while to "usa today" has come back, and among his many hats he is now a accountability editor at the washington bureau of the associated press and trying to keep a lot of the politicians accountable for their misstatements. we are going to present -- [inaudible] so i'm going to move this podium back just a bit so the rest of you can see and, bill, i'll turn it over to you. what deceptions have you seen? i've asked them to give us one from each side. ..

and it's, i think, we're glad to see so much of it around the country. so thank you for inviting me. i thought i would talk a little bit about health care and some of the deepgs is that we've seen in health care and a little later we'll talk about some of the deceptions we will see in health care. if you go to the next slide.

so why are there so many falsehoods in health care? a couple of reasons. if you go to the next slide. one it is a complicated issue and of course complexity scares people and so that makes it ripe for falsehoods and exaggerations. it's costly. we all are paying increasingly more out of our paychecks for our health care coverage or co-pays or whatever and so that, that raises the stakes. finally it is a matter of life and death. so that makes it ripe for scare tactics we've seen really going back to the 1950s when we were writing about our lie of the year in december. i was talking to kathleen about this and she reminded me that really you go back into the eisenhower era when they were using scare tactics aimed at seniors back then

about social security. once medicare started in the mid '60s, medicare became a prime topic for scare tactics. so when you have issues of life and death it's really ripe for falsehoods and exaggerations. this next chart is pretty interesting. so we, as, most of you probably know on politifact, because of the nature of our database we can extract data and draw conclusions from that. so if you see here, what this really shows is that falsehood is that you're much more likely to have falsehoods in health care claims than in general. so if you look at that true ratings account for 18% of all of our ratings but only 15% for health care. then look at the bottom of the spectrum, at the false level, false ratings accounts for 20% of all of our work but 26% of all

health care claims. so you can really claim that our numbers skew what we think of as the reddened the truth meter. now this isn't scientific but we do so many health care fact checks. i think at one point i counted them and we've done more than 600 fact checks in health care and so many of them as we'll talk about today are repetitive. are talking talking points that the parties use and use over and over again. so the value of this is once we fact check it once we can then apply the fact check to the new person that does it and at our state sites we have 10 state politifact sites. you will often see, they will be fact-checking a local congressional candidate who will make the same claim as someone made on the national level. but i think this is a very telling chart. now i mentioned talking points. let's go to the next slide. i want to talk a little bit

about the two prominent falsehoods that brooks asked me to address. one definitely one that romney used. the other one is more of a democratic line than it is an obama line. this particular one, this was our lie of the year in 2010 that the democratic health care law is a government takeover of health care and this was a claim that we had rated in many different ways and depending on the wording we had rated anywhere from, i don't think it ever got higher than a false. sometimes we rated it pants on fire. it was typically used by public publics to describe the -- republicans to describe the democratic health care law and it was even used by romney to describe the democratic health care law. irony it was also used by michele bachmann to describe romney's health care law. romney has both used the line and been a target of it and which i find amusing.

of course this claim, if you go back and read our story this claim originated with a frank luntz memo that basically urged the house republicans to use this line to describe the health care law, in particular what was then in the, in the bill, the public option. the option that there would be a government-run program as part of the health care exchanges and that of course got removed from the final bill but the line worked so well that the republicans kept on using it and it of course conjured images of a european-style socialalized medicine system and was a, was a very inaccurate way to describe a health care law that really relies overwhelmingly on private industry, on private health insurance companies providing coverage and health care exchanges themselves are really

marketplaces where private health care providers compete. so to describe the law as a government takeover of health care was just ridiculously false. on the democratic side, and i mentioned this is more from democrats than from obama himself, was the claim last year about the ryan budget that it would end medicare. and, if you know the details of the ryan budget as it existed back then, it has since been modified to actually include a traditional medicare option but back then the, it was a voucher system exclusively and in the view of many democrats it would so drastically change medicare they felt it would not provide the kind of benefits that medicare had traditionally provided. they overreached though by saying it would end medicare. again an attempt to scare

old people of, a tried and true tactic in american politics. and so we rated this our lie of the year for 2011, a decision that touched off a lot of controversy. a lot of our readers were unhappy with that and felt that was a fair way to describe the ryan budget. what we singled out in particular, and i think these details got lost in the firestorm, was the way that some particular groups portrayed this. in one ad there was a man who looked like paul ryan pushing granny in a wheelchair off a cliff and a very, you know, and a line that didn't include any details. that basically said the program ends medicare. since, since we did this, it is interesting i think the many democratic campaigns and democrats have adjusted their rhetoric and made it more accurate in how they

described the ryan plan. that's not to say they're a bunch of choir boys. i think there are still plenty of falsehoods about this issue by i think the rhetoric generally has improved and, and i know this because i have heard from democratic super pacs and the dcc cc, the democratic national campaign committee almost sought the politifact good housekeeping seal of approval. here is our ad. can you rate it true so we can show the republicans? i'm heartened by that that they pay attention to our work and they're, concerned about getting things right. that's not to say that they're not stretching the facts still but but sometimes we'll have incidents like that. so with that i will go back to you, brooks. >> okay. over to

>> i remember when i was a young political reporter in the late '90s when i didn't call her up and ask for her sage advice. i will talk about the auto bailout. this is an important issue for president obama. it is one of the central pieces of his re-election campaign. as joe biden likes to say, bin laden is dead and general motors is alive. so it is in his interest to play up what he did and how he did it how successful he was. romney on the other hand has a opposite problem that he famously wrote an opinion piece for "the new york times" which headline which he didn't write, but the headline was, let detroit go bankrupt. his actual proposal in that op-ed was much more nuanced than that headline. he talked about a managed

bankruptcy and that sort of thing but he did go on tv the day the op-ed appeared, yes, that's what i said, let detroit go bankrupt. which is a great clip you will see repeatedly through the rest of the campaign season. so it's in romney's interest to kind of say, well i was, they ended up doing what i had always proposed and what obama did wasn't that great and obama's interest to say, what i did was amazing, not only it was amazing it was against unbelievable odds. so i will take a few examples that i have looked at as the way these two men talk about this. one is this is, something that obama likes to say. chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes american taxpayers for their support during my presidency. and it repaid that money six years ahead of schedule. every dime and more, actually brooks had a great line about this. he said that the president

was sounding like a used car salesman. so the math was totally phony on here. because what he did was, he wasn't counting, he was only talking about the loan that was made during his presidency. notice he had the weasel awords during my presidency. it wasn't counting the loan that had been advanced for $4 billion that was given by george w. bush. so, when you think about it, chrysler repaid every dime and more? what company, pays back more than they owe? right? so they essentially and in fact when the treasury department writes about this in their official press releases they will say, oh, $1.3 billion of the entire $12.5 billion loan is not going to be paved back. that will be lost. but the way the white house will spin its, they paid

back every dime and more what they owed of support during my presidency. a more honest presentation, the way the president, white house math went, chrysler paid back 100% of obama's loan and 70% of bush's loan. now the more honest way to say is, the government got back 90% of what it invested. i gave obama three pinnochios for this. to show how high the stakes are for this rhetoric, the white house actually posted a blog post called fact-checking the fact checker to argue with my interpretation. now the other thing that obama likes to say that it was a really, really tough decision. so he will say a line like, it's good to the remember the fact that there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die. now that is a subtle way of reminding people about romney's, let the detroit go bankrupt op-ed.

but interestingly when i asked for the white house for examples of who wanted to let the industry die they couldn't give me any examples of romney. they instead gave me a whole list of statements from republican lawmakers, which when you look at the statements and looked at them in context it was all a question of tactics. in particular the republicans didn't want to give a sweet deal to the united auto workers. being republicans they had less interest in the power of the uaw. so there was a question of tactics and there were a couple of quotes from people who said, well, chrysler's toast. give it up. that's not necessarily saying that they want the industry to die. it is simply stating a basic fact. and in fact if you read steve rattner's book, in the white house there was a big debate whether they should let chrysler die. in fact obama's advisors split 4-4.

his chief economic advisor, austan goolsbee requested a special meeting with the president to make the case yes, we must let chrysler die in order to make odds of success for gm to be even better. so only real example of someone saying we should let part of the auto industry die was in the white house. but that obviously not what the president was referring to. now, in romney's case, he says things like, well, --. >> [inaudible]. >> i gave two. two to the greaterrytation of the white house. they won't let me forget that one either. the, anyway, so now romney will try to say, well i, they ended up doing what i proposed. they ended up doing a bankruptcy. if they had just listened to what i had said. the problem with that is, by virtually every account of,

you know, experts in this area, the proposal that romney had was simply not viable at the time he made it. early november, december, he was saying no government bailout, or eventually maybe a government bailout but not right now. let them just go file in a prepackaged managed bankruptcy. the problem was there was no way those companies could have gotten debtor in possession financing. so it's easy for him to kind of say, well, in the end they did a bankruptcy, that's what i proposed but that's not really what he was proposing. that is not really what happened. and i've, you know, the democrats like to try to pretend that he has not been consistent on the auto bailout. he was actually remarkably consistent particularly if you go back and look at his remarks in the 2008 campaign but he tries to spin it as this, in the end they accepted what i had always plan to do which is not the

case. he can't really argue that. and so he is now left with saying things like i take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back. he got a couple of pinnochios for that. he also likes to say, then at the same time, tries to say obama cut a bad deal. he will say things, that they gave the company to the uaw. they gave general motors the uaw and they gave chrysler to fiat. and he says, they didn't, even though he says they kind of did what i wanted to do, he will say they did it the wrong way with the government heavy hand involved. now again, this is, as bill was saying, more complicated it is the easier it is to manipulate the facts. there is a trust known as the voluntary employee beneficiary association which was created to take on the uaw retirement medical obligations. that owns about 10% of general motors. that is not giving it to the uaw. it is not really, you know, it's a percentage.

you could argue maybe this is a uaw entity but actually it is a trust managed by a three-person investment committee that includes one uaw representative. now more recently romney has tried, and i gave him four pinnochios for this. he tried to say 100,000 auto jobs were lost under obama's watch. now i checked the bos data. actually since, if you're going to do it the way these guys do it, you count from january when obama became president, the actual number of jobs in the auto industry, auto dealers, auto manufacturing has gone up about 50,000. so how does romney say that it's 100,000 jobs are lost? they have decided that in this instance they're only going to count the jobs that were lost in 2009. not anything that has happened since then. even though i went back and

showed romney campaign this, that whenever romney talks about on the president's watch in general he is talking about the entire presidency. so that's why he got four pinnochios. >> thank you, glen. >> thanks. i'm not going to be as neatly theme matic as these guys were. i cherry-picked a couple of my favorite recent one with here. the first one is, something that romney said on march 15th when he was on sean hannity's fox program. they were talking about a task force that obama had created to investigate why gas prices were so high. and romney said, i can cut through the baloney of the task force and just tell him, mr. president, open up drilling in the gulf. open up drilling in anwr. open up drilling in the outer continental shelf. drill in north dakota, drill in oklahoma and texas and it

was a familiar cry from the republican side. we heard it from a lot of the candidates during the primary season. crossroads gps went up with an ad shortly after that that said, obama had restricted oil development and said, bad energy policies mean energy prices we can't afford. and the most succinct summation of the originalment was in the title of a book newt gingrich wrote in 2008. "drill here, drill now, pay less". well, on the surface that makes a lot of sense. that is the beauty of a well-crafted distortion. we're all taught that the price of something drops as supply increases, right? so it's, it makes sense but the problem is that this particular argument revolves just around the domestic oil industry and oil is a global

