy a couple of votes. but one of the perceptions -- we have actually won more of these questions that i just want to comment on. at least i heard from our security folks over the years was that it is much easier to get into canada than it is to our country. one of the worries was some folks who were not appealing to get into your country and then try to get into our country, one gentleman was apprehended at the border of washington state. he had a car with a trunk full of explosives intending to blow up lax or if illegal immigration is a challenge in both countries. >> yes. we worked very closely with our american counterparts on all of these security challenges. some of the ones you have

mentioned, there have been outstanding across border cooperation. i would say this, just in terms of -- i sometimes hear the concerns about dangerous immigration from canada. i will tell you today beyond a shadow of doubt that there is a percentage of illegal immigrants in the united states and canada. >> i don't think anyone would argue. >> i can tell you in terms of movement across the border and undesirable individuals or weapons, drugs, there is far more that comes north and go south. [laughter] >> it is something that is important to remember. >> well, yes [applause] >> i think our clock has run out, but you are so quick. i thought this would be a good end. sadly, we couldn't get to every question. but this is a good way to end this.

in your experience, what are the greatest myths that people hold about canadians? >> yeah, i -- i guess i don't know how to answer that. [laughter] >> there are all kinds of stories about -- i don't know how true they are -- about americans showing up in canada in the summer wearing winter clothing. it is not quite that cold all the time. look, i think the greatest misunderstanding -- the greatest challenge that canada has with the united states, is that the relationship between them is so deep and so close, and for the most part so seamless, that in spite of its enormous size, americans simply do not understand the scale and economic consequence of it. that is the greatest thing -- the greatest challenge that we

face in the greatest challenge we face is often getting attention in the united states for issues that are important to us. as i say, partly because it is because such a smooth and seamless relationship for the most part. that is really the greatest challenge that canada always faces. it has been a profile challenge in the united states. occasionally, we often will find ourselves on matters before congress and the administration -- we find ourselves with the take by america provision. we will often dip sideswiped significantly by policy that has nothing to do with canada. i would like to quote tom donohue. he always reminds me never to take any of this personally.

he says the only reason americans and the united states sometimes treat canada badly is because we do canadians not really is a foreign country, but we view them as family. that is how we treat our family. >> on that note, on behalf of the wilkins center directors, we would like to thank the top government officials and your beloved ambassador for spending and making this your stop on your visit to washington. >> i appreciate the opportunity. it has been great. >> i think everyone has enjoyed enormously your humor, substance, and commitment to our shared relationship. thank you. [applause] >> thank you [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of the conversation with the canadian prime minister, you can find it in its entirety at c-span.org. the prime minister was also at the white house earlier today, and you can watch the briefing that was held with president obama and the president of mexico at 8:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. here on c-span two tonight, tv and prime time with the look at the air of spring. starting at 830 eastern, a german will talk about his book, liberation square. at 9:55 p.m., another author, of the invisible era, the promise and pair of of the revolution. at 11:05 p.m., an author on the devil we don't know. the dark side of revolutions in the mideast. we will be in prime time all week on c-span two.

>> c-span's 2012 cities to her take several tv and american history to be on the road. the first weekend of each month. this past weekend featured little rock, arkansas to with the tb at the university of arkansas

>> high. hello

>> i am avika dua. >> i'm amanda ong. >> i am jeffery chen. i voted. >> and i voted. >> i voted. >> and i voted. >> i voted. >> and i voted. we were granted the right to vote. this is a responsibility that 18-year-olds who are old enough

to serve and die in vietnam ought to be old enough to have their voice heard. with 18, 19, 20-year-olds being drafted, and sent off to war, we need the opportunity to talk about drafting them. they are in the military service and the memo is very important at that time and it is important today. >> the amendment is important because it shows that you have a voice and that you matter. i think a lot of times elected officials tend to direct their campaigns towards people who are already in the workforce and people who are retired and have an impact on social security,

medicare, and medicaid. a lot of times they look -- they overlook the importance of youth. we are part of the future. >> i just graduated high school, and i'm going to college and i think that this amendment allows me to stress my belief and what is best for my interest as a college students. a lot of my peers know a lot more about what is going in the country than the people in the news media. they say oh, 18-year-olds should not be allowed to vote. i completely agree with the right to vote. >> others have noted that the

effort that the reelections are putting forward, rock the vote or appealing to young people to cast their vote. >> voting age is definitely impacted in elections as well as the involvement of youth. for example, the 2008 election was the first one where they saw such a large gathering around a candidate. it shows that you feel more included in the political system and are looking for more ways to engage. the 18 to 24-year-old vote were 40%. it jumped a huge percentage. it has been a trend over the past couple of elections. for the past three year election cycles, we have seen turnouts of

increased numbers. there are a young percentage of young people that our country has seen. >> they are doing a better job in the high school level to teach about what our government is the way it is. >> i definitely think that educating on the issues is incredibly important. i definitely -- when i interact, i have the intelligence, drive, passion that all the candidates have. i think that by being educated about what is going on on the political scene, they can find better ways to engage in our country and be better in future years. there are two great things in

life, education and the internet. combining both of those is the way to go in educating this hottie of youth voters. there needs to be more campaigns about using information in discussions and using the internet, because people have the capacity to go online to access resources, and that is the best way to impact those people and educate the largest numbers. >> i would try to give an example to young people -- it would be great for one person to change the outcome of a presidential election, but particularly looking at school and youth. >> nobody gets to write your

destiny but you. the future is in your hands. your life is what you make of it. and nothing, absolutely nothing, is beyond your reach. so long as you are willing to dream big, work hard, so long as you are willing to stay focused on your education, there is not a single thing that any of you cannot accomplish. not a single thing. >> we are the future of america. knowledge and understanding of our political system by each of us can play a role in shaping our future. the 26th amendment allows us to vote like we deserve. it is up to us to utilize the wide array of resources and all that is available to us. just one young person casting one vote is enough to drive the force of legislation that would directly impact the issues we

care about. we are the future of america. our vote, our boys, it matters. >> i care. >> i tear. >> i care. >> i care. >> and i care. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos and continue the conversation about today's documentary on our facebook and twitter pages.

tonight, the chairman of the house subcommittee on education and technology. oarsman greg walden on cybersecurity and privacy on the communicators on c-span two. also tonight here on c-span two, of tb in prime time with a look at the herbst bring. starting at 8:30 p.m. eastern, an author will talk about his book liberation square. inside the egyptian revolution and the rebirth of a nation. at 9:55 p.m., author of the invisible air up, the air revolution. at 11:05 p.m. tonight, an author on the devil we don't know. dark side of revolution in the middle east. it is both time and prime time all this week on booktv on c-span two.

the obama administration has called on congress to pass internet privacy regulation that would protect online activity. the deputy officer spoke at the plan this morning in the capital. >> [inaudible conversations] >> welcome, everybody. into so much for coming. i appreciate it. my name is tim worden, i am the executive director of the caucus advisory committee. we had a briefing by the white house on their proposal on privacy in the digital age. it is called consumer data privacy in a networked world. we are very fortunate to have the deputy chief technology officer from the white house presenting this briefing. his name is danny weitzman. this is part of a three-part

privacy series we are doing on government proposals for privacy in this important digital era. a couple of weeks ago we had the general of the european commission here to brief the congressional staff on their data directive, which has been in effect for the past 15 years. but they have an update proposal that should prefix -- read the animal must reap the staff on. the second one today is today. we hope to have commissioner julie brill speak out on their privacy framework report that they just released a couple of weeks ago. hopefully those three together, they are interested, they're all part of the same construct of

privacy. brickley, they all have implications for congress. i'm going to open it up for danny to explain what the white house is proposing. but this briefing hosted by the internet caucus committee -- we appreciate all of our chairs, senators and congressmen on the health side. let me just briefly say that the white house issued this report on february 23. it is a white paper that followed a green paper that they have been working on for quite a long time. it is not fair to say that this is just a proposal for legislation, it is an ambitious progress that seeks a multistage process among industry and others did it provides a framework for privacy. in fairness, it does address certain privacy laws enacted by congress to make some of this

work. the report is on our website, we are being green and trying to save a lot of paper. you can go to net caucus got a seat. i would like to direct you to page five which spells out what congress will have to do to enact such a bill. i really think it is important that the white house proposal be discussed at length appear. we are happy to provide this format. let me introduce danny weitzman who is the deputy chief officer in the office of the white house. prior to this, do danny worked at mit, he also taught at mit. before that, he worked at the world wide web consort. before that, danny was at -- he was a cofounder for the center of technology. that organization wrote the

blueprint to report for a briefing program. before that he was with the electronic frontier foundation. i would like to introduce danny weitzner. >> thank you, chair. and you too everyone. you have my appreciation to be the cochair of the internet caucus. it is great to see many of you here -- colleagues from the hill, collects from the ftc, colleagues from different departments and the press. it is -- it has certainly been a very broad privacy discussion that we have had over the last couple of years since we came in as an administration. he was very clear to us from the beginning that we really needed to take on these questions of consumer privacy protection, not only because of how important privacy is as an american value, but also because many of our key

initiatives -- many of the priorities we came in with as an administration, whether it is health care reform or environmental conservation or education reform, all depend in important ways on innovative and sometimes unexpected or unfamiliar uses of personal information. so we really wanted to make sure that we had a strong privacy framework across the wide range of sectors. i want to start with the grand bureau on privacy. when we announce this bill of rights and tim noted this white paper on our website come you can fight it -- find it on whitehouse.gov. we started with a very basic foundation that government has always had a critical role in establishing trust in marketplaces.

whether it is creation of your competition laws, consumer privacy laws, trade laws, what have you. we have always depended on government to create a baseline of trust so that markets can grow. the internet is no different in that sense. we need a strong government role to make sure that consumers are comfortable in the online environment, that they are comfortable with new technology, and importantly that innovators can continue to innovate and develop new services and products based on what is an increasingly intensive use of information. we regard this as a positive development, not something to be feared. something to be addressed in a very straightforward way. while it is the case that we believe that government has a vital role in establishing trust, we actually think that the way that role is executed has to be caught up in a different manner when we are operated in the internet environment. as you all know very well, but

technologies and the business models associated with the internet and other digital technologies are evolving quite rapidly. we want to make sure that privacy protections for consumers can keep up with that rapid evolution in a way that the innovation can continue to have them. we want to make sure that businesses have a very clear sense of what their obligations and expectations are as these new technologies develop. we have proposed what is really a four-part blueprint that i want to talk you through very quickly. then i am hoping you will ask me a lot of questions. in the month that we have had since we release this for port, we have had the opportunity to talk with a lot of organizations and venues about what our proposals are. the house had a hearing last week, we were very happy to participate in. at this point, i am hoping you will have a lot of questions

because i have been giving this speech for about a month. [laughter] but here we go. we have four key components of our blueprint. the first is the consumer privacy bill of rights. these are a set of seven substantive privacy rights that we believe consumers are entitled to and we think this -- that businesses ought to make available. secondly, we have proposed a process by which we believe we can implement this consumer privacy bill of rights in a fast-paced manner, a flexible manner, to make sure that as new businesses and services developed, they are respecting those principles. third, we have put out a general roadmap for legislation that we would like to see. we have not come forward at this point with an administration bill. we are looking very much -- very much looking forward to working with congress, all of you, to take the congress bill of rights