commodity. the u.s. share of that isn't a controlling factor. it's the world market that influences prices. and we had said that lots of times as i'm sure all of you guys had in fact checks every time somebody brought this subject up. but the myth kept being repeated. so we had a science writer in our bureau named seth bornstein who was thinking about, how else could i get at this? how else could i demonstrate the fallacy here? he got together with a, one of our data guys, jack gilliam. and the two of them pulled all the information on gasoline prices at the pump over the last 36 years, which is the, we chose that that's when unleaded gas started. and for that same time period they pulled data on domestic oil production and

jack ran a regression analysis and, to find out what was the relationship between these two data sets. zero. absolutely no correlation between the two. so they, they decided that, so we just did a story, walking readers through this and just for grins they ran the numbers another way and they found that gas prices don't follow any sort of a partisan pattern either. the average gas price since 197 6-under democratic administrations has been $2.25. and under republicans, it was $2.34. so they had a lot, they had a lot of fun with this one. and i guess, the we're still hearing this. no matter how you come at it, it is a lesson we all learn the hard way which

fact-check something not a magic solution or a cure for distortions and untruths. people tend to believe what they want to believe. we all had the experience of one side embracing the fact checks that favor them and calling to complain about the others. so this was another example of that. but, and these kinds of mistakes don't just happen in off-the-cuff situations like an interview on "hannity" or on the stage of a republican primary debate. even in what is probably the most vetted, fly specked, double, triple-checked speech of the year, the state of the union address, dubious statements can creep in. and so in obama's appearance up at the capitol in january he asked congress to help to revive the economy by financing some new construction projects, things that would put people

to work and this is obviously a thing republicans have resisted throughout because of the cost of it. what obama said was, take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. well who could be against that? but the problem is, it is budgetary sleight of hand. you have to remember that the wars were largely financed by borrowing. so stopping wars that were financed by borrowing does not create a new pool of money that you can then go and spend on something else. it just means you will be borrowing less. so, even in, even in a very carefully-crafted message, you could look for wrong assumptions and they're often there. >> thank you, jim. i can't resist the moderator's

prerogative of mentioning a couple of my favorites. you recall when gasoline prices were a bit higher, we are hearing less about gasoline now because the prices are going down as everybody is reminded because no price of any commodity is advertised as extensively as gasoline. letters four feet tall on every corner. so, but when the concern was at its peak --. >> [inaudible]. >> beg pardon? >> because we started drilling last month. >> that's right. but you recall obama was being criticized, tense sievely for not a -- extensively for not approvalling the keystone xl pipeline. the line was, bring in more canadian oil. your gasoline prices will go down. obama is basically propping up gasoline prices by not approving the keystone xl. what this ignores that there are other pipelines that already cross the border between the united states and canada and without the

keystone being constructed, there is about a million barrels a day of excess capacity. the keystone would add to that. it would give transcanada an advantage over some of its competitors but it wouldn't bring a drop of more canadian oil into the united states anytime soon. so that whole line of attack was just based on facts that were not in evidence. on the democratic side we had to tweak the obama white house for their life of julia info graphic, whatever you call that one of the claims they make there that romney's social security proposal would cut julia's social security benefits by as much as 40%. well, if you look at that, what they're talking about is a progressive indexing proposal that would, for

those who are at the upper income levels would basically advance their future social security benefits only in line with inflation rather than peg them to growth of wages and for somebody who is not born yet, 70 years from now, that would result in benefits for upper income people, 40% less than are currently scheduled in law. the problem with that of course is that the white house says nothing about their own proposal which is nothing which will in 21 years, according to the social security trustees, result in a benefit cut across the board of 25% for everybody who is getting social security now or will be getting social security then. and further cuts further on. unless taxes are increased or some new revenue source is found. so we get these distortions

on both sides and it's great fun for us. it is always our busy season but busier, but some are busier than others and we're certainly entering into a busy one now. i want to ask the panelists now, we put all this work in. jim has mentioned that people of course have this natural human tendency to believe what they're going to believe, the hecht heck with the facts. i find out they scratch pretty hard to find facts they believe whether they are true or not. they intend to ignore things right in front of their nose if they conflict with their passionately-held beliefs. we wrestle with that all the time. think for a moment about the behavior of the politicians. what examples can you give me, how much change do we bring about in the behavior of the politicians?

i will give you my example of that, some politicians none. barack obama we wants tweaked for saying he had worked his way through college. this was in the first ad he ran nationally in the 2008 election. we wondered about that. what can he -- did he do to work his way through college. after a while the campaign got back to us. one summer he sold newspaper subscriptions over the phone. another summer he skrooped ice cream. that is not working your way through college. that is working for date money. we came down on them on that. and obama adjusted his rhetoric. after that he said i got through college on hard work and scholarships. about that much changed it made it true. so we laid off of him. but in my experience that is about as much change in behavior of politicians as you're going to get. when they are using

deceptive lines that have utility. and thank you, bill, for bringing up the luntz memo. i think this brings up something i see over and over again. when somebody running for office, the stakes are high. when they have a line that works, the utility, the political utility of a line will trump for them whether it's factual or not just about every time. and both sides i find are very reluctant to give up a false claim or a distorted fact that is working for them politically. republicans, this is just a personal, subjective impression. i want to get your impressions. i find that on the republican side they just tend to keep saying it. democrats on the other hand will sometimes, and bill, i think you can give us some experience on this, push back with indignation that you would question them.

even the term, false equivalence comes up a lot from liberals. i never hear it from republicans. meaning if you criticize a democrat well, you're falsely are implying that our lies are equivalent to their lies that is false. that can't possibly be right. subtle differences in behavior but in my experience i see very little adjustment in behavior. sometimes none. more often none. but how about you guys? bill, what, can you give me any examples of politicians who actually tweaked their rhetoric as a result of being criticized about their facts? >> a couple involving obama. one was a line he was using in the 2008 campaign about gas prices being the highest they ever had been and we gave him a false for that because when you control for inflation they were actually higher in 1981. the next night he started, this was a stock line in his speech and the next line he

started, the next night he started using that line, giving that line differently and making it accurate. we had a case where david axelrod after we called him out for a fact he got wrong on one of the sunday shows, actually tweeted, i misspoke on cnn. politifact rightly called me out for it and included a link to our item. you know, and i think on the medicare, and i haven't studied this in detail but my sense is that the democrats have definitely adjusted their rhetoric on medicare since we, since the big kefuffle over the lie of the year we have not got back to rate some of those claims. i don't know. we have to sort of look at it in the new reality of the new ryan plan which does include this traditional medicare option but i think there has at least been an

adjustment as they try to get it right. under riding it on both sides is the calculation these lines work and if we can succeed in scaring granny with calling it a government takeover of health care or, saying that it ends medicare, then we're going to use that line and i think there is, you know, even as grow and there are more of us, i think there's, and maybe i see tad is here. maybe he can speak to this. there is sort of this calculation. well the fact-checkers are going to raise a little fuss but we'll keep going. >> i don't see much adjustment. what they usually do, it would be the end of medicare as we know it. >> as we know it, right. >> you can change a comma in the current medicare law that ends medicare. those are weasel words that mean nothing. so i wouldn't say that is much of an adjustment. >> no. >> i will move to the other panelists now. glen, what adjustments have

you seen, if any? >> i would agree with you. what i see are subtle changes. tweaking of language. romney i will notice will often just slightly tweak it if, some of his talking points after i have dinged him, and sometimes obama will drop something or slightly adjust it but ultimately if it is a line that works, like, obama apologizing for america, they will just keep using it. in romney's case he is kind of stuck because he called his book, no apologies. it would be particularly noticeable if he suddenly dropped it. we all looked into that claim. there is no evidence to it. it is a four-pinnochio he will say it and you will hear it again in ads. you will see it in his convention speech because even if he ultimately has decided personally, god, i guess i went too far there

he is not going to then they will try to argue very stringently, why think they're right. different matter if you look at old lbj and richard nixon ads that ran in the 60 as. there is the feeling they will have back up what they're saying. but ultimately we're talking about the most important office in the country and the stakes are very high and you're going to possibly throw away the press endidsy

pause you decided that your facts aren't right? you know. >> so not much is what you're saying? >> i think over time, it is a slow process. you know, at the urging of my editors, i actually wrote a piece for outlook called the fact-checker challenge where i challenged both obama and romney to give a 15 minute speech without any factual terrors. it was mostly a device to recap some of my favorites for the last year but, you know, i never expected to hear anything from either campaign and in fact i was right [laughing] they apparently had no interest in following up. >> jim, how about you? >> well there was, the only, the only direct, knowledge of a change made because of something we wrote that i know of came during the

republican primary campaign this year. newt gingrich repeatedly claimed that under his speakership in the house he had achieved four straight balanced budgets. well, two of those actually came after he left office. so he was claiming credit for things that happened under another speaker. >> there was a president at the time. >> there was a president. yeah, that's right. that is the other piece of it. they have all, they're all powerful. so we kept pointing out, we kept pointing that out. fact check affect check, finally one day, in some setting ending about rich told an audience that he had set the conditions for four straight balanced budgets. and he said, and he said, i said that right for the ap fact checkers. close quote. so, but it wasn't a week before he had relapsed before he went back saying it the old way. a similar thing happened

with romney. he said on day one i'm going to get rid of obamacare. he was going to grant waivers to all the states and in an executive order on day one. bless her heart, michele bachmann pointed out the error of that in a debate and said you can't do that. it would require action by congress. you have to do it in reconciliation bill or something. so, later romney said, on day two i'm going to do a reconciliation bill. but, and i, in terms of obama, i've also noticed some, a little bit of tweaking here and there. he used to say all the time, under this new health care law you can keep your doctor. no matter what, period. and we wrote that, well, that is a promise you can't make because employers provide most health care in this country and they can, under conditions change, they can change the plan.

they can drop it all together. and so what obama did was start to say, nothing in this law requires that you change your doctor. >> one thing about newt which i think is kind of interesting because he was, i think an avid reader of the fact-checking columns. because he would talk about them. during one of the debates, in debate with romney he said your ad got four pinnochios. when the king of bain came out and i gave it four pinnochios. when it came out they have to correct the errors in that ad. the fact that he would reference ap fact checkers. >> they will all use us as a club when convenient. a question i'm interested in your views. i personally, i don't think it's our job to change their behavior. if we thought it was at the would be doom to the have our hearts broken as i think the evidence shows.

seems to me our job since politicians are going to do this inevitably and have been doing it for centuries i would argue since the greeks came up with this system, that our job is to give those readers who are interested, and i hope that they're a lot of them, someplace to go to sort through the inevitable distortions and confusion that -- i don't view the politicians as my audience or or judge our work by how much we change their behavior. i think we, we ought to apply a different metric. do you disagree, any of you? >> i would say that, i mean, my hope is actually you know, we change voter behavior. that voters are, become more knowledgeable, more adept at being able to figure out when a politician is spinning them or not. being able to be a sophisticated consumer of, of, of political ads and

political themes. and therefore, the next time they see an ad where granny is thrown off the cliff, it's not as effective because they say, oh, you know, i read about that thing in politifact or somewhere else and i know that is not true so i don't have to pay attention to it. ultimately if you change voter behavior, then politicians ultimately would have to respond to that. but, you know, obviously our readers are our audience and i get every day, a day does not pass without and the e-mail from a reader thanking me for shedding new light. one e-mail amidst of five say i'm a right-wing hack and the five that say i'm a left-wing stooge. >> you live for those. the ones in the middle. >> i totally agree. i think our role is, is the role of the journalist. we are to empower democracy

and we'll give people the information and they can use it in making the decisions that they're making in that democracy. >> well we were asked to come up with predictions for the course of, for the remainder of the campaign. i can sum it up in four words from my view. more of the same. what do you think. what will we see in terms of deceptive or false claims for the remainder the campaign? >> i think we're going to see a lot of real specious connecting the dots. what we've seen particularly from the democratic side where romney has not explained much of his plan. if you go to his website, it is pretty skimpy on specifics. so what democrats have done, well, he supports the ryan budget and the ryan budget would allow blank terrible thing to occur and from that

they make these tremendous inferences of what might happen. and i really, in many cases we've been giving falses and mostly falses to these claims because the specifics just aren't there. and so, that's one theme. the other theme i think we're seeing and we'll see a lot of is is just, they have their lines down. they have their talking points and those talking points are getting repeated not just by the candidates and the candidate committees but by the pacs, by the parties, by the super pacs, by the c-4s, by everybody. you know as jon stewart and stephen colbert have shown so iaea effectively you can coordinate without coordinating. these lines get used again and again. we were fact-checking chamber of commerce ads last week airing down in florida

and it is the same lines we're hearing from the republican campaigns that we're hearing from the republican super pacs about what medicare would do to granny. so i think those talking points we're just going to hear them over and oaf again. >> well, i would just say there's a follow in the -- a poll in the post today which shows how incredibly close this election is going to be. and i don't think the dynamic is going to change at all. so you, the stakes will get higher and higher. there will be virtually no money available for positive ads on either side because they will be spending so much time tearing each other down. obama had such a advantage, money advantage over mccain four years ago that he was able to run just as many negative ads as mccain but still have one-third of his ads be positive. that is not going to happen this time. particularly all the money

going into super pacs who are not known at all for running positive ads, i think you by the time november comes around, it will be the most nasty, brutish campaign in american history and we won't know who the winner is until very, very late at night. >> i would agree with everything that has been said here about the repetition. i think we'll see a lot of that especially to the extent that the economy continues to be the issue. also about the super pacs. i think they're, they have boundless capacity for this. only place we might hear something new is if subject matter changes. i mean you can have dis, to on subjects that we haven't talked about much yet like foreign policy. and i think the obama administration has a 10 on didsy to take, to put an overly rosy gloss sometimes on the situation in afghanistan.

so, we may see more of that or if the middle east, iran, we may see things that we'll have to bring in. one of the things we like to do in our bureau is to have, we don't have designated fact checkers so much as we have beat reporters we enlist. so we bring in our subject matter experts to look at these things and we'll be doing that. if the subject de jure sort of shifts. then one thing we haven't mentioned yet, to the extent we hear from joe biden we're going to have a lot of fun. he just recently said that, the raid to get bin laden was the most audacious act in the last 500 years. and we just wrote a little piece saying, d-day? pearl harbor? 9/11? whatever. anyway. >> now that michele bachmann is gone, we still have joe

and -- >> that's right. >> when he started talking about crime in flint, michigan, if you, if what he said one, one forum was true or borderline, you just had to wait about 20 minutes and suddenly the statistics were changing and things were getting more out of line. i think we had him in about three different misstatements of fact in three different forums, the crime rate in flint, michigan. we are just about out of time. do we have time for a request from the awed -- a question from the audience? i guess we don't. we have one minute. i will turn it back over to kathleen so we can stay on schedule. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> if one of the goals of the fact-checking process is increasing the likelihood that the candidates change

their behavior i think we're hearing that that doesn't happen very often. i think however the panelists have not taken credit for something they deserve credit for, at least partial credit. the claim that romney had produced 100,000 jobs net-net, i think was effectively backed off by the fact-checking process. it was glenn i believe in the "washington post" who commented as a result governor romney had crafted the most carefully nuanced statement to make his claim accurate but ultimately the bottom line was, thousands of jobs and now, the claim appears to be, that he could claim larger numbers across the life of a companies he helped start at the beginning, et cetera, et cetera. i think that is a significant claim. i think the back-off is important. i think other republican candidates contributed to it but i think the fact that all of the fact checkers looked at it carefully and said the evidence didn't support that as a net-net claim played some role. the model that the fact-checking process he had

indicates the electorate provides one model. i want to make another case for it. it provides a basis when local station managers when they receive third party ads to identify ads being distorted in ads assuming the distortions are really clear-cut so this isn't a gray area for local station managers. factcheck.org set up a process for local viewers to contact station managers to insist on accuracy of third-party ads and to urge them also to fact check ads aired in their market, political ads aired in their market online and on air. one of the things that should make that process easier is the existence of these fact-checking organizations the fact that in politics claims do tend to be repeated because they have been repeated and poll tested and they work. as a result, factcheck.org set up a deception log for station managers that is summarizing the fact-checking and linking to

it the major fact-checking groups hoping when the stations get these third party ads they will see what has been fact checked and make their own judgement whether it is a clear-cut deception or not. we also put on line a faq sheet for the stand by your ads station process. and we'll talk about challenges stations face dealing with third party ads and political advertising in the next panel. we also think it will be easier for viewers to be protected from deception if they recognize the underlying patterns of deception and hens aren't expected to hold every fact in mind and on issue consequential recognize a pattern that tends to be tied to a deceptive inference and as a result go to the fact checkers to see what they have said. you're seeing on the screen a rotating video that unares on the site shows some patterns of deception and our hope is over time people will come to recognize when you see one of these, perhaps you do want to go check the facts if you care about that as an issue.

we also think that potentially there is a role for the positive incentive of viewers to thank stations when they're doing a good job and there are stations that are doing a really great job and they do it routinely. so instead of just focusing on improving things, we would also like to praise those who really help make the democratic process work. the local stations are a first line of defense against air pollution in an environment in which most of these ads are not going to be aired nationally. if they're going to be aired nationally likely in news, not in paid time. as a result these decisions at local level that ultimately act as protection for the electorate in two ways. insisting on accuracy of third party ads before they air them in clear-cut cases and fact-checking on air and online. as a result to honor brooks jackson who founded factcheck.org at the annenberg public policy center and who will be stepping down as his role as director of factcheck.org to be our director emeritus, we

hope in perpetuity we're establishing the cronkite jackson award given jointly with our sister school at usc. we'll honor the network broadcast or cable, that does the best job overall of fact-checking presidential ads in this election season. we hope that increases the likelihood that that kind of behavior will be emulated in other places and we'll also give a second cronkite jackson award to the best local broadcast station for its fact checking of political ads in its market. we'll try to broadly distribute the fact that these awards are available and we hope that the industry will submit the best many kpa peltz so that we can phrase what is good as we try to encourage everything else to be improved. with that i would like to introduce ken winnig who will report on results of study we did to try to find out what station practices are. we did this to set up the

questions for our next two panels. ken is our director of surveys. dr. winnig. >> thank you very much, kathleen. good morning, everybody. hear is the powerpoint. okay. next on sequence. you can start with the first slide. better understand how local broadcast stations deal with third-party ads and fact checking of news and online we surveyed with the help of princeton survey research 206 local broadcast television station managers and executives from march 26th, to may 15th, 2012, online and by elf it. the 206 included those responsible for stations under corporate ownership and those owned by local, owned locally. because this was an opt-in sample, a non-random sample

we don't know whether the 206 are representative of practices of broadcast stations in general but are focus -- our focus is on the consistency or variability of practices among these 206 managers and their understanding of the fcc regulations governing the airing of various forms of political ads. next slide please. so we found wide variability in the understanding of federal regulations and we found differences in treatment of third party political ads, number that engage in ad watching or programming on news shows that talk about different fact-checking. and we found differences in the treatment of product advertising and political advertising by the stations in general. next slide please. so turning to regulations among those who we asked about federal regulations, we found a range of

understanding of the differences between regulations regarding ads for federal office candidates in which the candidate appears in the ad and the state office candidates in which the candidate appears. what we see 24% say the regulations concerning the broadcasting of political ads by candidates for state office are the same as fcc regulations for candidates for federal office. they are not. 28% say that the regulations governing the broadcasting of these ads by candidates for state office are different from the fcc regulations governing federal ads. and 34% say some of the regulations are the same and some of the regulations are different. next slide please. further, station managers and executives differ in ways in which the stations treated political ads by

candidates for federal and state office. for example 74% of the station managers said ads run by candidate for federal office in which the candidate appears must be run as presented. that means no edits, no suggestions for cuts but must be run as presented to the stations. 54% say that ads run by a candidate for state office in which the candidate appears must be run as presented. so there is that difference between the two. but on the federal side, 12% said stations can edit or suggest edits for ads run by condition dates for federal office. our next panel we'll find out what the true regulation is but we see these numbers. next slide please. turning it third party ads we found variability in the treatment of third party ads while most report airing

third party ads, around 77% of those interviewed and about half say they were aired, that the stations aired at least one-third party ad in the past 12 months. some reports screening, doing actual screening for accuracy before airing and some do not. 56% take some steps to evaluate or assess the accuracy of the content and in terms of deciding, 74% make decisions about airing third party ads at the station level while 17% say it is done at the corporate level. next slide please. focusing on ad watches, that is, that the airing of reports of third party ad fact checking, among station managers who run third party ads and have news divisions, not all do, most report engaging in very little ad watching or reporting on ad watches on their programs. you look at these, 19%, the top two here say they report

where there is deception in third-party ads broadcast on their stations most of the time, almost every time or every time. 27% only do it for some of the deceptive ads that are broadcast on their stations and these bottom two, 35%, hardly ever or never report any ad watches about the deceptions of the third party ads that they broadcast. next slide please. so, overall, response indicate that product ads are subject to greater scrutiny than third party political ads. of the 206 that we spoke with, 83% do some screening to decide whether or not to air product ads. as mentioned before, 56% do many so screening for third party ads. next please. so, in terms of refusing or rejecting, there is more

scrutiny of product ads here. 84% say they ever rejected a product ad. only 32% say they rejected or refused to air a third party ad. 7% rejected a political federal ad or a an ad by a federal candidate for office. what we're hoping the next two panels will help us understand or better understand the variability we find in these results. thank you. [applause] >> coming up live on c-span2, lessons learned for the bin laden documents in the raid in pakistan. we'll learn from a classified report detailing future and history of al qaeda. that is live from the new america foundation, starting at 12:15 eastern on c-span it 2. . .