-- the privacy bill of rights. we are eager to have that happen. fourth, we have proposed a framework by which we can increase what we refer to as global interoperability of privacy revelatory frameworks all around the world. i will talk about that at the end. these are all connected, but let me step through them briefly. number one, we introduced this consumer privacy bill of rights. it has seven principles i'm going to talk about. i will talk about a couple of them that are distinctive. let me just say it right off, that for us the privacy bill of rights really does have a double meaning. as tim mentioned, we will begin right away. we have begun already to start a process working with industry, whip tech advocates, with regulators, with academic experts and other consumer organizations to take the consumer bill of rights, the prince was we have expressed in those principles, and implement them in what we call enforceable

codes of conduct. that is specific rules that companies will take on that will be developed in a multi- stakeholder process with consultation from all the groups that i mentioned. that would be enforceable by the federal trade commission. that is part one of the consumer privacy bill of rights. part two, as i said, we would like to see these rights enacted in statute so that they are enforceable directly at the federal trade commission. i will talk a little bit more about what that framework would look like. let me just highlight three of the elements of the consumer privacy bill of rights that i think will give you a flavor for where we are headed. i will say at the outset that the privacy bill of rights are a set of pencils that are based very much on the well-established fair information principles. those of you who are privacy geeks know about the hicks, as

they were called. we were developed in the united states developed in the 1960s, they call needed in the 1970s. the 1973 report put out that they became the business for the privacy act. really as a basis for privacy laws that are enacted in the u.s. all around the world and in different countries and are expressed in the oecd 1985 as the guideline. these fair information practice principles really are the gold standard for privacy protection. we wanted to do two things with this though. number one, we didn't want to base this anymore. number two, that would -- that was actually the first one. number one, we want to make sure that these things are articulated clearly and the rights and expectations that consumers ought to have her there. number two, we want to make sure that these rights, again, based

on the fair information practice principles, are tuned to both the challenges and opportunities of the internet environment. but they take advantage of the fact that we are in a more interactive environment, that individuals can exercise control in many cases over their personal information if technologies are defined the right way. but also there is quite a bit of collection of information, quite a bit of information on that we want to encourage. but without creating undue privacy problems. let me talk about the three principles that i think show most direction that we think is important to have. the first principle is one that we call individual control. because consumers have the right to exercise control over what personal data companies could not from them and have them use it. it is a very simple basic principle. it is meant in some ways to draw contrast between the privacy challenges that we face in the

past, in many ways, in which personal information is collected in some database, run by somewhere and run by somebody. you really don't know where it is or where they are, we want to restore control to the individual to make sure that as consumers are interacting, when businesses collect end-user information, the individuals can exercise clear control. we think that much of the work that the federal trade commission has done with the digital advertising and world wide web consortium and, it is a very good example of how this principle of individual control can be realized. second principle, i will highlight. it is printable number three. it is the principle that we call respect for contacts. i will say, for those of you who are privacy geeks in the room, this is meant to combine the

traditional principles of purpose specification -- that is, principles in traditional proxy practice, anyone who collects information about an individual -- what when information is collected, there ought to be limits about how the information will be used or won't be used. so we have combine these in the respect for context principle, which says consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provided data. this is really the principle that is meant to account for the fact that on the one hand we have had tremendous innovation and opportunities for users based on a much more free flow of personal information. think about social networks. the hundreds of millions of people around the world who are able to exchange information and

in all kinds of ways, which they clearly find valuable. but think also about the downside that has been articulated in some case about the social networking environment. maybe interactions you thought you were having with your friends, would all of the sudden be used by a different context. perhaps by a employer who looked at a photo of you that you did not think they would look at. also, those of valuing you for health insurance, all of a sudden, for a very important significant decision about your life. we want to draw a very clear distinction between these two contacts and state very clearly that if information is going to be taken from one context and move to a a different context,

that the other principles that we have -- for example, the individual control principle, where individuals would have some control over the fact that that context was changing. if this principle, in particular, we developed very carefully with the federal trade commission -- their staff report that was issued in 2010, which talked about material changes and use of personal information, which on the one hand tried to make it -- reduce the barriers for the constant choice mechanisms that some companies might be required. when you keep getting asked questions, is that okay, is this okay. we all recognize that those kinds of overuse of notice and choice, perhaps is in a desire to be in compliance with some desire privacy, really aren't

all that useful. that when the use is really going to be different -- when the context is really going to be different, some other steps ought to be taken. we learned from the ftc report, if you look at their final report, which was just issued a couple of weeks ago, you will see quite a bit conversing between the respect for context principle and they're thinking about how to a bald these idea of individual control. the third principle i will point out is accountability principle. it says very simply that consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure that they adhere to the consumer privacy bill of rights. this means that even in advance of legislation, in advance of a point at which all companies might be subject to these sets of privacy rules, we want to make sure that any company that handles personal information is

careful internally about how it handles that information, and that there is a point of both legal and customer accountability. but if the consumer wants to know how their information is going to be used, if they have a complaint -- that they have a place to go in that company to state that complaint. this is a particularly important principle for us in the global context. i think that you are all very well aware that many of the services that people use on the internet all around the world are provided by companies that might not be in the same country that that individual user is actually sitting at any given moment. this causes, i think, considerable and legitimate questions for consumer protection and enforcers all around the world. they want to make sure that they are able to protect their citizens, that if their citizens have a complaint about the privacy practices of some service on the internet, that they have a way to help vindicate the rights of that

citizen. what we want to make sure of is the that when we have services that are increasingly provided on a global basis, that there is a streamlined mechanism to handle that kind of accountability and response to regulatory enforcement authorities as appropriate. i'll come back to that in just a moment. the second major element of our privacy blueprint is a call to the industry, pricey advocates, other consumer advocates, academics, regulators, to come together in what we characterize as a multi- stakeholder process to take these very broad principles in the consumer privacy bill of rights, and implement them in enforceable codes of conduct. let me say first what i mean by in the enforceable code of conduct or that would mean a

specific code of articulation in which consumer rights would be respected in the case of a given company, or perhaps a given industry. that is honestly going to be somewhat more specific and more attuned to the particular context, the particular technology or service involved. it would be a privacy policy that would be articulated in many of the same ways you see companies today put privacy policies on their websites. we know from the enforcement activity that has gone on at the federal trade commission the last two years, if a company says it's going to do one thing, and then handles personal information in a way that is significantly different than the initial promises, that they are going to hear from the federal trade commission. we have had leading u.s. companies, now, being subject to 20 years of monitoring of their privacy practices.

the possibility of significant fines if they violate those privacy commitments. again, we write a wave want to take it manage of the fact that we have such a strong privacy enforcement authority in the federal trade commission, and we want to be able to bring together a number of different stakeholders to actually begin to implement these principles right away in enforceable codes of conduct. the nti eight, at the commerce department, it is the president's adviser on telecommunications and information policy issues, has a notice out soliciting public input on what issues should be looked back, how to run the process, i think you can expect in the next couple of months -- you will be hearing from them about how those efforts will be handled let me stress though that in our privacy blueprint,

the government, ntia, really is the convener, not the regulator or the decider about what privacy plays -- privacy policies ought to be. looking to make sure that there is a fair and open table that issues get discussed, that everyone who wants to have input is able to do that. at the end of the day, it will be that process that will come to decide what the enforceable codes of conduct are. ntia is not making that decision. they do not have the authority to make that decision. they really will use itself is a convener of first and foremost. we have come along with this, the process that i described that we think can make a lot of progress, no one is going to be compelled to participate in that

process, no company can be legally compelled to actually take on these additional privacy commitments. in our look at the privacy landscape, the legal landscape for privacy in the united states, what we found over the last two years -- while we have very strong privacy protection laws, as you know, in a number of different sectors, whether it is consumer credit, or help and financial privacy, we have lots of good laws. we have an outstanding privacy protection enforcement authority, but we have a pretty significant gap where there is actually no statutory privacy protection for consumers in the realm of general consumer -- general consumer interaction. this is more or less everything that falls within the scope of the federal trade commission act, section five authority. if the ftc finds the company has broken its promise, in that context, they obviously can

begin enforcement action. however, companies are not obliged to make any particular privacy promises at all in that area of general commercial interaction. that is a gap that we want to close that we need your help to close that you actually have to take the initiative to close. we do have a view about what kind of privacy legislation we would like to see in this arena. we have stated, number one, the subset of protections that we think ought to be in statute. those are the seven principles in the consumer privacy bill of rights. we also have a view about how these protections should be implemented. we think that the multi- stakeholder process, especially with legislation as a backdrop, with these privacy protections, can actually develop rules and privacy practices much more quickly than a traditional ata style process. but we would like to see is for

legislation to provide a safe harbor framework within which companies would be held accountable to the seven principles in the consumer privacy bill of rights, but they would be able to go to the federal trade commission and seek safe harbor approval of their implementation of the consumer privacy bill of rights. essentially, they can get a yes or no up or down answer from the ftc about whether that company's conduct or industry code of conduct actually meets the conditions of the consumer privacy bill of rights. based on a safe harbor finding, there would be some sort of agreements to forbear from enforcement if the company actually keeps their promises in the act. there is a lot to work out and how to implement this safe harbor mechanism, but it is process by which we can keep the rules fresh, keep them flexible,

so that it is responsive to consumer needs, but also allows companies to innovate rapidly. i would like to make a final point about the global picture. i know that some of you heard from the director general of dg justice that is part of the european commission that is responsible for what they call data protection. i think that everyone is aware that we have -- there are significant differences between the european privacy framework and u.s. privacy framework. i would say that we have spent a considerable amount of time in dialogue with our counterparts in europe on these issues. i think that what we have learned is that we actually have quite a bit of commonality on the broad privacy principles that we all share. the differences come in the regulatory enforcement style and

in the fact that we do still have a gap here in the protection of consumer privacy rights under law. that is a gap that we very much hope to fill. we thank that as soon as that is filled, it would be the basis for entering a conversation with the europeans about really significantly lowering the barriers to cross-border flow of personal information between the u.s. and europe. even in advance of that, we have been working very hard to explain to our european counterparts that once a company makes a commitment or an industry makes a commitment to one of these enforceable codes of conduct, but in the united states, that company has the force of law. it is an agreement that is binding on the company, it isn't agreement -- it is an agreement that is enforceable by the ftc under the statute we propose. we would also seek to have those agreements enforceable by state attorney generals.