. . >> at 9:10, "the man without a face," and at 10:05 p.m., peter popham talks about burmese politics in "the lady and the peacock." it's booktv in prime time all this week here on c-span2. >> spend the weekend in wichita, kansas, with booktv and american history tv saturday at noon eastern.

literary life with booktv on c-span2. robert weems on american presidents and black entrepreneurs from "business in plaque and white," and deb fist farny in, the barn stormer and the lady. and sunday at 5 p.m. eastern on american history tv, experience early plains life at the old cow town museum. the early days of flight at the kansas aviation museum.hh also two participants from the kansas civil rights movement. in 1958 they sat down for service at the dockham drugstore. once a month c-span's local content vehicles explore the history and literary life of cities across america, this weekend from wichita, kansas, on c-span2 and 3. [applause] >> tennis champion billie jean king discussed equal opportunity and pay for women athletes here in washington. she also described how tennis could help address the obesity

problem in america. she answered questions on the future of women's professional sports and empowering young girls to play tennis. this is about an hour. >> did you guys decide what the menu was going to be today or what? [laughter] also want to thank andrew price and all our servers for being so kind to us and taking good care of us. it means a lot. it's a pleasure to be here today. do you realize i've never spoken here in and i'm 68. it's never too late. [laughter] so i'm really happy to be here, and thanks, teresa, and thanks to the national press club and all the officers, the board of governors and the members of the npc speakers' committee for having me. i am thrilled to be here because i've certainly watched enough people speak here, so thank you. to john vigosin who was already introduced by teresa, our chairman and president of the usta and everyone at the usta. we have got a lot of people from

the usta today. we're covered, man, i love it. [laughter] also our midatlantic section. where are they? are they here today at all? that's too bad. where are they? i thought they were going to be here. anyway, just so you know, the usta is our national governing body of ten thinks, and there's 17 geographical sections just so you understand, and we happen to be in the midatlantic section of those 17 sections. and the states are virginia, west virginia, maryland and, obviously, the district of columbia just so we are very clear on anybody that's not familiar with our sport. i think it's important you know that. i also would like to thank kurt cafferman who is the ceo of community tennis, and just about everything i'll be talking about today comes under his leadership. so why don't you stand up, kurt? thank you. [applause] he's a heck of an athlete, too, believe me.

to all the board of directors who are here from the usta, i really appreciate you being here. also the two people who probably helped me the most to get prepared today are barry ford who's director of advocacy today. i don't know where barry is, but be i want to thank him. there he is. please stand. [applause] and also to derek johnson who's director of corporate communications. [applause] where are you? thank you. and thank you, whit. many of you know me as a tennis player, i guess. some of you know i'm a social activist. but i come to you today as one of my proudest achievements. i'm one of over 27 million recreational tennis players. [laughter] in fact, according to the sporting goods manufacturers' association, tennis has been the fastest-growing traditional sport since the year 2000. we currently have over 800,000

adult league participants from 18 to 88. whew, i just made it. [laughter] and that is just adults. as you know, tennis has, obviously, been a huge part of my life. it's changed my whole life. i was blessed to have a great career. i wish i'd won more. [laughter] but more importantly, tennis has given me my platform, my platform to continue my lifelong quest for equal rights and opportunities for boys and girls, men and women. since i was 12 years old, i had an epiphany, and i promised i would dedicate my life to that goal until the day i die. and thanks to tennis, i was able to have a platform. and can thank you, bobby riggs, that also gave me a huge

platform. [laughter] for several years many of you in this room have been, you know, encouraging people to pick up a racquet. but why? because tennis is a sport of a lifetime. and it can be enjoyed by people of all ages and all abilities. the usta invests 100%, 100% of the proceeds from the u.s. open towards their mission. so when you come to the open, if you buy a ticket, you're helping community tennis. and the mission statement is to promote and develop the growth of tennis. in 2011, just last year, the usta informed over -- invested over 49 million, that's almost $50 million, for public courts, scholarships, programs and grants. that's a lot.

most national governing bodies don't do that. they usually are always asking for money. [laughter] so the usta's almost 50 million, of course, the u.s. open keeps growing, so who knows what 2012 will bring. recently somebody asked me to name a huge turning point in my life. well, there's a lot. if you look at -- think about your own lives and think about your turning points in your life. you never know how a person's going to touch your life or how you're going to touch theirs. you never know. so stay alert. [laughter] well, let's go back to rewind. fifth grade, elementary school in many long beach, california, where i was born and raised. susan williams sitting next to me. thank god her father had just been transferred from new york for his job. she looks at me and says, do you want to play tennis? i look at her, and i go, what's

tennis? [laughter] now, remember, i played every other -- like, tons of team sports before that. she said, well -- i said, what do you do? she said, you get to run, and you get to jump, and you get to hit a ball. i said, those are my three most favorite things in sports! i'm there, i'll try it, let's go! so we go over to her country club -- [laughter] and we play. and i come home, and i had fun. i thought, well, i guess i'll get to play if susan takes me to the club. well, we also were on a softball team. at the softball practice, our coach say -- susan says, you know, billie jean went out and played tennis. and i said, well, she'd call it that. he says, you know, they give free instruction every week here at the park. i heard the word "free." what? whoa. now there might be an opportunity for me to play more. so i go out, and i'm on the court with clyde walker.

i'll never forget this day as long as i live. because at the end of that day i knew, i found out what i was going to do with my life. i wanted to be the number one tennis player in the world. done. my poor mother, she picked -- she picks me up. hi, honey, did you have fun? mom, i found what i wanted to do with my life. well, my mother is going to be 90 in about two weeks, and she still remembers that day. [applause] and we still always have a good old laugh over it. he says, you're still going. what's going on here? [laughter] so she's funny because she didn't really care. and my younger brother, randy moffett, was the relief pitcher most of his career with the san francisco giants. good righty, good slider if you're into baseball at all in the room. that's my baby brother. my poor participants, they didn't care if we were any good,

but here's what happened -- [laughter] most people think tennis is only played in clubs. i meet people all the time who think, oh, it's a country club sport. i go, excuse me? excuse me? i don't think so. over 70% of tennis is played on public parks. in public parks. and i'm one of those kids. like i said, i'm a public park kid. let me just name a few, just a few of the past champions. when i mean champions, i mean number one in the world that come from the public parks. just to kind of, like, this'll refresh your memory. i think you've heard of arthur ashe who was number one in the world. chris evert, stan smith was number one in the world, jimmy connors, serena williams, venus williams -- just to give you a few of the champions who have come from public parks. because everyone's initial reaction, they think we came from a club. it's not true.

public parks. i'm happy to say that the usta is investing in public parks and schools by helping to build and refurbish courts and providing programs in countless communities throughout the country. these tennis facilities have become safe and fun community hubs. in the past six years, the organization has built or refurbished 25,000 courts in the u.s., and we hope by the end of this year, hope that we've completed 30,000. so things just keep rolling along. it's great. [applause] also the usta's very focused. in fact, the entire community is focused on this 10 and under tennis initiative that's just gotten started the last, what, three, four years. and this initiative is going to help fight childhood obesity which we all know is epidemic in

this country. and we're going to get kids active. we know at the women's sports foundation that if a girl does not exercise by the time she's 10 years old, she only has a 10% chance to exercise the rest of her life. so this 10 and under initiative is vital to help that. because not only do we want to get them started, we want to keep them going forever. the great thing about the 10 and under initiative is everything's smaller. the courts are smaller, the racquets are smaller. but the balls are actually bigger. [laughter] this is good, this is good! i'll tell you why. okay, here's what happens with a regular tennis ball en a child plays. i use the gavel can. i have a racquet, but i'll use the gavel. no, this is more fun. i feel really authoritative

here. anyway, okay, so when the children play with the regular ball, they're hitting all their shots up here. they get all these goofy grips, and as they grow older and taller, everything's not quite right. what happens with these balls because they're slower, and they bounce a little lower, they're around their center of gravity, and that's the strike zone. if you played baseball, you know where that is. that is where you want it. it's the sweet spot where your point of contact, when you hit the ball. and that really helps. it makes such a difference. you would not believe the success that these children have in hitting the ball back and forth in a long rally. that never happens usually. they're whiffing at the air, they go back to the fence, they grab the ball, okay, that's fun. this way it's fun, and they're going to stick to it. is and do you know what? what's good for the kids is good for us mature people. aarp, are you listening? all right, this is good. because i qualify. this helps us, too, we don't

have as much space to cover, the ball's a little slower, i like it, it's good. [laughter] so guess what? this keeps everybody playing forever. [laughter] it's great. first time i tried it before i had my knee -- my last two knee operations with my knee replacement, i went out and tried it. i go, this is for me, baby. i got a chance to really -- this is fun. and i could play with the kids that way too. it makes it really fun. and that way you get a lot of generations together. it's really fun. i love it. the great thing about tennis, too, it's an individual sport, and it's a team sport. you've got choices. another great thing is both genders, both boys and girls, men and women play it a lot. and i'm talking about from the grassroots to the professional. not a lot of sports can say that. we don't have an nfl for the women. we don't have major league baseball for women. if you want me to keep going, i can keep going, okay? [laughter] so i want you to think about how great tennis is as a sport.

it takes care of all of us, and i love that fact. and today i want to introduce mark ainz who's the owner -- stand up, please. [applause] of the washington capitals which is one of our world team tennis teams, that's what i do with my life. mark has really gotten behind this 10 and under initiative, so has the city open that comes up after on the u.s. open series. every, every -- i know that, i know you guys do it, king of the castles or something play day with this 10 and under initiative. i mean, everyone's getting behind it. and i think it's so important. all of our teams, all of their professional tournaments all have gotten behind this 10 and under initiative. if you go to a tournament, if you go to the castles match, you're going to see kids running around playing on these smaller courts with the smaller racquets and the balls, okay? it's so much fun to watch the kids.

so so far we've done about, what, 5,000 kids' courts. and we're making tennis accessible in tighter areas like urban areas. you can have it any place. basketball court, in the street. it doesn't matter. put it up, get 'em playing, it doesn't matter. don't get too fancy on it. but none of these opportunities, none of these opportunities would happen without the tens of thousands of volunteers that love our sport so much. and i want to really thank the volunteers. lucy garvin, who's here, third woman president -- do i have that right? third woman president of usta. you know what i'm talking about. you're great with the sections, you know? dale knows. i mean, all -- it's so important to really honor our volunteers because without them, it doesn't happen. every section has it. every community tennis association, everybody. the usta's school program --

we're also an after school program -- we've reached one million elementary school kids just last year alone. also, we also have the national junior tennis and learning network which was co-founded by arthur ashe, charlie passerel, and we have over 650 chapters in the united states, nationwide. by the way -- sidebar -- arthur ashe and charlie passerel were roommates at ucla, and they played on the men's tennis team there. fyi. they're my era, so i know. [laughter] and the njtl provides tennis, educational opportunities, and they also help train the children in life skills. and that's over 250,000 underserved youth per year. it's fantastic, what they're doing. story: trenton, new jersey, that

chapter there, i think david haggerty, the first vice president's dad, was real involved in the park where they played. michelle belama -- no, not michelle obama -- began playing with the njtl of trenton during her sophomore year of high school. which is pretty late. michelle became an instructor and leader for the njtl of trenton. she received a four-year scholarship from the njtl and attended drew university. she was named all-conference champion and was the most decorated female tennis player at drew. michelle's family emigrated from africa, and she was the first family member to attend college. what a turning point for michelle. to have that opportunity. you never know.

since 1994 usta serves -- which is the charitable arm of the usta -- has provided over $10 million in funding for tennis and education programs in over 172 communities in 43 states. deborah larkin, the executive director, is here today. she's fantastic, i've known her forever. she's a tennis nut. [laughter] she plays usta leagues, and i've known her for many years, a dear friend who's done a great job as executive director. she's a go-getter. she is perfect for that job. in just the past few years, just started in '03, they've provided over $3 million in college scholarships. another very important area is they have funded hundreds of adaptive tennis programs that allow people with disabilities to enjoy tennis. we're covering everything, man, we've got it.

get those checks out. we're checking off everyone. ooh, those little boxes, you know? [laughter] oh, wait, i'm finished. sorry. more to come. the usta has a military outreach program. they have programs that support more than 100,000 of our military and their families at home and abroad. this includes helping in providing tennis facilities and programming on bases throughout the u.s. and other initiatives. like adopt a unit. which provides tennis equipment to deployed forces so they can enjoy the sport in the precious down time that they have. i know that our first lady, michelle obama, and dr. jill biden would be absolutely thrilled to know this, and if they don't know it already, they will know soon. because i'm very fortunate to be on the president's council for fitness, sports and nutrition.