we certainly thank that one of the critical privacy protection questions, particularly in the commercial context, is to find a way to reduce the barriers that we have today between the united states and europe in the way that services that use personal information are governed. i want to close with a final word from the president that is in the introduction to the consumer privacy bill of rights that we released. he said, one thing should be clear, even though we live in a world where we share personal information more freely than in the past, we must reject the conclusion that privacy is an out loaded value. it has been at the heart of art democracy from its conception, and we need it now more than ever. that is our basis for going forward. we look forward to working with all of you, and happy to take

questions. tim is back there with the mic. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for participating and coming and doing this briefing. i have a question, and we want to open up for any questions you may have. you can come up to the podium and the microphone here, or i can do the phil donahue thing and bring it out to you. i question is, and this is on the framework, if i can ask, as proposed, how important -- how much of a linchpin is it that congress enact budgets legislation? can this framework go on with success without legislation, or how important is it not only for your view of success, but when it comes to meeting a level of adequacy, when it comes to the european commission's privacy

director? >> that is an excellent question. i say that we think in the long run, legislation is essential here. there are two reasons. first of all, i think that there was a sense in the mid- 1990s when we first engaged the question of internet privacy in the united states, this was a very new environment, that we didn't want to over regulated. we wanted to allow -- and we still feel that way. i think that what we have learned is that we actually -- and the framework that we described in the legislative model that we described, we can maintain the kind of flexibility for continued innovation, while at the same time provide increased certainty for consumers. we believe it is the right time to do this. we think that we have a decade or more of experience of this kind of interaction, i think what we have learned from that decade is that consumers really

do want a clear sense of what they are -- what their legal rights are. we want to make sure that the ftc has a clear basis for enforcing privacy rights. frankly, we want to make sure that that is clear to consumers and businesses. we think that a clear set of rights, if implemented in a way that is careful and in a way that is flexible, can provide increased certainty to innovators as well as to individuals. i stress, in particular, we heard during the two years of developing this process, that small businesses that innovators start up in the internet environment, they have a growing concern for what they are expected to do and not expected to do. the statute can provide clarity and the basis for continued innovation. on the european front, it is a complicated question.

i think it is very clear that if the united states enacted a privacy protection statute of the sort that we described here, but that would go a long ways. that would probably provide the basis for what you referred to as an adequacy funding. let me just say what that means. european privacy law provides that personal information about europeans cannot be transferred outside of europe to any third country, unless that country is found to have adequate privacy laws. now, because we don't have a single comprehensive privacy statute in the u.s., europe has never found is adequate. we actually think that we are quite adequate. we have an extraordinary privacy protection enforcement authority in the federal trade commission. if anyone thinks that they don't adequately enforce should talk

to facebook or twitter or google, any of the companies that have been aggressively investigated. i will point out that if you just look at facebook and google and twitter, the estimates are that there are over 1 billion individual users across those three services. it is very interesting. last time i checked, we don't have a billion people in the united states. so we have a case here where the united states consumer protection authority that the europeans have said is not adequate, is actually doing the work of privacy protection all around the world. i think it is what they should be doing. but we very strongly believe that they should be recognized for doing it. and i think there is good progress in that direction. the court challenge that i think that we have on adequacy really has to do with more, as i said, with the mechanisms we have for privacy protection in law and for the underlying principles.

we share a common set of principles with europe. we share through international agreements, such as the organization for economic development, we all agree on the privacy principles. however, from the european policy perspective, i think it is sometimes a little typical for them to look at the large collection of privacy laws that we have in view that is adequate. they have one overarching privacy protection framework, and they don't understand why we don't have one of those as well. the reason we do not is -- for all kinds of historical reasons, we are more of a common lot in a civil law system. any number of other reasons as well. we clearly believe that establishing this kind of privacy model in the united states law would both be helpful in europe, but would also be

helpful for the numerous other countries that are in the process of trying to determine how they should be regulating private view. the world is honestly a lot bigger than the united states and europe. right now, because of very aggressive advocacy by europe, many third countries in asia and south america, and africa, are beginning to enact european-style privacy laws that we think are quite a bit too restrictive, they can be very limiting for innovation. it can actually limit the opportunities for u.s. companies to do business in those third countries. we think it is very important for congress to be able to establish an alternative model to the european model. we would not try to say that it is more protective of privacy, we would also not say that it is better at protecting privacy, but it is a different model and we think it can help advance technology and the internet

environment. >> thank you. any other questions? >> last week there was a hearing before the house congress manufacture and trade committee and ftc chairman liebowitz heard a number of members in to be concerned about restrictions on business and how it might curtail innovation to have this kind of legislation. do you think you're doing a good enough job -- the administration is doing a good enough job interview and businesses view that this would actually be helpful to innovation a mac. >> that is why we are here. we are at the beginning here of the legislative discussion. we have spent two years developing this policy framework, and establishing what we think is the right model.

we clearly have said that if businesses follow the principles expressed in the privacy bill of rights, there ought to be no additional regulatory burden. i think that a number of members who look at this question may be imposing a traditional view of how a regulatory process works where there is a long cycle of rulemaking and judicial challenges, a lot of uncertainty , which we think would be harmful. we have proposed a model that is a non-regulatory model, but still provides legally binding rights for consumers, and would also provide legal certainty for businesses. in many cases, that legal certainty would be based on businesses actually following the practices they currently follow today did because we think that many businesses have been and have responsible

privacy practices. they have good relationships with their users, and they are able to continue a long period we will certainly begin a phase of working with congress to make sure there is a way to enact this so that it does not impose undue burdens. i think it is important to distant wish the question of whether the burdens are excessive from the question of whether underlying protection is actually needed. there may be some who have the view that we actually don't need any privacy protection overall that individuals can fend for themselves. that is not our view. we view this as a basic consumer protection needs, and we have expressed framework that can be achieved without burden on innovation. .. ..

>> we are, at the same time, and that's a process that we could begin based on having a statute enacted. we have -- there's things we're doing right now though. we have been in discussion, as i

said, with european commission officials as well as the data protection authorities in many of the european countries, and members of the european parliament who are now considering, who actually now have the job of determining what the new european privacy protection framework will be. they've expressed very strong support for the principles expressed in the consumer privacy bill of rights, and we are talking with them in the near term about working on making sure that the current us us-ue safe harbor protections say in place and are strong. they depend on the agreement to take sure they can do business in europe. we would like to see that expanded in a number of different dimensions, but we think that's an important baseline to begin with in advance of whatever statutory

changes we'll have both in europe and the u.s.ment i think it's really important to express that both entities are our country and european union are in the process of rethinking or privacy protection frame work. we worked hard to urge europe to ensure their frame work is open to the global nature of the internet environment so there's a number of mechanisms not just the national adequacy mechanism, that is a determination based on the state of national law, but there's other mechanisms that european countries begun to develop, the data protection authorities begun to develop, making it easier for countries doing business on a global basis, which means any internet company, making it easier to move information in and out and around europe. those are things that can happen in advance of any legislative changes in the u.s. and we are

working very hard with our european counterparts that whatever we do in u.s. law, thinking carefully about, and people in the room have responsibility for that at the same time europe evolves their law, they keep in mind the em pertive of -- imperative of keeping the internet open globally. >> also at last week's hearing, several of the industry folks on the panel expressed the preference for discussions that were private and discusses that were mainly held by industry players. how will the stake holder process respond to that and how will you create a process that's open and inclusive given those preferences? >> so i can't comment on what those industry witnesses said or didn't say, but we've said from the beginning the process run by nta is an open process, open for

anyone to participate. the discussions will be transparent, publicly visible. we'll work hard to ensure those who want to participate who may not be in washington or don't have a way to get to washington are able to have views expressed and follow the process and be active participants. i'd also say that, you know, the process of coming to consensus is always complicated, and we're not going to try to prevent anyone from having conversations that are quiet. we just want to make sure at the end of the day what comes out of the process, the agreements that come out have received the broadest possible public up -- input. >> if there's no more questions, i thank you for doing the briefing and appreciate you taking the time. >> thanks, tim. thanks, everyone. appreciate it. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> we were warned in the next 12-18 months that america will suffer a catastrophic cyberattack. they don't choose those words indiscrime inaptly. we're five months into the warning period. tells me we have to move rapidly, but not in a way that violates privacy or the basic tenants of privacy and that encourages quick reaction, not sort of regulatory environment. >> tonight, the chairman of the house subcommittee on communications and technology, congressman greg waldon on cybersecurity and priefty at 8 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2.

>> the feminist majority foundation held a forum on the elections focusing on ballot measures around the country dealing with abortion, labor issues, and same-sex marriage. this is an hour. >> this next forum is called "coming to a state near year: round up of ballot initiatives and voter suppression efforts." you heard a little bit today already about some of the so-called personhood initiatives

that are going to be on state ballots. we have some of the leading experts to tell you a little more about where those are happening and the impact those can have. you're also going to hear about the drive for equal marriage, both in states where we are expecting antiequal marriage initiatives to be put on the ballot as well as literally a couple of states where we're putting initiatives on the ballot to win back equal marriage, and then you're also going to hear about the ongoing fight for workers' rights, some very critical elections in this country resolve around winning back the rights that have been so terribly compromised under these extreme, conservative state legislatures and governors that came out of the 2010 elections. we're never going to let that

happen again, and so i'm going to now introduce the moderator for this next panel. deverne gaines, also an attorney who works with the national violence product to stop the anti-abortion attacks on clinics across the country. hold your questions until the end. we'll have time for more q&a. >> terrific. thank you, kathy. hello, welcome. [applause] on the to the next session. thank you for sticking it out with us. we are talking about ballot measures and stopping the war on women and what's on deck in 2012 with respect to the measures. ballot measures present an interesting opportunity for us. they are used by our opponents

to create division, and we capitalize on that to unite our movement and fight back and win. there's a lot going on. we have a distinguished panel here to talk about anti-union initiatives, antichoice and personhood initiatives. i'm going to briefly speak about voter identification measures, and amendments that have been passed in addition to appty-marriage equality and anti-lgbt initiatives across the country. we are -- it's been an interesting last two years with respect to voter identification, which is a good way to, perhaps, kick off this session. last fall, i was 234 mississippi working side by side with planned parenthood and aclu, and we were active on college campuses throughout the state working to defeat initiative

26. that was the personhood initiative that made it to the ballot in mississippi. [applause] yes, that was a huge victory. i don't want to steal megan's thuppedder, -- thunder, but i will boast in what happened with that battle. aclu and planned parenthood put into their victory with college campuses. we were 31 points behind. literally, i know planned parenthood put up offices, campaign offices overnight. i mean, threw them up, literally astonishing, and the incredible grass roots movement that took place in that state, i think it was something like thousands and thousands of phone calls made, over 412,000 phone calls made within a 4-week period.

20,000 doors knocked on, and mississippi said no, we're not stupid. we are not going to change and amend our constitution with this crazy personhood initiative, and we defeated that measure by 10 points in the end. i'd like a little round of applause there. [applause] thank you. unfortunately, we lost when it came to voter identification measure that was on the same ballot, and voter identification measures are out to disenfranchise millions of americans, and we saw a massive proliferation in 2011 of the voter identification measures nationwide. i think over 34 measures introduced across in state legislatures across the country in 2011, and there's at least 32 that have been introduced in 2011, and many of them have passed, and it's interesting that states like texas, it's

passed, wisconsin, south carolina, many of the states that are subject to preclearance under the voting rights agent because of that behavior in the past in terms of discrimination. they are subject to preclearance by the u.s. department of justice, and guess what? they are not getting it because we know they are racist, sexist laws that are designed to disenfranchise voters. how are they designed to diseen franchise voters? well, if you're required to get a state issued voter identification like a driver's license, if you're elderly, over 75, most individuals do not have photo identification anymore, especially driver's license. if you're a student, you don't have the same address as your voter identification as your driver's license because you're moving constantly from one year to the next, a new dorm, out of state. in addition, if you're a person of color, many places are seeing

what i call polling location racial profiling. you're only asked for identification if you're a person of color. it's a selective bias and disenfranchisement that way. not to mention the fact what we see in certain areas there's people of color less likely to have photo identifications compared to the white counterparts or disabled individuals, individuals who can't go down to the dmv at the drop of the hat to get the new strict photo id that is now required in their state, so there's really, i think it was best said that voter fraud is about as commonplace as being struckly lightning. this is a complete ruse. we have to fight back and ensure we have the opportunity to vote and we will, and i'm happy to say with confidence a voter

identification law was found unconstitutional. this is joined in course or department of justices saying no, no, we know this is a poll tax or another method of discriminating against segments of the population, and so hopefully we'll win and mic sure everybody gets to that ballot box this novak djokovic and in the primaries this spring. i just want to talk about that. before i go on to introduce, and i think i'll start with megan because i mentioned mississippi, and she's here to talk to us about a little bit about what they did there. i think, megan, you were the deputy directer for healthy families campaign, the main statewide campaign to defeat initiative 26. we, the feminist majority

foundation, worked with the states on students voting no on the 26 campaign, and megan is currently the -- i should get this correct -- i know it's a mouthful. i want to make sure i have a correct. ballot initiative and balance research manager at planned parenthood federation. he's worked all over the country on ballot measures including prior life with ask me, working to defeat anti-union initiative, and please welcome to the stage now megan darby. [applause] hello, thank you for val me. i'm here to give an overview of the ballot this year. it's on our watch list, and if there's enough time, what has been defeated so far. starting off, i had the opportunity of spending nine

weeks in mississippi last year. a little life changing. a little tiring. it was surreal when i think about it now because we had such a huge victory. we were 30 points down about three weeks away from election day, and about, i'd say five days before the election, independent poll came out with one point down, but 11% people undecided. this is really decided in the ball loll box that day, and we were very fortunate that we not only won, but we crushed it. [applause] z it was not the case for voter id, initiative 27 that year. what's interesting to note is that initiative 26, the personhood initiative that i'll talk more in detail on saturday at the campus gathering if you guys are around, initiative 26 was the least voted initiative

of all the three. this was an untraditional ballot initiative state meaning it was used just a couple times before on a vote whether they should keep the confederate flag on their state flag, and a gay marriage ban, and so this was untraditional. it was not an off year in mississippi because all the state offices were up. the man who is now the governor was a huge supporter of personhood, and so what we really did, and what we're thankful for what you helped us to do was create a climate where people could talk about this and where people had doubts and given permission to be pro-life because they are in the state of mississippi and be against personhood. we were the least voted on because we created a culture of doubt that some people were not comfort l voting no, but they were not comfortable voting this into law. i'm happy to report that they did try a couple maneuvers in the state legislature this year

to get personhood back up and running, and it has been defeated. we will not see personhood in mississippi for at least a couple more years. [applause] let me transcigs into what we will be seeing. i'll start out in the state of north dakota. on the june primary, june 12th, there's a religious liberties ballot initiative, a broad based initiative that you can legally discriminate based on your religion with birth control refusal or denying a muslim couple to rent an apartment that you're the landlord. it's a primary people vote in because there was an open senate seat. that's the first one. obviously, organization and every in the room does not want discrimination, and especially with the refusal of fight we're still going through actually, this is something we'll be watching. now, moving on to florida.

there is is a privacy and public funding ban. this was placed on by the florida legislature last year, and what it does is deny public funding for abortion. we don't know, we're still exploring what this really means, but it could impact public employees' private insurance because it's paid for by public funds. it could take away abortion care from private insurance people that are employed by the state. also, there is a little provision written in. the florida privacy in their institution is actually stronger than the united states constitution. they would like to repeal it to the united states' standard. now, what does this mean? because honestly the first time i lookedded at it, i was like what? we saw a lot of things because of the privacy laws in florida. repealing it opens the doors for a lot of things that might not necessarily get very far because of the protection in their

constitution, so this will be happening in novak djokovic, and another thing that will be happening in novak djokovic, and -- in november, it's one initiative on the ballot now out of the three. now, montana last year, the state legislature passed a parental notification bill who sent it to the governor who is 100% pro-choice and said this is what we do. if you veto this, we pass something else that throws a constitutional amendment on the ballot next year. you sign this or we sign at the ballot box. he vetoeded and now we have parental notification in montana. those are the three definitely presented on the ballots. this is what we think is likely in novak djokovic. i'm -- in november.

i'm sure you heard personhood is back in colorado. it is. in 2010, they gained three points. still defeated overwhelmingly. after the victory, keith mason of personhood usa who is the leader put out a press statement comparing himself to susan b. anthony in her campaign for women's suffrage in north dakota. it slowly started to gain and he'll come back and fight for the unborn. anyone who does his work is very familiar that colorado, it's kind of easy to get a ballot initiative on. it's a very low threshold. there's all laws. what they did this year was rewrite the title. before mississippi, there's what i like to call personhood classic, just a basic language, life gips at conception. life begins at fertilization.

what they found themselves because colorado is a little bit more pro-choice than mississippi, and so what they found themselves in mississippi was they were not prepared for was talking about ibs and talking about birth control. they decided they were going to start making these hybrids and did one, and it was not one of the most extremes. this is a basic one. person applies to every member of creation, they are at any stage of development. there was a challenge to the title, and that was lost, and when it was lost, it was lost to the state supreme court, and that was lost. last week, they kicked off their petition signature drive at numerous planned parent health centers across the state of colorado. we do expect to see that. we probably won't know until this summer. another one we do expect to see

is a public funding ban in oregon, and like florida, you know, this is the basic no public fund r for abortion, but unlike florida, oregon is one of the only states that does give funding for abortion. it was tried two times beforement in 1978 and in 1986. this is not the first time they've seen the fight, and they are expecting to see it again. it's backed by oregon right to life, well-organized in their states. we will know in july. we're unsure what implications will be for public employees to have insurance, if this cuts their care also. i'm briefly going to go over my watch list, and this is things that have been filed, things moving, but were unsure of what the future was going to be. the first is presential notification in california. this is the fourth time. it was defeated in 2005, 2006, and 2008. they have filed multiple

initiatives this year. when one expires, there's already one that can keep going. they did this up until june. we expect this because they are not as organized as they were in the past, and they are trying to gain time to get the funding and new organization to collect signatures. another one is religious liberties in colorado. this was just filed by focus on the family. this has gained a lot of earned media, and right now, waiting for the state to approve the title and language, and i'm assuming when that happens there's multiple groups trying to appeal not only to the state title board, but to the state supreme court to try to stop this. another one is personhood in montana. they've tried to put personhood on montana three times. the partners there always have zone a very successful decline to sign campaign. they do this around the primary because in montana, that is usually around the time that people collect signatures.

they can go to polls, talk to people going in and out, and that's been a strategy that's worked in the past. this year, though, the co-founder of personhood usa moved to montana last year, and he's made it his mission to ensure that personhood gets on the ballot in montana, and he's actually sometimes is the only perp collecting signatures in some places in the state. we have an eye on that. personhood in nevada, and i'm sure everyone here has seen some press about this. in the span of months, five separate titles but two separate groups were filed and drop in the state of nevada. what they would be doing, and first of all, may i back up? the two groups were not getting along. one put out a press release saying we're the true personhood, and another one said, no, we're the true personhood, and so, great. my theory is, okay, great.

they would file, and this is what would happen. someone would go and appeal and try to start the process to make sure this didn't make it on the ballot. they'd wait until the complaint was public, withdraw, and take that complaint to strengthen the language. after it happened three times, the aclu and planned parenthood in the state worked together to help with the lawsuits decided they were not going to help the opposition strengthen their language. it took weeks, and i think they were in shock that where's the lawsuit? chuck, one of the groups that pushes initiatives in the state, he was a police officer once upon a time and was called to a clinic to someone who was blocking access for a patient and refused to get involved because of the religious beliefs.

he withdrew his petition and threw support behind nevada, the other group that was the personhood in the state, and we're waiting to see what signature collection looks like. what's interesting if this is on the ballot and passes, they have to do it again in 20 # 14 for it to become law. personhood in ohio. i think you are probably noticing a trend. this was filed, again, state challenge the title, lost. again appealed to the state supreme court last week, and that appeal was denied, and they have been slowly collecting signatures across the state. the interesting thing about ohio, though, is that if i'm a registeredded ohio vote e and i sign the petition, and it's not committed in 2012, my signature could be used to be submitted at a later date, and so they can use 201 and them being a swing state to build up their petition

signatures. they have until july 4th to collect over 385,000 signatures. we're not sure we'll see it this year, but could be a possibility for an off jeer like 2013 or 20 # 13 15*. personhood in oak. oklahoma's a little bit eye of the personhood storm now. i'm sure you've seen the revamping of the personhood bill in their legislature. this passed the senate overwhelmingly. i think four people voted against it. it was during the time of the virginia ultrasounds. it went away because of the outrage, and i don't think the people of oklahoma wanted that on them too. well, it's kind of come back, but not only is it legislation on march 1st personhood oklahoma filed a ballot initiative. again, perphood classic language, life gips at conception and said they'll file

three. we're unsure what that looks like yet. we're unsure if it's another nevada situation where they wait if there's a challenge, withdraw, use that challenge to strengthen their language and try again, but they do have a kind of high threshold for oklahoma in gathering. a fun fact? rick santorum signed the personhood oklahoma initiative in tulsa a couple weeks ago. it's used for media and fundraising by personhood oklahoma. he's a huge supporter of personhood. personhood oregon. again, basic language. we're sure this is not going to make the ballot this year. they tried multiple times. just to give you a little of reference. in 2010, personhood usa tried to get personhood on eight ballots. they only got it on one, so, you know, it's pretty easy to file

language for ballot initiatives and pretty easy to get a lot of attention, especially in states that don't do ballot initiatives. that makes us scramble and move, but oregon is one of the places where they filed fetal personhood, but we don't think we're really going to see much. some good news is that there have been failed attempts this year to get on the 2012 ballot. here what they tried and what didn't make it? application was denieded, flat out. perphood in arkansas, they tried twice in the past, month or month and a half to submit a balance title in summary for personhood to circulate in the state. both times, the attorney general rejected it. the first decision was 22 pages long. the second was 18. personhood arkansas submitted a new ballot title, but submitted it to a local television station. they have not submitted it to the governor yet, and we're pretty sure that, you know, over

the 22-page decision and 18-page decision, this attorney general's not leaving room for this to circulate in his state. personhood in california has just recently expired. we didn't see any signature collection, and the group who was circulating it had a press statement after they released their title saying we're associated with personhood. personhood florida. the ballot initiative title for 2012 in florida expired. in florida, it's 10 cents a signature to have it submitted to the secretary of state, and they were having fundraising challenges and signature challenges. they withdrew 2012 before it expired and submitted 2014. they are actively fundraising and signature gathering for 2014, but not for 2012.