i don't know if shelley foals' is still here, but she's my boss, executive director. she's fantastic. like the u.s. army staff sergeant andy markswamnow, i got that wrong, he is from shell beach, california. while stationed in southwestern afghanistan, the usta sent a tennis care package that included nets, racquets, balls and instructional information. andy and his fellow soldiers made a court on flattened mud and gravel -- that's what i told you, it'll go any place -- and they set it up, and they bang the ball around. i hope it relieves some of their stress. i cannot imagine. isn't it great you take a racquet and you just smack the ball? [laughter] youyou know what? you don't hurt anybody. i know psychotherapists say it's very good therapy, but you don't

hurt anybody. [laughter] it's fantastic, and you feel so much better afterwards. we want tennis to make a positive difference in the lives of others. the usta contingent is here this week to reach out to our national policymakers in hopes of developing partnerships that can impact more communities and lives. we want to insure that every child has an opportunity to get the best education possible. we want to partner with communities across the country to create safe, healthy communities for everyone. the usta is more committed than ever to make tennis more accessible. our goal is simple. to grow tennis and make it look like america. that's good. let's go to q&a. aha. [applause]

>> thank you. and before we get started on the q&a, i inadd very cheptly -- inadvertently left out sean mayo who is a board member of usta, so thank you. [applause] it's the 40th anniversary of title ix. do you think it's still needed, and if so, should it be changed or expanded and how? >> well, it's the 40th anniversary. it was passed june 23, 1972. one of my sheroes is -- [laughter] ms. green, congressman green of oregon. she's no longer with us. but it was her idea. she was called the mother of education. um, and then the other person who's one of my heroes is senator birch bayh who was in the senate and introduced the bill. these people were fantastic. patsy mink from hawaii,

fantastic. he was the first person -- she was the first person of color that was in congress. first female, i think. i don't know, i think it's female. god, i usually have this right, i'm having a -- i'm not going to call it a senior moment. [laughter] no. it's a brain cramp. [laughter] i ask kids when they're 21, what do you call it when you don't remember something? they go, what do you mean? i say, do you remember everything? absolutely not. what do you guys call it? they're absolutely stumped. as far as title ix, it wasn't about sports. that's how it was originated. sports was a last minute thought. before 1972 the quotas at the harvards of the world were 5% if you wanted to be a woman doctor

or lawyer, okay? these are our forward-thinking educators. a woman could not get an athletic scholarship million the fall of 1972, and there weren't very many. i can tell you there was hardly any because a lot of schools resisted on changing the law. as far as title ix, women are still 168 million behind every year in scholarships and opportunities. so when you hear -- when you read the sports section, you'll think we're terrible because we're hurting the football programs, we're hurting the men's sports. believe me, both men's and women's sports are being dropped from certain universities and colleges. and the one thing i keep telling the athletic directors, do not get rid of tennis, men's or women's, because we are a lifetime sport, and we have obesity in this country, and we should be encouraging lifetime sports in our universities if we're going to have a healthy nation. because we are putting our nation at, actually, security risk because in the military

they're having a hard time passing the tests. they go to preboot camp to go to boot camp now, okay? so we have got to make this nation strong mentally, emotionally and physically, and keep tennis in the universities and colleges. [applause] but, i get a little wound up. >> since we're on the topic of obesity, computer games and information technology, what else do you think could be done to change behaviors so that people just get out and move? >> well, it's interesting because just two weeks ago our president's council just joined forces with -- yeah, we did, we joined forces with the entertainment software association which is video games. and if you know, there are a few games where you actually have to be active like dance dance revolution. a lot of people don't want to do sports, but they'll do that. great. just get moving. that's a all that matters. our first hatety's let's move

campaign. and we're going to do many more interactive video games. but the average screen time is 7-8 hours a day. a nettic. so we know that's -- pathetic. can be television, computer, phones. just make sure you have the top of your hair all dyed if you have hair up there because everyone sees the top of your head now. [laughter] so anyway, so anyway, i'm in an el seater, and everybody's on their phone be. i'm going, whoa, yeah, baby. [laughter] so anyway, i'm very nervous. anyway, it's very important that we get people outside. we need play time. we know even if for one minute, if you make children move in the classroom for one minute to music, boom, boom, move your arms, move your legs, sitting on a chair, okay? get your circulation going. there's a little kid who -- he likes recess because he gets the wigglies out. i said, do you do better when you go back in the classroom?

yeah, yes, i -- yes, i can focus. i said, folk, that's a pretty good word. but they're so cute, man. kids get it. so we've got to get 'em out. so it's nutrition, we've got to find ways to get our kids moving. but, you know, as a parent or a caregiver, whoever's taking care of children, we've got to set the example. we have to live it. we can't just tell them what to do because they watch our actions. they don't listen to what we say. [laughter] so if we're walking, take a walk with a child, or maybe the child will take a walk with you. sometimes children change adults. so you never know. but obesity is going to be a bigger cause of death and health challenges than smoking, okay? it's done now, it's done. so beastie is -- obesity is our main challenge because of diabetes and heart disease and all the things that are happening, so we really need to help each other and be active. it's not going to be easy. parents, teachers, everybody, coaches, we've got to do it.

it's preventable. it's preventable, so we can do this as a nation. we can do this. sorry. getting wound up. [laughter] >> does the current generation of athletes understand the challenges that you faced? >> well, you know, every generation has a different frame of reference. so in all fairness, i always try to think of a person's age and what their frame of reference must be. when i grew up, it was amateur tennis, and we made $14 a day. one of my first sheroes was althea gibson, the first person of color to win anything because people of color weren't even allowed to play in sanctioned tournaments until 1950. that wasn't that long ago. so i was very fortunate as a 13-year-old to see althea gibson in person in los angeles and got to watch her: and that changed my life, too, because i'd only been in the game for two years. so it's, it's important to really understand each person's

generation and where they come from. i don't think they understand, i don't expect them to understand, but i can tell you there's nine of us that just got together for a reunion, we're called the original nine, and we started women's professional tennis. that's not the way i wanted it. i wanted the men and women to be together, and can they rejected us. so i went to plan b, and we started ourself. and we're very fortunate that we signed a $1 contract with gladys hellman in houston, texas, in 1970. and that was the birth of women's professional tennis the way you know it today. now, do i expect maria sharapova or venus or serena to understand that? we can tell them, and they do have a sense of history, they're very good. but they didn't live it. just like i'm not living with the pressures that they deal with. they're very different. look at the money management they need to do. [laughter] i would like to have that challenge, i must tell you!

[laughter] because i love money because it creates opportunities. of i'm not very high maintenance, so i've been giving it away, most of it, but it's fun to make money and create opportunities for people. [laughter] no, there's different pressures. they're much better players than we've ever dreamed -- if i could hit one shot like they do today, that would be just a fantastic feeling. so everyone's different. but i must tell you with the wta, the women's tennis association, we have these mentoring classes all the time. so we're very connected to the generations. my generation spent an enormous amount of time with chris evert and martina navratilova to mentor them and help them, and we ask them to keep doing it each generation, and we do try to connect the generations, and they do know about the past history, because they're taught the past history. katrina adams is on the board of directors of the usta, but she went to northwestern, she want the ncaas in '87 with diane

stone who's, actually, my assistant which is really funny. but, you know, it's just amazing what each generation gives. and we do stand on the shoulders of the generations before us. we just do. and so i'm very thankful to the althea gibsons and the other guys around that time, too, that were very good to me. so we just have to -- yeah, we're all in this together. we earn this together, so we have to help each other. >> what do you think has been the biggest change in tennis in the past 20 years? >> oh, 20, that's not very long ago. well, i think it's been a evolution of equipment change. i mean, this racquet -- can i -- i'm going to mess up my signature, sorry. it's really light. this is like my security blanket. like linus in when i got my

first racquet, i told my dad, you know, i want to play tennis. he said, great, show me. so i went around to all the neighbors and begged them to give me a job. then when i had $8.29 saved in a mason jar up in the cupboard, i said, mommy, daddy, i can't wait any longer. i went to browns sporting goods, and i got my first racquet. and the salesperson said, well, what kind do you want? i said, what does $8.29 buy? [laughter] so i got it because i loved the color. purple's my favorite color. lavender, violates all of those -- violets, all of those are my favorite. and i would sleep with my racquet every night, and i would dream about winning anding with number one. [laughter] so when i see this racquet i'm, like, oh, i love it, i love it. [laughter] just like linus, you know, with your blankie? that's how i am with a tennis racquet. when i see a racquet.

but the biggest thing is the materials in the racquet. they're so light. my wood b racquet was 13 and three-quarter ounces. oh, my god -- nobody plays -- well, maybe fedderrer. sampras' was pretty hefty when he played. but the aerodynamics are great. the sweet spot be's a lot bigger. i can go on and on. and now they've got this string. all the pros are talking about the string they use, that's all they talk about. oh, it's got little sharp things in the strings, so the spins take more. like, if you see nadal hit that forehand spin, the reason it takes -- everything's exaggerated. the slice is exaggerated, the topspin's exaggerated, and they have the control that we never would have had. with our little -- our sweet spot was about this big on our racquets, and the racquet looks like a little badminton racquet now. so cute. [laughter] so, and the athletes, let's face it, the training, the

nutritional -- all the information available and how to train is so much better. it's much more dynamic. you know, the kinetic linkage that they use when they hit. we were taught to be very static. i mean, it is totally -- it has totally evolved into, that's why i say if i could just hit one like the kids hit today, it would just be, wow. i tell them that all the time. every generation just gets better, okay? and if you're an older person and you keep talking about the glory days, that's fine, but the kids are better. [laughter] >> do you agree with john mcenroe that the pros should go back to wooden racquets as a way to bring variety, strategy and subtlety back to the game? [laughter] >> well, john just described his game. [laughter] because he's actually a genius, okay? he had the best hands, i think, of anybody and had the greatest touch. and i love the way his mind works. now, he still plays every day. he's crazy, man.

he's, i mean, he's out on the court. he's in better shape now than when he played. i mean, he'll tell you. do you notice how much thinner he is? the only thing that kept him going when he played was doubles, you know? because he played doubles so much, that kept him sharp. the year he stopped playing doubles, i said it -- i said, he's in trouble. sure enough. because that's where he got his practice. i mean, it kept him sharp. so that would be nice. i don't know about the environmentalists, if they like the wood idea, but it's different. and sometimes, occasionally, they have tournaments with some of the older players with wooden racquets. it's pretty -- there are not too many left. it's getting scarce. scarce both ways. sorry. >> are you satisfied with the level of pay today in women's tennis compare today that on the men's tour, and are there other

outstanding equality issues? >> i bet you guys aren't used to these questions, are you? because men -- there's so many men in sports, it's really their bastion. it's kind of weird. we started talking about the girls. but, um, we are very fortunate to have equal prize in the majors. the u.s. open was the first by many, many years. the difference happened in 1968, it was the first year we got money. you know how we see it today, we get money, checks? before that we were amateurs, so 1968 is the beginning of what we call open or modern tennis, okay? you'll now know what that actually means. it means it started in 1968 where we got paid. and i won wimbledon, and ron labor won wimbledon, and he got a check, and i thought, oh, no. i just thought we'd both get our little check, and everybody would be happy. was i clueless or what?