signed the pledge but and romney hasn't. 2011 when mississippi picked up speed mike huckabee is a huge supporter on september 8th when we lost our appeal he had a

fund-raiser in jackson mississippi from. he supported a constitutional amendment on the federal level and mitt romney said absolutely. so, with that. [applause] >> thank you. i appreciate your description so much. what is frightening to million having been in mississippi and campaigned how many initiatives are being promulgated by the most extreme anti-abortion leaders in the country. they are not just pro-life individuals. some of them have the army of god like patrick johnston in ohio and other individuals if not the most violent anti-abortion extremist organization in the country. individuals linked to bombings,

murders, ma'am, unabashedly so have been proud of that association, and anyway, so thank you for that. on that happy note, we are now going to go -- i would like to introduce murray had of english who is joining us today. she's the vice president of the american federation of teachers. equal access for education, good. she is the president of the baltimore teachers union. you have so many titles, i tried to pick and choose them. this is a short version. she's also the president of the american federation of teachers in maryland and she's the past president of metro baltimore alliance of school and educators and a current board member and i

believe we are so thrilled she could join us today to talk about the anti-union initiatives that of course swept the nation as welford to celebrate her as a labor leader and tireless fighter for fair wages and improved working conditions for teachers throughout the country. thank you. please welcome marietta. [applause] thank you for this opportunity. there isn't anti-union movement across this country, not going to talk about the initiatives but i will talk about some of those things that have happened across this country. the attack on unions that represent women is an attack on women. when wisconsin governor scott walker for's administration targeted teachers' unions and nurses' unions the xm did the

male-dominated firefighters and police unions. so, that was definitely an attack on women and this has permeated throughout wisconsin but what he did is we kept a sleeping giant because he then woke up all of the women and all of the labor unions who went into wisconsin and of course he now has a recall and we are waiting. [applause] the republicans' attack on the teachers' unions and unions representing other pink collar professions like nurses and health care workers, early childhood educators they are attacking organizations in which women's workers have political voice. the organizing these unions and

have a voice publicly and these other systems are male-dominated , and i know when i go into a lot of board rooms, because i do have a lot of titles most of them are filled with men. we can barely count the women in attendance who run these systems are meant that the actual work is done by the women in the classrooms. mitt romney tells us contributions from the unions to political campaigns form of corruption. they organize or corrupt and unpatriotic. my gosh. but when the businesses band together and make huge contributions now thanks to the supreme court ruling that you can make unlimited amounts of contributions, well, that's

commerce. that is a way of building business. the political attacker's want to devalue our voice by calling us names, and they do that all the time. in the health care area it is difficult to organize a private sector nurses and health care workers, and it's harder to organize in the public sector also because these are basically dominated by women and it's very hard and difficult. such places as health care when employers have tried to circumvent bargaining rights by giving nurses charge of responsibilities and calling it supervisors but yet if they still work as nurses, and of course in teaching i can tell you for the last few years teachers' unions have been

bashed all over this country. teachers have been blamed from everything like why the grass doesn't grow to white children are not achieving and every time you hear people like michelle who hadn't taught for two minutes but teachers. i can tell you that without teachers unions we are not the cause of children not achieving. we are not that cause. was the policies that keep children from achieving and what should we do, what policies are great, what should you do? we know the early education helps the children to achieve. those are funds that get cut

right away as the program. we know that children need our, music, physical education to be whole child, and yet when the decisions come to be made, let's cut those programs and then when her children don't achieve it must be the teacher's fault. it must be the teachers union that keeps their teachers in the classroom. but no teacher union wants to keep bad teachers in the classroom. teachers' unions want to make sure that everyone has a right to due process. what about keeping bad teachers in the classroom? american federation of teachers have an excellent dynamite president in randy weingarten she is leading the century, yes, she is. give her a hand. [applause]

and initiative that will bring together businesses and education to help achieve. we have a program and west virginia where she's brought together the community, businesses, the union to help turn that community of around. we are -- if you talk with the teachers' union, we will leave you the right way but yet they want to blame us for all of the ills in the society. our union in baltimore, we just negotiated one of the most innovative contracts in the country where teachers now have the voice of their own career, how fast they will move and whether or not they will move one line or a mother and one pathway to another. given our expertise, and i've

been teaching for a long time. i could probably teach the paper how to read. [laughter] but nobody comes and asks us what are the things we do? there's always a lot of money to put into programs and then the program comes and goes. are there any teachers in the room? [applause] you know what i mean, they bring a program in for a couple of days and that it doesn't work let's try something different, and then we get blamed when it doesn't work. right now the tests are governing our whole existence yet we don't have a part in developing those tests. our children stood for hours -- we are right now the maryland state assessment and these little 8-year-olds are taking tests for hours, and it's

really, really sad because i can't sit here for hours without having to get out. i wondered if some of these people were sitting in these board rooms making decisions have any childhood studies or any childhood understanding and they can understand teachers can't do this alone. it takes the whole community. it takes the whole community to help educate the children. i know i raced to children and my son was in the eighth great i thought he would die. i didn't know if he would make it to the ninth grade. but you keep working with them. you keep working with them and i am proud to say he is a wonderful teacher but it takes everybody to do this. it took the school, it took me, the community involved in the activity but you can't just blame us and you can't just blame teachers unions, because if you come to us they like to

attack workers who want to organize, and those workers, their jobs are undervalued. but what i can see is the more they are attacked, the more we will rise. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. it reminds me of a co-founder of the united workers and a board member and president of the foundation says, you know, you definitely -- she is the anecdote to say you've got a bad man running around threatening things like a doll or horse you shake a stick at a high of of these and they will think twice because they are organized and

totally bradley fleeing that particular model for this wonderful example. next i would like to introduce our wonderful final distinguished speaker who was the executive director of the national gay and lesbian task force. he took over the task force in may 2008 and has provided some truly visionary leadership for the organizations. during her tenure the task force is accomplished many things that were too far to list. there is one of the biographies i've read of the three of you i just had to pick and choose. but one of them i felt particularly noteworthy is a passage of the elbe gb trademark close if a federal hate crime prevention act which is a huge victory. [applause] defeating many antilgbt ballot measures across the country

playing a vital role getting the united states census for the first time to count same-sex couples and the 2010 census which is pretty massive fraud. we are in addition to online leadership academy at many other innovations i know she has to leave since i want to make sure we get her appear. [applause] in a true women's fashion i won't rush through but i do have to pick up my daughter from school, so i think the teachers for teaching and i know she would like to be here today. she loves a good party so i will tell her all about you. and i do want to think the feminist majority you have been incredible partners in the pursuit of equality and i know we will continue to work together and i just want to thank all of you for being such an important part of an organization that we as a task force considered to be a sister.

thank you. finally, before i get into my remarks, i do want to dedicate to audriene and poet, writer and feminist. i'm going to talk about free kind of general things, determination and destiny, loved and place. first, determination and destiny. we come together as a progressive movement, and i happen to be at an organization that focuses on a l. gbt issues but we consider ourselves first to be a progressive organization and how we work on the quality and how we work on racial and economic justice. we are determined to win marriage and quality nationwide. [applause] and we believe that it is our shared destiny to do so, and we

have made progress thankfully this year doubling the number of people who can actually get married in the states across the country by adding new york state to the list of approved marriage equality. [applause] so we are pleased about that. but as i was thinking about spending time with you today, i want to talk very much about how our movement which definitely overlaps, so i want to make that point, but how the feminist movement and the lt bet movement are intertwined, the destinies are intertwined. and in fact we have much to learn from each other. i've been spending all only my whole life learning from the feminist movement and my mother is a feminist, and my grandmother is a feminist, but also studying what happens to our movements. for example, in 1973, when roe v wade went to the supreme court,

the polling, the public polling on whether or not a woman could have an abortion in the first trimester was at 53%. 53% when we've won one roe v wade. i don't need to go through everything that has happened since then in defending with a number of cases the are birling towards the supreme court. dirling towards the supreme court. a number of them may get there very soon in the next couple of years. the polling on marriage right now is at 53 per cent. familiar. [applause] citizen is included ten years ago we weren't even close to 53% but it is a cautionary tale.

and as i sit here with you today and fight on the lines with you in virginia they are taking away public funding for access to health services for women and in places all across the country, 40 years later after roe v wade went to the supreme court and we are looking at the same percentages, if we don't do much more as an elegy bt movement and a broad progressive movement to get that number up to talk to our friends and family and get we beyond 53%, i know that we are staring at history repeating itself and i don't want to repeat that history. we do have to overturn the so-called defensive marriage act. i do want to do a piece of education and we are working towards that. i could spend a lot of time talking about that which i am not going to do. many of you are familiar but we have to overturn the defense of marriage act and we are moving

in that direction. i have to take a moment to educate on one point which is that when the overturned the so-called defensive marriage act, it doesn't mean that we have access to choose to get married across the land. it doesn't. there are 29 states that have constitutional amendments that say i can't marry my partner. so we have to get rid of doma that we have to make progress in the states and fight of constitutional amendments headed our way and we have to overturn those that already exist. and at the same time as fighting the federal doma, as i said before we have a lot of legal cases going, and i think sometimes people say surely there's going to be a silver bullet. one of the cases will go through and what the whole thing out. there would be nice but i don't see it happening that way.