so in the back of my mind i said, okay, that's going to be another challenge. another one. i'm thinking, jeez, does this ever stop? so over the years we just behind the scenes kept after the others. the australians came around, and then they backed off again, and then i must tell you venus williams stepped up, and she did make a difference. she was willing to go to meetings behind the scenes, she was willing to do a lot of things and put her name, put herself on the line. and most players have a really hard time with doing that. so i take my hat off to venus. in 2007 majors gave us equal money. there's still a lot more money in men's tennis, they have more opportunity. some of it's cultural. but usually it's because of the old boy network usually takes care of each other more than the girls. but let's face it, men's tennis right now has three players that are extraordinary; federer, joke

slip and nadal. and they're extraordinary. the women right now can't decide who's number one. but that's great competition. you know, it's funny with the media, they always complain no the matter which way you go. if there's a rivalry going on, they say, oh, the rest of the competition's no good. and then if you don't have a rivalry like in the women's tennis right now, what's wrong with that? there's no rivalries. so we have, as a player i've seen so many generations of this. i think it's amusing to listen. so things go in cycles. but right now you'll never see three players, i don't think ever again in the history, they're real exceptional human beings and athletes. so, but the women, there's lots of competition to decide who's going to be number one. we don't know, which is kind of interesting to me too. whereas i kind of know the top three are going to be up there with the guys. but we have, we always have a long way to go. but the wonderful thing about equal prize money, it's not about the money, it's about the

message. you want to empower every human being, boy or girl, to be the best he or she can be. and everybody, everyone should not be discounted. no person should be discounted for anything. so it's very important that we help each other. doing the right thing. if you -- i must tell you, men come up to me in their 40s and 50s today, a lot of times with tears in their eyes. and they say how much that match when i played king -- i mean, when i played king? when i played bobby riggs, how that changed their whole perception. and now they have a daughter and how hey going to raise her -- how they're going to raise her. they insist that their boys and girls, their sons and daughters have equal opportunity and equal, equal, equal. and they point to that that mat, and they'll say, i saw that when i was 10 years old, 12 years old. that changed my life in how i've raised my boys. president obama's told me the story too. so it's amazing how these men are the first generation of men,

of the women's movement. [laughter] okay? they are. so if you're in your 40s or 50s, little 60s there -- [laughter] you are the first generation of men of the women's movement. >> you were recently awarded the presidential medical of freedom. what is the single most important thing president obama could do to address the continuing gender inequities? [laughter] >> oh, my goodness. well, he's been trying with the fair pay act and all the different things that are going on. but we really need people to do it. not just leadership. each one of us, every single human being is an influencer. every single one of you in this room, everyone who hears these words, each and every one of us is an influencer. how are you influencing? that women don't get paid 77

cents on the dollar? it's very hard for when some, when you're in power to give up some of that power. it's very hard. if you're the dominant group, you know very little about subdominant groups. the subdominant groups know a lot about the dominant groups. [laughter] because they've got to bob and weave. the subdominant groups have got to bob and weave. they've got to survive, and they've got to know a lot. about the dominant group. that's why it's important the dominant group knows a lot about the subdominant groups. and we've got to, you know, you have to give it up if you're a dominant group. be inclusive. that's what it's all about. advocate for each of us. it doesn't matter our gender, our sexual orientation. it doesn't matter. disabilities, it doesn't matter. help each other. it's a amazing how everyone wants to be better than somebody else all the time, keeps

somebody else down, makes them feel like they're the big kahuna. no. true champions in life raise people above, above. great leaders raise people above themselves. [applause] >> what advice would you give mothers raising young girls today in regards to sports and society in general? >> wow. yeah, it's so funny. i think in terms of boys and girls all the time, when i get these just women's -- like, what would a mother? well, i think what i find with a lot of women if i, let's say if i go to a reception like today earlier, and i say what do you like to do? they go, oh, i'm a terrible athlete. oh, i'm so bad. but i play tennis, i do this, or i like to dance. if i ask a guy that question, he doesn't say, oh, i'm a terrible athlete. what are you doing, girls? be don't put yourself down. i think mothers have to notice

that. and mothers have to notice -- mothers and fathers or caregivers, whoever's in charge of children, i'm telling you, it's everything you say, everything you do is so important because they pick up on everything -- they're smart. it's amazing all the little things that go on every single day. that is racist or biased or something in some way. teach girls to stop, teach girls to be empowered, teach girls and your sons also -- how you teach your sons is real important too. because, i mean, i grew up with a brother. i don't even know what it feels like to have a sister. so my brother and i are so close, he's so adorable, and he's so, you know, he goes, oh, sis, you had it so much harder than i did. i can't believe the difference. and i only have to show up on time for the bus. when they take the ball guys out to the park. i can't believe your life compared to mine because you're a girl.

and we've had these discussions. but i think it's important that mothers and fathers and caregivers, whoever's taking care of the child, guardians, whoever, to really tell girls to believe in themselves. don't make excuses. do not act like, oh, i'm terrible. come on. don't say you're a terrible athlete, that's for sure. not and me. -- not around me. [laughter] if you can breathe, you're an athlete. [laughter] >> many young women admire you and all that you have done inside and outside of sports. who did you admire when you were growing up as a young girl? >> women or men? althea gibson, obviously, i've told you about her. obviously, my mother and my father were a huge influence. they're a good team. they're good to each other. they loved each other. my dad's passed away, he passed away six years ago. they helped each other. they weren't afraid to cross the

so-called female/male domains. like my dad would say, you know, betty, put your feet up, i'll cook tonight. oh, my god, you know? or she -- you know, whatever. they would help each other. my mother would usually defer to my father, they're that generation, but they were good to each other, they were kind to each other. not to say they didn't get into it, no one's perfect. but i think my brother and i saw that. they loved to dance too. aren't you a clogger? [laughter] yeah, you are a clogger and a dancer. so my parents love to swing dance, and i know you're a good swing dancer. so i think it's really important to have a sense of teamwork. and what was the question again? i'm forgetting. [laughter] >> influences growing up. >> oh. as far as males, reverend bob richards. he was the minister of -- i went to the first church of the bread as a child. he was a gold medalist pole vaulter in two olympics.

and he was a minister of our church. and every sunday he got sports in every sermon be. do you think i wasn't there hanging on every word? [laughter] and then i'd go behind the church and watch him work out. i watched his discipline. he'd run hurdles, he would -- in those days they had no bend in the pole vault. they had no bend. it was -- so he was truly having to lift his body weight up. there was no flex to it at all. i always remember looking at it. but i'd go watch him to see the discipline and the intensity. and i remember he asked me what do you want to be? i said, number one tennis player in the world. and, of course, this little chubby kid in glasses, he's probably thinking, she's got no chance. [laughter] anyway, i loved this man. he was such a great motivator. he was one of the first guys on the wheaties box. some of you might remember him. he's a great motivational speaker. you thought you could win anything after the sermon he

would give on sunday. i was ready to go get 'em. i loved that guy. he was awesome. >> do you feel professional tennis suffers a lack of media coverage? it seems only the major events are carried on network television and covered by newspapers. what can be done to reverse this? >> well, actually, espn covers a lot of the u.s. open series which leads up to the u.s. open. i think we have more hours of television probably than any other sport be, i think right up there. the trouble is, it's not in prime time every time. i think a lot of people, it's hard. you have to, if you want to root for a player, a player. and we need more american champions. we've got marty fish and john isner. john isner is our poster boy for collegiate tennis. john graduated from the university of georgia, he's in the top ten in the world now. we never thought that would probably happen. he's our poster boy now.

i tell him, he's in trouble. but i've been trying to get more children, more young people to go to college. they need to -- they all want to turn pro, and they're not good enough, quite frankly. and when you go to college, the socialization process helps you when you go back out on tour the way john isner has, it helps you socially, it helps you to cope with the life on the tour. you're much more mature. you handle things better. it's not just on the court, it's what's happening on the court. and i think john isner's our poster boy. arthur ashe graduated -- we used to have graduates, but it's a lot tougher now because you have to turn pro earlier and do home schooling more. it's changed. but i really think most of the kids should be going to college or university. not turning pro. they can do it. >> how would you rate the state of affairs for american tennis? >> i would say we're not at our height at the moment.

but we do have junior development. we're making a concerted effort. i've heard we've got more young, better girls than boys right now. i don't know if that's true because i don't think you ever really know until they grow up. i did find this one, this guy came up to me, and he said i'd love you to watch my daughter. and i'm thinking, do you know how often i'm asked to watch their son or daughter? daily. this is a daily request. and i'm in prescott, arizona, where my mom lives, and it's my one hour to myself, and he's so nice. randy johnson's his name. so sorry to interrupt, i'd just love you to watch my daughter. and i'm going, okay. [laughter] okay, i'm going to cut through this really fast. does she have a ranking? because that helps us know their abilities. yes, she's number one in the 10 and under in the southwest -- oh, and i was, well, that's one of our weaker sections as far as the top kids. but she knows how to win if she's number one. i said, okay.

when i come back, i promise you i'll call, and i will take a look. so i said, please, give me your information. he gives me the information, i put it in my sock. he looks down, sure, she's going to call me. no chance. [laughter] i did. i went out and watched her, and she is so highly motivated. i'm very big on motivation. if a kid's motated, i'm with them. taylor johnson's her name. she's a lefty, and now the usta's invited her, she's now in l.a. her parents actually moved to l.a. so she can train at our training center in l.a., and she's 11, okay? d she's adorable. she just loves it. and then i have this other guy i'm trying to help get a scholarship. anyway, i love helping kids, and they're fun, and they're a riot. they're so funny. she loves it. she gave me a photo of herself, and she said, i'll see you at the u.s. open in 2019. [laughter] [applause]

>> we're almost out of time, but before asking the last question, a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all, i'd like to remind you all of upcoming speakers. may 15th, gary gensler, chairman of the commodity traders commission, may 30th, the chief executive officer of the girl scouts to talk about the 100th anniversary of girl scouting, and on juneth, the gerald r. ford journalist awards with chris matthews. i'd like to present our traditional npc mug. >> all right! my coffee, my decaf. [laughter] that's nice. >> and i'd like to ask everybody for a wonderful round of applause for our speaker today. [applause] and for all of you tennis fans out there, i have something very exciting that i would like to let you know and to thank you that the usta has donated two

tickets to the 2012 u.s. open. these tickets include seating in the president's courtside box, hospitality in the president's suite, courtside seating in the louis armstrong stadium, access to all other courts and behind-the-scenes tour of the arthur ashe stadium. we will be auctioning these tickets off, and proceeds will go to our national press club journalism institute. the national press club institute is committed to helping working journalists improve their skills through ongoing training programs and encouraging future journalists, so i ask that you keep an eye on our web site at press.org on information on how to bid for this. and i do have one last question, and i would like to ask her besides her victory over bobby riggs, what was your most satisfying victory? >> um, first of all, that was not my most satisfying win. [laughter] it was most satisfying from a pressure point of view.

i had a lot of pressure. it was about social change, it wasn't about tennis, okay? although it helped tennis. we exploded. tennis at the grassroots level and at the professional exploded after that moment. i would say anything to do with teams. if i won a fed cup which is international team play for women when i represented my country, and anytime i won a world team tennis title, those are the ones i cherish. absolutely at the top. i like teams. i'm a team kind of girl, and i grew up in team sports, i love team. so for me, it's the teams. world team tennis, when i played for the new york team, for the chicago team. those are the ones i hold dear because i still have deeper relationships with those people. and also for fed cup. and also coaching fed cup was a real honor. [applause] >> i want to thank all of you for coming out today. and we have some tennis balls that we're going to close out with that ms. king here is going to lob into the audience.