the way i see it is like an arcade game. have you ever been to the cony game where they are running across and your throwing beanbags and yours gets first? all of those are moving all of those horses are running to the finish line of marriage equality coming and we will get there, but we have to get every single horse across the finish line, and we need your help to do it. [applause] as arlan spoke earlier during the luncheon, our faiths are tied together on the ballot measures. we have just heard the measures we are not even talking about the anti-affirmative faction or anti-immigration measures. if you did an overly of the country you will see very clearly how our faiths are intertwined. so we must show up for each other. the task force of 2011 we send our organizers not just to alaska we're in a few short days we are facing a ballot measure on the nondiscrimination, but we also said our stuff to

mississippi to work on the personhood measure and staff to secure both for the people of maine and ascent are still the days of antideath penalty voters for the future fighting california. all of those issues affect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. they are our issues. as i look towards 2012, take something that doesn't necessarily have to do with your life, with your family's life and show up. a volunteer for a campaign, reach out and bring someone with you. and next time, ask them to come and work on something that does affect your life correctly. i believe we will make a difference. second, i want to talk about love. i'm definitely a glass half full girl and i do believe that love

will when and at the heart of the lgbt movement is loved. it started thousands of years ago but more recently it's the stone wall of new york city a bunch of drag queens and gay men and people of color said enough's. we will love who we want to love and fight for it and i believe that it will win. i have great hope for this in the future of fluff and the future of our ability to marry each other in states like maine where we can make history this year where they are putting the first proactive marriage measure on the ballot coming and we need all of your help. this will make history be the first time we have ever won on a protective measure. [applause] i hope in the future in particular because of children we have a young daughter elementary school and when margaret and i got married and a window of time where 18,000 of

the people in california, and our daughter can with us to california, and her friends and we prepare her for were her friends might say because we didn't know, right, to women getting married, and was fascinating because first of all, they already thought we were married. we have a house and kids, a doll that, we drop her off at school each day sometimes forget her lunch and have to run it over. we were married to these elementary school children. and when they found out that we had to get married, many of them congratulated us and the only negative, it was for one of your daughter's friends who was very jealous that she got to be a flower girl and that was it, that was it. but i'm reminded we have long way to go because at the same time we were driving through virginia, my daughter and point she says to me can people get

married in this state? and i really didn't know how to answer, because i don't think that any child in this country should have to ask if her parents can get married. that shouldn't be a question on the list of any child in this country. to the high school students in this room, i promise you, we are doing everything we possibly can so that this will not be your fight when you are 45-years-old like i am. you will be fighting for something else and we will stand with you, but we will not have marriage be your fight. i promise you. [applause] finally, our voice. this has been touched on the number of times today. we must make our voices heard. and right now, we are facing a

huge threat in a voter depression. this bill number one threat to but i know i'm supposed to be from the task force wouldn't be if it didn't push the envelope a little bit. voter suppression is literally out of the jim crow playbook some of the stuff that's going on. right? we have to fight voter suppression. and if you look at where our ballot measures overlap in states across the country, guess where we are seeing now what measures? and all of the state's what is true is that it used to be possible to mobilize the right wing on antiwomen measures come anti-immigration ballot measures, affirmative action ballot measures. what is happening in the country is that no one of those are their tough parts anymore to beat biggar losing. they are losing. and so what do they do? they have to go deeper than

that. they have to strike at the very of devotee for us to cast our vote. that is offensive anti-democratic and we must stop the threat to democracy in the country or none of us are going to win. [applause] i believe that we can stand together ha because i've seen it before. many of you have shown up for us and our families, and i will show up for you. i promise, we will continue to do that. but we have to stand together. there are far too many forces at play to tear us apart. let us say of this monocracy and let our voices be heard. thank you. [applause] i'm hoping we can have some time

for q&a. let me point them out. the iran some tables. the people lining up, yeah. please, go ahead when we have a wonderful panelists. >> hello everyone. my name is melanie and i am part of the united women's team of the maryland state chapter so if everyone could come out in the rally was on april 28th in every state and i just have a question maryland is a pretty blue state and looking at the congressional record's passed out in the previous four you can see that senator barbara mikulski has a 100% rescue on the measures listed. so i just a question specifically for finnegan of planned parenthood. with everything that's going on in states like oregon, montana, texas with the trans vaginal ultrasound bill what can states

like maryland deutsch and voters and residents do to help out from the sidelines i guess because it's easy for us to sit back and rest on our morals because in our state things are relatively okay. >> that's a great question. i guess the first thing they tell you is educate and talk about. that is the most powerful thing to do looking back to mississippi we were very fortunate not only that picks things up nationally because people were outraged and they knew about the issue and talked about that i could tell you facebook feeds were just full of talk about mississippi and that gets the ball rolling and that really could help. let's say donate because everything -- this is an expensive fight everywhere and i would also say look at the people you think are working on

the issue and call them and say what can i do, can it be a house party? can we have a phone into texas de? what ever do can come and talk about it and make sure people know about it because a lot of times, they don't. >> to my way and on that? i think that we kind of heard from them on that you can do a lot with the internet now because you can talk to people all over the country just by using the internet. i know i am from maryland to and people do labour walks and we know there are problems in those states so even during the labor walk in the states where you know you have a problem. >> i also want to throw the feminist majority foundation in here. i'm one of the campus directors for the campus leadership program and this selection year we are putting a call out to all college students, recent high

school graduates if you feel like interning with us for planned parenthood or the national gay and lesbian task force for all of us we are going to be active especially battling these initiatives, colorado, california all across the country. if you want to intern with us and take a semester off from school and have the experience of a lifetime we encourage you and i am happy to speak to you after this plenary session go to maine and work on passing the marriage equality but these are opportunities that could be available for you now in addition to the world of cyberspace that can put you everywhere now. estimate didn't have so much of a question and comment and i want to thank you your the first person to say transgender and i want to thank you for coming out and saying the word transgender and giving people the notoriety

so thank you. [applause] i'm going to say transgendered so i've become the second person. transgendered. >> i am with unite women during the 66 of of of the state and representing d.c., the greater d.c. and metropolitan area. one of the things i would like to bring to the attention is one of the talk about women being disproportionately affected whenever we see that women are disproportionately affected, you can double that nor number when you talk with a minority being disproportionately affected. one of the things i would like to say, i find that it's -- maybe i don't have the tools but i find it a little bit difficult to galvanize that minority voice and bring it into the greater

for debt times. if you are for instance in seattle washington, someone in your group should be speaking to but there's a large population there. if you are in a latino community, someone in your group should be speaking spanish. there is a large latino population there. so, i wanted to say to their greater group and i have said to my group if your group looks just like you, maybe only you live in your neighborhood but i doubt it so their needs to be a greater outreach, and i'd like to also know how or find out how through the different consortium of organizations may be the class is about how to reach a class sometimes cultural borders or boundaries so that we understand each other so that we are able to communicate well and address each other's needs. [applause]

stat does anyone want to respond to that? >> of the league of women voters in virginia i had one comment and one question. the woman from maryland didn't have any particular need related to maryland, please come to virginia. we are in one hell of a mess triet [applause] we didn't focus on the voter suppression and do you have any specifics for us that will be helpful? estimate a couple of things. unfortunately there are so many choices to get active, and i

think the naacp has done so much work on this both on their own web site and another of arenas and identifying which states are experiencing voter suppression laws and with an audience particular towards 2013. the opposition thinks you're going to be asleep in 2013 so we think 2012 is bad, just wait until 2013. so what i would encourage you to do is doable for furs oppression or naacp, with the states and in many they are starting to ramp up campaigns or the local naacp chapter is. there are a number of organizations that are starting to do those and a lot of us are trying to also in the midst of the ballot measures that are specific to some issues interest inverters oppression to make sure that we are partnering together as we work on these because we know we have to turn around and fight so look for

local campaigns in your areas? suddenly realized what we have to do, the women are learning some, the power has, we have got to take over the offices and run for the senate and house of representatives. [applause] >> i hope no one is offended to read it so much of this we have to do it otherwise 25 years from that we will not be a promise we will be singing the same thing. is that that is a good note to and we need to flood the ticket and hopefully everyone will consider running for office or helping support an excellent

woman for public office. thank you. we are on to our next plenary concluding the plenary session. thank you, and sorry. [applause] stomach more from the feminist majority foundation coming upon c-span2 with a discussion on the women running for house and senate seats among the speakers carol moseley-braun, the only black woman ever elected to the senate. >> i feel like everybody should get up and stretch after that. but i want to get a big hand to the initiative. we have some work cut off for us going into the second one we

have a central question the central question is at another moment this is she's going to set the stage and move right to her the center for american woman and politics at the institute of rutgers university if you are not familiar with the website, please go to it. it is cawp.org. >> on my ipad all i have to do is put in cawp.org. so, google is also smart. but the official thing is cawp.rutgers.edu. as a marvelous institution and all the facts about women in

office. it tells you how many women are in the state legislatures, who they are. it tells you bistate it does the point of offices and a visit by state. it does the congress, the history of all of the women in congress. i can go on. it is a bible and one of the reasons we want devotee is the executive to vector to come forward as because she can better probably the and anybody set the stage on how we get from 17% or as peg said how we get more women in power and stop this constant discussion of how we fight off going for it one step, coming backwards another step doing nearly for 40 years, when you to set the stage, i want to commend the center for american women and politics and

the eagleton institute. the eagleton institute is headed by ruth mandel who is an absolute treasure for the women's movement and for the united states because they feature local and state politics which is so often overlooked. but if we are going to do this week to be tall levels. so, please set the stage and keep us running. [applause] that is the tall order keep us running on time. i want to tim jeal and alice for having me here we have been lucky just a couple of years ago we brought her to rutgers university where we gave her an honorary degree and she was a commencement speaker for rutgers university. [applause] we are delighted to counter as an alumna of rutgers university so thank you. i am going to put a little bit of this year into a historical

context for you and i want to talk about the number of people that are in office and running for office and we keep track of all of these and we monitor the trends for the women in office. in the pre-in 1992, we saw this slow steady growth for the women in office and we used to bemoan that because we would only get the percentage point or so every election cycle when it came to the women and state legislatures and very little in every congressional cycle. as of its 20 years ago and we saw a year of redistricting and where there were record numbers of open seats and where there was a catalyzing moment when everyone in this country saw firsthand how the united states congress and in particular the united states senate was coming and i know that many of you in this room remember the weekend that we sat and watched all weekend long never leaving our tv set as we watched anita hill

facing down the senate judiciary committee and we all had that moment of these guys don't get it and where are the women? as a result of that year when we had record numbers of open seats, we had what was then called the year of the woman and unfortunately that was the last year that we had. so, in that year, we saw 24 of new when an elected to congress. we had never seen anything like that before and we have never i am sad to say seen anything like it since. we saw the women running a that point for the 49 open seats. that is the most open seats women have ever run for at one time in the general election to kind of keep that number in the back of your head because open seats are critical to read open seats are where he make change when the incumbents win 95% of

the time, men and women so it is critical that we are finding the women to run in the open seats to keep that in mind. after 1992 when we solve the spike, ever since then we have been basically flat lining of the state legislative lawful and we have seen almost no increase in the number of women who are running for state legislatures shot and relatively no increase in the number of women serving in the state legislatures. from 1994 until now we've gone from 22% to 24% in the state legislature. i love this ten to 17% that's a reminder because i think what happens felt there is we see these big names. you see nancy pelosi and hillary clinton and michele bachman and condoleezza rice in the mission accomplished. there are women everywhere, plenty of them, but the reality is we are talking about 17% in congress, 24% in the state

legislature of all of the governors in this country only six women and that is down in the record consistently. so we see this kind of flat lining and we all sort of kalona can we do and we looked at the year 2012 and we said this is another year of opportunity and felt as at the center and with our partner in california we've been working on something called the 2012 project to to get into 2012 because let's look at this year it is the redistricting year once again after the census every state legislative line, every congressional district creating new open seats making incumbents of little less entrenched because the districts and constituents are different, more retirement than we normally see and so we see some similarities. it's also a presidential year we

get about every 20 years. redistricting every ten of presidential cycles and redistricting every 20 and in the presidential election years what we see our for voters and voters that are less tied to their party so they will be occasional voters they don't vote that straight party line. it makes it a little bit of a benefit for newcomers and the women are still newcomers so what we've been doing is going out around the country to engage and inspire the women to run in 2012 but what we were missing in this cycle of and what we have in 1992 is that dell from rising moment, and i think pedicel little of what we have started to see now, and we have to keep it going. we saw what happened when women team before and tried to speak at the house hearing and women's access to health care was being

restricted and women's access to contraceptions being restricted in its making people mad at, and what i'm living in a of the fall of you're following this by surgeon trademark what is happening in the stage legislatures across the country. we are seeing all are around the country of just the horrible exploration of the women using the platform that they have to speak out. so i want to read you just a couple of the pieces. [inaudible] >> we've great legislation women are putting forward around the country, and it's not that the expect necessarily to pass but they want to show what's going on and use their voice and this is why we need more women in office. so in virginia the senator proposed legislation mandating

rectal exams and cardiac stress tests for men seeking the erectile dysfunction medicine. [applause] in georgia we saw their representative yasmin kneal who wrote a bill outlawing most vasectomies because they leave thousands of children deprived of birth. [applause] in ohio, senator mean that turner would compel men to get psychological screenings before getting prescriptions for impotence medicine and i am quoting her now. we must advocate for the traditional family, turner said, and ensure that all men using these are healthy, stable and educated about their options including celibacy as a voluble life trace.