[laughter] >> do you notice the different sizes? this is our 10 and under initiative we're trying to get organized, so you see all the different sizes. colors, too, do you notice the colors? kids like colors. i don't know. [laughter] [applause] [laughter] >> a lot of these people already have this stuff. they're like, i don't need this. how about you tv guys back

there? [laughter] [applause] >> i don't have a lot of space here. back in the back, get ready! [laughter] cal ripken, i see him sometimes. he's great. [laughter] i don't play anymore. no, i still play. [cheers and applause] [laughter] [applause] >> thank you all for joining us today. >> have a good one!

thank you! [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up live today here on c-span2, a look at lessons learned from the osama bin laden documents retrieved during

last year's raid in pakistan. we'll hear from the lead author of a report on some of the declassified documents detailing the history and future of al-qaeda. that's live from the new america foundation starting at 12:15 eastern right here on c-span2. and on our companion network, c-span, we continue our look at commencement addresses from college graduations across the country. today business leaders including eric schmidt of google, xerox ceo ursula burns, alan mulally of ford and the ceo of eli lilly. that starts today at noon and 10 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. and with the senate on break this holiday week, we're featuring some of week tv's -- booktv's weekend programs in prime time. tonight, a look at some of the world's leaders. starting at 8 p.m. eastern, ezra vogel talks about china. at 9:10, the book on russian leader vladimir putin, "the man without a face." and at 10:05 p.m., peter popham

talks about burmese politics in "the lady and the peacock." it's booktv in prime time all this week here on c-span2. you're watching c-span2, with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events, and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. the u.s. senate is in recess this week for the memorial day holiday. however, they are having short pro forma sessions every three days. members return for legislative work monday, june 4th, at 2 p.m. eastern. and now live to the senate floor here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read to the senate. senate. >> washington, 2012. flsh ate, under the provisions of rule 1 paragraph 3 of the standing rules of the senate i hereby appoint the honorable patrick j. leahy, a senator from the state of vermont, to perform the duties

of the chair signed daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: if there is no further to come before the stphad, under the previous order the senate stands adjourned until 12:00 noon on adjourned until 12:00 noon on >> finishing up the senate's short pro forma session today, they will have another one thursday at noon eastern, as you heard. members return from the memorial day break next monday, june 4th, and they'll assume work on -- resume work on a bill. the measure, sponsored by senator barbara mikulski of maryland, is commonly referred to as the paycheck fairness act. live coverage of the senate when members return here on c-span c-span2. also coming up here, a look at lessons learned from the documents retrieved during last year's raid in pakistan. the speaker is the lead author of a report on documents detailing the past and future

of al-qaeda. live coverage from the new america foundation starts at 12:15 eastern here on c-span2. and on our companion network, c-span, this afternoon we continue our look at commencement addresses from college graduations across the country. today business leaders including eric schmidt of google, xerox ceo ursula burn, alan mulally of ford and the ceo of pharmaceutical company eli lilly. that's today starting at noon eastern and 10 p.m. eastern also on our companion network, c-span. former health and human services secretary michael leavitt said religious freedom is on an eroding platform thursday at the ethics and public policy center religious freedom conference here in washington. he warned against resentment or recent legislation mandating religious organizations providing contraception coverage, their employees saying each new law diminishes religious freedom. other panelists include state officials and religious freedom advocates working in the state legislatures to promote laws on

religious freedom. >> provided at your tables and then pass them, hopefully, there'll be somebody circling who will be looking for those questions probably during, right towards the end of the last speak beer. so we have a excellent panel that we're very excited about focusing on the states, and it's called legislative action to constrain overreaching officials. and we have a very distinguished panel and are very grateful that in addition to having these panelists here today, we have a number of state legislators from, representing about 15 different states, state legislators and policy experts. we have about two dozen. we're very grateful they could join us today because as a key focus that the american religious freedom program is doing, um, that last panel to me was the extremely inspiring because anytime religious leaders work together and decide that they are going to take a stand for a core american value and decide that they are willing

to make sacrifices, to suffer humiliation or public ridicule or whatever else that they have to stand up to, i think that's a core american value. at the very root of what it means, i think, to be american is the idea that we have very deep, fundamental differences of belief, and yet we respect one another, and we are willing to work with one another, and we're willing to figure out how to work out those differences in a way that allows those differences to remain, and yet grants great respect to the person. so the movement that's been made, i think, today the expressions of commitment that you heard, i think, is a sign that there is a willingness on the side -- on the part of several religious faith communities and many religious leaders. represented in this room, policy experts and others, to work together to try to make sure that our great treasure that is american religious freedom is not lost. this is a freedom that was

bequeathed to us from previous generations. it allows us to maintain the great, peaceful religious pluralism we have in this nation that is a beacon to many people throughout the world who have suffered the deprivations of religious intolerance and persecution. and america still stands as a beacon of hope to those people. we polled americans again back in november and found that about 93% of them still believe that one of the reasons that america is a beacon of hope to the whole world is because it does have that commitment to robust religious freedoms and making sure that everyone has the right and the freedom to engage in their own religious beliefs the way that they desire. so with that, i want to tell you one thing that we think is a focal point of how we can be engaged and how the american religious freedom program will be engaged in making sure that people are working together and are working together in a more visible way and are working together in the state

legislatures. um, we have already begun an initiative, tim schultz is our state legislative policy director, he's sitting to my left. and under the oversight of tim and in conjunction with a wide array of allies who i won't name right now, tim may go into them, but a wide array of allies and multiple faith communities -- catholic, latter-day saints, we have orthodox christians, muslims and others -- we have been working together to begin building caucuses in the 50 state legislatures. so far we have about a dozen states that we're already operating in, and those dozen states are represented here today. there is not a caucus that's been formed yet, but they will be formed in those states, and the announcement will be very soon in each of those states. let me name them, what they are. those states are arizona,

colorado, pennsylvania, florida, missouri, virginia, kentucky, delaware, idaho, kansas, tennessee, oklahoma and utah. and in those states we found one of the reasons that we picked those states is because there is so much pent-up interest in religious freedom and in working on religious freedom. there's great motivation. there was a lamentation in the previous panel to some extent about how there is a partisan divide up on capitol hill on the issue of religious freedom. the good news is that the american people still believe in religious freedom, deeply down in their core. although there may be divides when we come to the very partisan venue of congress, the reality is that americans still believe that this is a core american value that belongs to everyone that's still to be defended. and for that reason it's no surprise that as tim and others -- and he's been working with others and those in this room -- have found that there is

interest on the part of state legislators to form caucuses, religious freedom caucuses in those states in order to focus on religious freedom issues. and the caucuses are not an end to themselves, they're a means to an end. they're a place for religious freedom expertise to reside. they are an opportunity for a focal point for those who are working on religious freedom in the states to direct and generate their efforts, to make sure that they are connected with the different organizations, whatever organization they may feel most comfortable with whether it's a faith organization led by religious leaders or if it's a public policy organization. so throughout the states those caucuses are already in the process of being formed, and we expect that by the end of this year there will be 25 caucuses focused specifically and be expressly on religious freedom and by the end of next year, we'll have a religious freedom caucus in almost every state. as i mentioned, the focus of those caucuses will be to make sure we have a location, a locus for religious freedom expertise.

and that expertise will take the form of a number of different things. one is mod be el legislation to make sure that the best practices about what is good legislation are being shared between and among the states. they will be a focal point for lessons learned, understanding how the political battles have played out in one state or another either for good or for ill and what we can american from that. there'll be an opportunity for training and equipping, for state legislators who maybe are new to the issue or to the legislature so they can be more informed, more well educated on the issues, how to message on them and a very sophisticated and win many manner. and we believe that the interest that we've seen will very easily be able to be parlayed into the 25 caw caucuses this year. and we also are working very hard to make sure all faiths are represented this that. this is a bipartisan issue. i think this is not a partisan issue.

i think this is an american issue. i think we would be remiss to relegate this to those who would like to make it a partisan issue because religious freedom is at the core of what it means to be an american. we used to have a saying that says i may not agree with what you're saying, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it. there was a great respect for that sovereignty that even person has over his or her own beliefs. and that's something that we will not yield. it's something that we heard in the previous panel that will not be yielded by the faith leaders. so very heartening to me to hear these faith leaders from a diverse range of religious faiths and faith traditions say that they are, indeed, committed to making a difference on religious freedom. i think you can expect more of that. i think you can expect from the american religious freedom program that we'll be messaging heavily on this. there are those who would like to make religious freedom seem like it is an extreme issue, but the reality is we're not the ones on the side of the extreme line.

it's they who are on the side of the extreme line. and i think american people understand that in their bones about what religious freedom is and what it means to our general freedoms. so there will be an opportunity, i know there are a number of press, there'll be an opportunity to talk to tim, to all these panelists, to governor leavitt after this. but i want you to know we look forward to working with everybody in this room. we're very heartened by the generosity of spirit, the cooperation, the willingness to yield one's own credit, and that's the same spirit and demeanor this which we intend to comport ourselves which is that this is not about us, this is not about any particular organization, but this is about making sure that we are protecting the great treasure which is american religious freedom that's been bequeathed to us to make sure it is still available for americans for generations to come. so thank you. with that, i will introduce governor michael leavitt and

turn over to him the podium. governor michael leavitt has been not only the governor of utah three times, but in addition to that he was also the secretary of the u.s. department of health and human services. he served during the bush administration, and in addition he was the administrator of the environmental protection agency. he has been a champion of religious freedom. he is a close adviser of our program. he is a trusted friend, and we are very delighted that he not only is willing to join us here today, but also to moderate this distinguished panel. so, please, join with me in welcoming governor michael leavitt. [applause] >> thank you. like all of you, i have been impressed by the degree of scholarship that has been represented by the conversation today. for my part in introducing our panel, i would simply like to

make two principle points. and i'd like to introduce each of them with an experience. the first one, it was mentioned that i was head of the environmental protection agency for a time. i discovered upon my arrival that one of my duties would be to oversee the regulation of wetlands throughout the united states. now, i will confess to you that, um, i underappreciated the importance of wetlands and that role. i suspect i was, it was a reflection of some of my experiences. when i was a 14-year-old boy, i spent a lot of my time irrigating in a field with rubber boots and a shovel. and i learned very early that if you let the water run too long in one place, you get wetlands.