[applause] in illinois, senator -- state representative kelly cassidy proposed requiring men seeking viagra to watch a video showing the treatments of persistent directions, and occasional side effect of the little blue pill and as she explained, it's not a pretty procedure to watch. as of this is happening around the country in response to this and this is i think just another example of that anger that we are seeing so we really have to work to galvanize this issue and not let it pass and go and i think there's good news about the numbers as we move forward. so far 24 states have had their filing deadlines so they are still very preliminary. there are 26 states, 27 states left to go, so we need to make sure we are monitoring this but

right now we have 37 million women filing for the united states senate. that number -- [applause] now i want to say the record will set back in 2010 with 36. so if all of these women final we will have beat the record but only by one. at this point in a cycle where they are but a seat delete crossing number of states filing in late we have 11 women and 28 women's we are ahead of the game at the u.s. senate levels but here's where the we really want to watch this in that united states house. right now we have a total of 270 women who are considering filing or have filed for the united states house of representatives. at this point back in 2010 we get 227 women and in 2008 we had 184. the ultimate record was in 20 to

move to hundred 62 but we are ahead of the game but we are really ahead of the game and would like considered the most important kind of race women can be an and again that goes back to the open seats. remember what i said about 1992 the year of the woman but also of the open seat. right now women are either fight or say they plan to funnel for open seats. 70 women are preparing to run for the open seat races in the united states house. back in 2008 only 32 women were saying there are filing for open seats and in 2010, 47. this is the number to watch and this is what we have to keep our eye on. we've been looking at is that the project now that the center for the american woman and politics for about two years we've been going out and talking to women all over this country women who are engineers and

scientists finance, women of color, leaders in the nonprofit community and we are saying to them now is time. why not you, why not now, run for office. this is the payoff is the increase of the number of women saying they are going to run and now we have i think the galvanizing issue we are seeing the difference the women can make and what happens when the women's voices are not at that table. there's that great line if you're not at the table you are probably at the menu. we need to make sure that we are all at the table. as i look in this room and to the folks watching on c-span, if you are in one of those states there haven't been filings i hope he will consider running for office or where there's an open seat or a formidable incumbent you will identify a woman you know could run because that's what we need to do, and

if you were in a state that the following deadlines passed, find a woman. go to our web site. we keep track of all the women running for office and around the country. find a woman that's running and support her. if it's not somebody in your state find her in another state planning to get more women elected. our tagline for the project has been don't get mad, get elected and i think that is absolutely true. [applause] and if it's not win to get kheel elective right now in 2012, maybe 2014 or 2016i would say don't get medical and get a woman elected. thank you very much and i hope that sets the stage for you quickly. [applause] >> i knew she could do it. she has all of the numbers and figures at her fingertips. do you have the deadline on your web site? >> of the filing deadlines are

on the web site. we have an election trecker if you go to the call web site or the 2012 project brought u.s. we have that the election tracker four of the united states and its links to each state and the women that are running for congress and as soon as the state legislative elections are held in the primaries will fall of the women that are running for the state legislature post primary. >> okay. now you've set the stage and our next speaker, the national congress of black women which began i believe i'm saying 28 years ago and it was -- its mission has been to encourage more african-american women of color to run because all the data that you hear on when and as a whole as you know the

underrepresentation of women of color is even worse but they also broadened their mission to do other things, but she has done the mission impossible, too. she's not only now taken over the founder which was tough enough that she has run for congress. she didn't take an easy fight. she ran for congress from louisiana and that was quite something because you only lost i think by 500 votes? six tenths of 1%. can you imagine? bedle and stop her. she kept going on in she's had a career of encouraging other women to run and all of us to write for our women's rights and social rights and where there's a social justice cause she's been fighting for all of alaska.

[applause] >> thank you. is their anybody here that doesn't understand there's a war against the women? we know the first shot was fired by the right but let me tell you this afternoon it's not who for years the first shot, is the one that is still standing when the war is over. we will still be standing. [applause] sojourner truth, a woman whose memorial we have the honor roll placing in the united states capitol making her the first african-american woman standing with a permanent memorial. she says if the first woman could turn the world upside-down pulling all of us together can turn it right side up again, and we intend to do just that

because we are on the same team. before we talked about fighting for issues of all people, not just what we consider our personal issues because the time comes when we need to reunite and we want somebody to help us with what we do consider our issues. you've heard about the young minister who was there and said nothing because i was not involved and then they came to me and there was no one left to be involved so we must for our coalition and collaborate on those issues that of all towers. we must begin to learn how bond issue impacts the other. we are not playing football. i understand that. but the people out there working against our best interest

believe that indeed women are a football field and they can form their little formation. they can say one thing to us and then do another. but we are ready because the drama seen what team and we understand what teamwork means. it used to mean we did everything that each of us has a role to play now and that is what makes us stronger because when we collaborate, we can make everything that we do mean something. if you want to eliminate once and for all pre-existing circumstances and conditions like being a woman then we are on the same team. if you want to ensure equal pay off. we are all on the same team. if you want to make sure that

your child can stay on your health plan until they are 26, then yes, we are on the same team. yes, if you want to have access to affordable health care and what everybody else to have that, then we are on the same team. if you want to preserve social security as we know it, we are on the same team. if you are one of the 99 per cent or care about the 99%, then we are on the same team. if you want to see more women like nancy pelosi and amy klobuchar and carolyn maloney anbar brummer mikulski and all of these wonderful women, then we are on the same team. if you want to see another rise, we are on the same team.

if you want to let more women serve on the supreme court of light elena kagan and sotomayor the we are on the same team if you to see more women like hillary clinton are the secretary of state being the head of that office then we are on the same team. if you want to see more melissa and rachel mazel on television telling our story, we are on the same team. [applause] if you want a fair pay act in your lifetime, we are on the same team. if you want to see the tea party disappear, we are on the scene at team. [applause] if you integrate the 51% that you heard about this morning in the united states, then we are on the same team. if we want a congress that's responsive to our needs, then we

are on the same team. if you want to keep title naim as our sister spoke about this morning, then we are on the cement team. if you're the equal rights amendment, then we are on huckabee same. if you to put down homophobia and racism, you want to put down taking actions against people and not giving them a fair opportunities who have physical or mental disabilities, then we are on the same team. ..

if we are on the same team then it seems to make sense that there is something we have to do. how do we do it? we can't wait, as dr. margolis the king said. we cannot wait. it is time for us to do it now. we cannot just get mad because as my friend always said, when we get angry, anger can consume and destroy us. if we are on the same team there are some things we must do immediately. we can't just get mad at all the 30 lucy. we can't just get angry with old tricky ricky and all the things he is saying.

we can't get mad at the other people in their races. you know who they are. but everything that they say is something that we have to listen to because somehow it is connected to preventing women from doing something. it is against our interests. so some of the positive things you have heard, we will rush through them. better than just getting plain old angry. every time somebody comes on and says something crazy just go and register another friend, somebody who just has not made it to register yet, somebody who has not had a chance to vote. somebody who does not have the money to go and find that birth certificate, somebody who just does not even know where the courthouse is or where they're register to vote. let's make our anchor mean something if we are really on the same team. let's put our dollars where our mouths are instead of punching somebody out, let's just go and

spend the dollars that people like elizabeth warren or other people who, well, we can't do that. anyway, people who support our issues. let's make sure we do that. if you want to be on the same team with us, be sure that you motivate somebody to vote did not even planned to vote. we want you to explain to somebody how the affordable care act works. what is in it. we know when people understand it they like it. when they are asked individually if they want the pieces that are in that act they then say they want it. when you ask him if they support the act because they have heard so much about what every and all that kind of stuff the vast majority are concerned about our brothers and sisters all across this country, all across this world. we cannot do it if we don't have a congress, and we need as

senate one of these days before long where 51 percent need something because right now they can get 51 percent, and they still have not done anything. but since we are 51 percent, let's make this and it means something for us to because it's a stupid law and they must change it. you know, if we are silent about what is going on out there, we were told by a margin of a gang that violence gives consent and surely we are not consenting for all of the things that are happening to us in this most recent war against women. again, we must collaborate now. we must stop all the foolishness about being angry with somebody because they did not do one thing that we wanted. we have to look at the whole picture. we have to look long range. we have to think who is usually there with us, generally there with us until we can put somebody there that is with us all the time.

we women are the majority. you know, sometimes we act like we are of little part of the constituency of what it is out here. we are the majority. we know what the majority means. we have to start acting like we are in charge. now, the people who are against us are not hiding. it is not difficult to find them. all we have to do is listen to cbs, ms nbc, even that of the station, and you will find out who the real enemies are. so we just have to say no, no, no, no. we won't go back, and we have to mean it when we say it. we have to tell them we have come too far. we have suffered too much. we have struggled to much. so many of our women friends have died waiting for things to happen while they were, we were not always there with them, but we must be with women today who are for us to, and we must know who those people are who are

against our best interest. again, as i conclude by bring to your a remark, see suffered so many indignities, but those indignities never stopped her because she was fighting for dignity. like many other women, susan b. anthony, the grecian moss, and others, she was fighting to gain the right for us to vote. we won't go back. there was gloria steinem, we have grown up. patricia ireland's, harriet tubman, qaeda b. wells, all of these are women who have fought too many battles for us to go back. we won't go back. it is time for us to take our own stand and stand the ground for women. insist that we won't go back for any reason. we have to get it on.

we can't wait for the summer. we can't wait for november. we have to get it together now. of what you to know that if its time we understand that each of our interests is somehow related to all of our interests. the far right, as i said earlier, may well have been shocked -- shot the first shot, but it is the one who is still standing when the last shot is fired. women, we intend to be there because we are a team. thank you and i love you. god bless. [applause] >> also an ordained minister.

indignation. we are going to throw open -- we have a little time, not much for q&a. the reason that i stop some of the candid it's that or hear as a nonprofit organization until basically we want to keep it in the philosophical range, especially right here. encouraging more women to run. anyway, i also -- not here before. we have an historic figure in our audience who might want to say something. obviously the first african-american u.s. senator attending, which we are very hard with her attendance, the national advisory board, and the obviously she ran for president of the united states. she knows something about

running, and if you would like to get to the microphone, can i encourage you to? yes. [applause] good. take hold. right now she is an expert on food, organic food. you ought to hear on this subject. my grandson happens to have this terrible pinel elegy, and she was telling us about the food processing. this woman has a lot of hats. been elected statewide how many times? lots. and she is in -- i will never forget when you first took the floor. this might be a little no detailed of why it matters when women are there. he took the floor.

she had her pin on. first african woman, took the floor. this doctor at the gate, door, sergeant at arms doctor and said she could not enter. she said, i just get elected. i have my pen on. anyway, she had pain son. this was a hundred years ago, and 1992. and women were not allowed to wear pants. and so you want to tell the rest of the story or should i? i mean, this made a difference because she refused to get off work. she stayed on the floor. and one of the reasons that women can wear pants is senator and ambassador. [applause]

>> i wanted thank you and the feminist group for your confidence. we have been calling it old home week because we see so many women and people who have been out in the forefront making the case that quality is an american value. women hold up half of this guy. we are entitled to be participants of the government of this country, just as anybody else. so you were making the case. all these wonderful people. i love the fact that you bring your way into the conversation because many of them really need to know that this is not just a battle is going to be over with tomorrow. it did not start yesterday, and we have to all work together. we have to be a team to make certain that we come together and make these things happen. i want to tell a quick story. it's called the point of personal privilege. the worst thing to do is to give a politician of mike, right?

[laughter] my first meeting, i first met elie fighting force eminence in the city of illinois, 1970-what. my partner was right across the street from the capital. what became the war room for the passage of the equal rights amendment. we took on -- the beginning of the other lady who will not be mentioned, her organization. it was truly a face-off. unfortunately illinois failed to pass the equal rights amendment, and that was one of the reasons why we still don't have it, but that continues, and i think the fact that we are still talking about it, it is still important. it is got to happen. [applause] but to talk all little bit about running for office, it is no easy thing to do. particularly in light of the fact that the loss at chains in

terms of money. if anything i think campaign finance reform is the new face of the civil-rights movement in this treasury. i say that because the way the world of money is so corrupting of the process that he really is beginning to lock got a lot of voices there ought to be heard. particularly for women from all walks of life he might be encouraged step forward but cannot figure out how they manage to handle the fund-raising and all of the money part of the process. that is really the heart of this. if representative democracy means anything it ought to mean that women will have an equal voice. when will have an opportunity to participate in government. you have that the opportunity when you run for office. and so i want to encourage everybody here to do what you can to move not just in terms of personal contributions because that is kind of the cup on the

corner where doing it nowadays, unfortunately. it is the corporations, the super packs, the efforts to get the money out there so that candidates can be competitive. without that to you know, you have the most brilliant thing of world to sake, but if nobody can hear you say it then you don't get your message out and your chance of being elected is no iced. and so i just think battles like this are so important. i wanted thank all of you for being here and for your activism because i am encouraged and inspired. i am -- i want to end with a quick food story. and this is good news. seriously. see things happen in the last month. the two big drink manufacturers, coca-cola and pepsi agreed with the fda to change the formulation of their beverages because there had been determined that an ingredient that they were using cause

cancer. the fda was going to require that they put this product called -- this product causes cancer on the cans. coca-cola and pepsi decided, no, we don't want to put any reference to cancer on our product. guess what, we're just going to chase the formulation and take that out. great victory. that much of it in the news. that was the first. the second, and this has just happened to carry an article about this today that i hope you look up. just as important. it had to do with the epa, which is this a plastic coating that they cut the inside of cans with, particularly that have to make the products and then. what they found was that word of mouth that out, and mothers who make those big decisions. remember, women make the purchases across the board decided that there were just not try to expose their children to this packaging material that might cause cancer and any number of other elements in the

children. the result now is that these companies are not dumping this stuff. they're dumping it like north and changing that campbell's is announced there'd changing their formulation for their soups. it is a pretty big deal. people who make it -- what is the other one? per reso. no, not progress so, there is another one. i cannot remember. i'm sorry. in any event, to big companies and a huge companies, have decided to change their formulation to get a carcinogenic materials out of their packaging because the women of this country spoke up and said we are not going to continue to participate in boise and children. so it is those hands of things. i think that is a great victory, and that thing that is a great victory and should be inspirational to everyone here. the people really in the end to have the power. people coming together and expressing a consensus around

the issue like that have the power to change things. change the direction of this country and to keep this tension moving in the direction that we will all be proud to leave for our children, and that applies whether it is politics or food or any other level of activity. how we define our time, our role and our time to let each and every person in this room. and so i want to congratulate everybody here for reaching outside of yourself to make a difference and to make this an america that we can all be proud of. thank you. [applause] >> of want to follow up with what carol just said. it's wonderful to see carol. one of our chairs at rutgers university. everybody should come directors. it is the place to be. but one of the things that we know about why women tend not to run for office is that they

think that it is sort of an ugly place and a place where you cannot get things done. and what they end up doing is doing what we call kind of work around government and politics, and they do it themselves. they'll work as activists on an issue like the ones being talked about, but they may not think that they can get it done in government. what's the good luck and see that is the place where, you know, had stopped and you cannot get things accomplished. the bottom line is that where you want to make in a place for you want to make the kind of systemic change or you get the regulations so that you don't have to keep asking individual companies to make changes. we did women inside who are making sure that the regulations changed. that is what we need, and we know that will be asman and women who serve in state legislatures to of the most important reason that iran and the first place for, and i'm sure carol got this from our own personal experience, the run from office because they care

passionately and want to change it. they find that they try to change it outside the system and cannot kayten. so they run for office and get it done from the inside. from then they are much more likely to run because there had a longstanding interest and career in politics. so our shorthand has become men run to be somebody and women run to do something. so we need more women you are inside doing something to change things systemically so that we can see some real long-term change in this country. [applause] >> to women at the like, and did we have to end this because the room will expire about this time. would you say your name. >> i am from frederick community college, and my question is for ms. walsh. thanks for giving us the good news that about 70 more women

candidates are running this time for the offices. my question is, as soon as the upset of these zero men are for women's rights such as equal rights -- >> yours dollars to go look at what these women and find out which of the one in because support and support the things you care about. but what we are seeing is that is you look at the party breakdown there are more democratic women and republican women, but that is pretty much historical truth. right now in the united states house of representatives democratic women make up 32% of the democratic caucus. republican women make up only 17 percent of the republican caucus. part of what has happened for republican women is that they tend to be a bit more moderate and they have a very tough time making it through primaries. i think, you know, from be watching, a real tragedy has happened this year in a losing

his bolivia's down in the united states senate. the modern republican women and one of the few voices who was really capable of working across party lines and try to seek some places of compromise which i think we would all agree that we sorely need. so there are an array of women, more democrats than republicans, but probably varying up positions on issues within each party as well. so that is up to you to take a look at and see which of the women, but they are out there. find a way that you can support that you believe in and help them get elected if you're not going to run yourself. >> one more question. >> would you like to go? >> go ahead. >> okay. two things. i just want to anchor is the younger women in this audience to reach out to older women to get them social media culturally literate because they're is a device in h. in terms of comfort

with the social media, which is, you know, alderwoman are -- if you just sit with them, get them online. >> there are some of us. >> i know that. it's the generality. it just breaks a certain point. when i talk to people about running for office they go, i don't want to come up to the party. i don't want to put in time of the school board. you know, i would just like to run. well, that is not the way it works. is that breaking down a little? >> it is breaking down. and our most recent study of men and women who serve in state legislatures, we found that well over half of them -- that was the very first of the spirit and one of the things that we do particularly to women is tell them, no, you have to work your way up through the pipeline, start at the school board. lament the local council and then run for state legislature. i actually think what happens is

we pard those women up because being on the school board feet is the toughest job that there is. you can add to the supermarket because everybody knows you. you're dealing with issues affecting their children, and they are crazy. and so it is a really, really tough job. so let's not -- i mean, if what you want to do is be on the school board then by all means be on the school board, but if what you want to do is run for the state legislature, do it. if just do it. >> last question. >> certified older woman. >> says that you didn't want to ask a question. >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry. i thought you were a mike monitor are something. >> no. as is twist to make sure the other entity added chance. i will try to be brief. this question was tailored to the past panelist, but i think it is applicable to everyone in the room. i hope that anyone who

represents an organization, not necessarily sitting on stage with uncomfortable answering it. i said in montgomery county public high-school which means that i have the privilege of receiving sex education and medical products of class. sadly, edited for century that is still a privileged. on the past panel there were a myriad of examples of the ways in which women are helping to maintain rights to reproductive health, prevent personal bills from becoming law. it to me and secondary only to protecting the rights and the real world is educating women. i'm sure a of us who were at the morning can mention remember an anecdote that one of the panelists shared about her roommate who was ashamed to use condoms when she became sexually active because this chamber of doing so had been so ingrained in her. that is of something that happens when you get to college

but something that has been hammered it to you for years. i don't think women my age are going to be allowed to move things forward because even if we have the rights for reproductive health you don't necessarily know how to use them, and i would just like to go back to what marietta said. she was actually talking about teachers' unions, but what i think she said is applicable. education, policies in general, helping not people. so in conclusion of that wended, long speech, my question to everybody is, what policy are we pursuing? what policies for the older generation, this to my grandmother's, what policies are you pursuing so that my generation and subsequent ones are going to know about things before they have to tackle them? thank you. [applause] >> what you're of high-school i you in?

>> albert einstein as school. >> would you? >> sorry, i'm a junior. >> i think that you -- [applause] i don't think we have to worry about the next generation very much. you know that my two colleagues did not want to answer is the only reason i am, we support her comprehensive sex and education. almost every one says. the chassis is we have to do more to support its. during a woman's when the men's lives depend on it because we have in our country something like 11 sexually transmitted infections of epidemic proportions are near epidemic proportions. over the weekend at our campus conference we had dr. smith and hoover talking about a new study which believes that in certain areas of our country the under

reporting of aids is by a factor of five times. and so we are living right here in d.c. where the surgeon words, their is a very high incidence. and that's -- our young regeneration has a right to to a comprehensive sexual education. [applause] >> and to saying, every hour of time. >> rerun of time. >> okay. i can't shut you up. >> i just want to think -- as a question. >> i just want to, as a certified alderwoman he does know how to use social media want to say, let's not forget that old media. you know what happens on the radio.

most people that call into the radio are men. a lot of them are your men who are pretty anti woman, and our voices need to be heard. so you social media, use the media, but don't forget old media. bates you very much. [applause] thank-you all for attending the 2012 women, money, and power forum. you have been a marvelous team. participation. networking, and another have been. we will see you again next year. thank you so much for all your sponsorship, activity, and your work. the advancement of women. thank you and good night. [applause] >> up next on c-span2, republican con