[laughter] as governor, i had had a major highway project that had been held up for a couple of years at the cost of several hundred million dollars because of a couple of acres of wetlands. and so i expect that my personal experience may not have given me a full appreciation of the importance of that dassing. of that task. now, may i say this, very capable scientists patiently began to teach me about the importance of wetlands and their natural value. they taught me that wetlands were important in storm control. that, in fact, it was wetlands when a category four hurricane comes across the gulf of mexico that will slow it down to a stage or to a level three or level two and make it survivable. i came to understand that if you

are a fisherman or if you cared about wildlife, that at the heart of the capacity to sustain those things were wetlands. i came to understand that the water that we drink and its purity were very much affected by wetlands. things i had not fully valued in terms of that their natural importance. well, i spent a lot of time looking at wetlands and understanding their ecology. i went to the gulf of mexico where i literally saw miles upon miles of beautiful, pristine wetlands only to be surprised by the fact that there were giant swaths that had been cut through these wetlands in order to accommodate oil pipelines and other transportation corridors. i spent time moving up and down

the mississippi river that feeds that area with water all the way there the dakotas and brings natural silt in to fill the wetlands and that muchally keep them recharged. but i began to learn by having levees built upon the mississippi river and by the damming activities that had been done to control the river to meet other very important human demands, that we had begun to disturb the ecology and that in the region there was a very serious problem that had begun to develop in that the wetlands had begun to erode. it wasn't in giant pieces, it was literally one particle at a time. in fact, to this day as we sit here a piece of wetlands about the size of a football field will erode. the point i want to make with

that is that none of those individual acts of a pipeline being cut through the middle of a wetlands or a dam or a levee, none of them on their own was significant enough to irreversibly effect the ecosystem. but it was their accumulated outcome that began to threaten and diminish the capacity for sustainability. i felt today that the point that was made about proportionality was a very important point. all of the individual events that we've discussed with respect to religious freedom today on their own have limits to their proportional importance. but this is my first point. while individual events each

diminish religious freedom, they by themselves may not constitute a burning platform. but let there be no mistake, religious freedom is clearly on an eroding platform. burning platforms tend÷

>> in some ways affecting their capacity to be licensed. as secretary, i wrote to them and suggested that that was both a violation of federal law, but it was also unconscionable to deny a person who's practicing medicine the ability to play out their religious freedom, their personal be conscience in the way they delivered those services. now, that controversy's been alluded to today, and it went on

for a time. i actually promulgated rules reminding people that they could not without penalty violate federal law. those rules have been reversed. that controversy goes on. but my point is, and the second point, is that the erosion that i speak of today is not simply a function of the federal government. it happens in the courts. that erosion happens in professional societies. it happens in institutions of higher education. it happens in nonprofits. in fact, today i'd like to suggest that the battle ground of the future in maintaining a sustainable religious freedom will be in the states. it is there we're beginning to see enormous activity. and today we're going to talk about activity in the states

with a distinguished panel. it's been -- brian has just announced that, in fact, we are begin to -- we will begin to see religious freedom caucuses that will be developed in every state. these are intended to be a sustainable response to an eroding platform. so today on our panel we will have, first of all, we'll hear from the honorable kenneth blackwell, known to most of you, ambassador blackwell is a best-selling author, he is a senior fellow at the family research council, he's a fellow at the american civil rights union. he was the mayor of cincinnati, he was the treasurer and secretary of state of the state of ohio. he was undersecretary of the united states department of housing and urban development, ambassador to the united states human rights commission. this is a man who knows his way around the public sector.

following the ambassador's comments we'd like to hear from lance kinser. lance is a lawyer, former soldier. he is a member of the kansas house of representatives where he chairs the judiciary committee. he is a stalwart in the fight for religious freedom. then we'd like to hear from jeff caruso. jeff, also a lawyer, from virginia was the director of the -- and founder of the virginia catholic conference. he is an organization that, obviously, one of which there is in almost all areas of the country looking after the public, the public interests of the commonwealth's two catholic

dioceses. following jeff,wide leak to have ca we'd like to have cathi herrod, she is an award-winning public policy leader. arizona newspaper recognized her as one of the ten most influential leaders in the last decade, high praise. also a lawyer and a mother. andkmañ ú>ñ then we'd like to hm tim schultz who is the head of the ethics and public policy center american religious freedom program who will -- he is the director of state relations, and he will also a georgetown lawyer. so, ambassador, may we turn our attention to you. >> thank you, governor. i've, at my wife's direction, committed my presentation to paper because my wife knows that, generally speaking, former

mayors are generally speaking. [laughter] we naturally tend to focus on the the religious freedom issues that rise to the national level. those cases that come before the supreme court rank high in public interest and command the attention of giants of the mainstream media. one of the most unprecedented assaults on religious liberty is the proposed health and human services contraception mandate. as i have written in a variety of opinion pieces, there has been nothing comparable to this in 225 years in this country. there is truly no precedent for the threat embodied in the hhs mandate. if the federal government can force not only catholic

institutions, but those of many be other faith community and small businesses and family-owned firms to provide drugs that can cause abortions or chemical contraceptives that violate their beliefs, then the first amendment of the constitution has effectively been repealed. late in the 19th century, germany's chancellor business -- bismarck waged an assault against religion. they attempted to close down catholic schools and monasteries throughout the country. now, let's be clear, we are not there yet, but we must be vigilant. approximately one in ten hospitals in our communities across this country is cared for in catholic hospitals. that's hospital patients are cared for in catholic hospitals. these hospitals employ more than 550,000 full-time workers and 240,000 part-timers.

one of the needs to be emphasized here is that many of those employees and many of the millions of patients seen in those hospitals choose catholic care because it is grounded in a set of moral convictions. this is true even and perhaps especially for non-catholics who seek care or who work in these catholic institutions. my family research council colleague bob morrison, a lutheran, has twin granddaughters who were delivered at a catholic hospital last december. when these newborns came down with a life-threatening rsv virus over christmas, bob was relieved that the twins were cared for in a catholic institution. there he could be trusted -- he could trust that the caregivers and the administrators shared his family's pro-life convictions, and these

convictions would be reflected in the care of his grandchildren. even when it is specifically catholic -- when a specifically catholic institution is being threatened, the religious liberties of all americans are in general key. -- jeopardy. if catholic hospitals are force bed to choose between god and caesar, bureaucrats will eventually compel other religious organizations and faith-based ministries to make the identical choice. an ironic, an ironic situation is that even though obamacare is intended to help the uninsured, it is those of lower income who will suffer most if these faith-based hospitals and religious colleges suspend insurance altogether. the present danger notwithstanding, our experience suggests that most threats to religious freedom have come at the state and local levels.

one of the most blatant examples was the case of oregon in 19, in the 1920s. there a popular referendum strongly backed by the kkk outlawed private education. only when the u.s. supreme court ruled unconstitutional, it unconstitutional in pierce v. society of sisters in 1925 was this threat blocked. it was in this case that the supreme court stated clearly that the child is not the mere creature of the state. then there was the blaine amendment named after james gill 's spi blaine who sought to ban any public funds from aiding even indirectly what were then called sectarian institutions. though the blaine amendment's a

vestige of the know-nothing movement of the 1980s -- of the 1880s -- was never passed at the federal level, similar legislation was enacted and even today is still on the books in many state constitutions. they were put in state constitutions to stop families from ever, from educating their children in catholic schools instead of public schools. now they have become a wall between private faith and the public square. the blaine amendment on record in 40 jurisdictions constitute a serious barrier to education reform and parental choice. the beckett fund for religious liberty, a nonprofit that protects the free expression of all faiths, is litigating a case in oklahoma. there a family seeks to use a state scholarship to send their autistic son to a religious school for special needs

children. in indiana the state teachers' union predictably is leading the charge to prevent participants from there using -- parents from using vouchers at religious schools. the union claims that the parents are violating the indiana blaine amendment. in florida voters will have the chance this november to repeal that state's blaine amendment. local family policy councils, tate and national public interest law firms and citizen activists have worked tirelessly to bring this policy change to the ballot. ..

>> a host of religious liberty defenders, like the alliance defense fund, were standing with there. we have seen catholic charities forced out of adoptions in massachusetts, illinois, because they will not place children in same-sex or unmarried households. in washington, d.c. the so-called nondiscrimination policy which used by the city council to achieve the end of anti-catholicism. the archdiocese that they might be forcing catholic charities out of adoptions in the nation's capital. one council member said, and i quote, good, we've been trying to get you out of it forever.

and because we have been paying, and, besides, we have been paying you to do it. so it out. conscious protection laws are vitally needed. governor sam brownback of kansas recently signed a strong once there, but across the country that are weak laws and no laws in place that would protect citizens who are acting unconscious. it is amazing how quickly this storm has arisen. in 2008, at the end of the bush administration, our colleague defense secretary, issued a conscious regulations all may have of the department of health and human services. these were good conscious, protecting doctors and hospitals

from being forced to practice medicine they found morally objectionable. immediately upon coming to this office of the obama revoked of these regulations. with the hhs mandate, the gloves have come off. the carveout for religious institutions is so narrow, even a cloister of nuns wouldn't qualify for religious exemption. knights of columbus grand night karl hansen questions whether jesus is own ministry would qualify for an exemption from the hhs mandate. was his work of always religious, or was he engaged in the food service industry with those loaves and fishes? [laughter] there's a scene in a movie i recommend watching over again. in a man for all season, sir

thomas moore is facing execution for standing by his conscious in a time of education. moore tells his prosecutors, i do not harm, i say none harm, i think nonfarm. and if this be not enough to think ashman to keep a man alive in good faith i long not to live. thank god we have not gotten to that point. but our task to make sure we never get to that point. we cannot allow that tactics this divide and conquer strategy to succeed. if the hhs can, we will subsidize abortion causing drugs now. we, in fact, where will it stop? if they can get us to subsidize abortions, it will not stop at

just abortion. so, we are being, not being alarmists but we take alarm. james madison knew something of liberty. the people, and i quote, the people are right, madison said, to take the first advance other liberties. the battle is waging in washington without question, but the likely battlefront of this fight is in our respective states. and at your local hospital or adoption agency. the question is, are you, are we up for the challenge? will we take a stand? [applause] >> well, like many of the other panelists mentioned, it certainly is an honor to be here

today, and bring greetings from kansas. when i'm out and about especially in politically engaged crowd, one of the questions i am most often asked when i say i am from kansas, involved in the political process is how in the world did kathleen sebelius get elected governor of a state like kansas? that is a complex question that requires delving into issues of interparty fighting within the republican party, and kansas local history and things we don't have time to get in here, get into here this afternoon, although i would be happy to show that with anybody who is interested in a less formal setting, have some definite theories. the governor and i had kind of the reciprocal relationship while she was governor. i was draft legislation and shepherded through the legislative process, and she would veto it and we would repeat, did that for a series of years and, obviously, we have a much different situation now with governor brownback.

it has been, made a tremendous difference in kansas. because of the link of governor sebelius, now secretary sebelius to the hhs mandate issue and how much discussion that's received, i think it might be interesting to note that the tension between her and the issue of religious liberty does not begin at the national level. actually found its beginnings in a variety of issues that occurred at the state level and kansas, one of which terminated last year in a decision by kansas court of appeals. it was a woman, a jehovah's witness who wish to receive a liver transplant using a procedure that they performed at a hospital in nebraska that is not performed any hospitals in kansas that allowed her to receive the procedure without the need of a blood transfusion.

sebelius and then park and sign administration, lieutenant governor who became governor when she left, took a strong stance in denying the ability to use state funds for that procedure. is a lawsuit that was brought actually under our state constitution. kansas constitution at the state level like a lot of the state constitutions has very strong concert protection from religious liberties linger our constitution, and this isn't too uncommon, especially in states in the midwest. our constitution and kansas actually begins by saying we the people in kansas grateful to almighty god for civil and religious privileges. this idea that there are specific religious privileges fines its expression in the first 15 words of the kansas constitution. that was consistent with prior

-- overturned the ruling of the sebelius administration on the issue. the brownback administration decided not to appeal, which was not surprising, and in some ways we saw a victory for religious liberty based upon the proper application of our own state constitutional standard which is much more in line with a compelling state interest and that was discussed previously. that case, along with a variety of other issues that are happening, particularly of the local level in kansas, led to discussion about the possibility of some legislative action to further heighten the protection of people of faith in a variety of contexts. and let myself, along with the help of some others, to draft a couple of pieces of legislation. and the primary point i wanted to make your it is me in regard to the two pieces of legislation. one was a conscious protection provision for health care

providers that was mentioned previously, the bill that the governor signed here recently. and at that particular piece of legislation obviously made to the entire legislative process. the other bill was a statutory provision which did make it to the house but then ultimately did not receive a vote on the senate side because quite frankly was some concerns about whether we could get it through the process. and it struck me in reflecting upon these two different pieces of legislation, both concerned with the issue of religious liberty, one that was successful in the legislative process, and one that was not successful in the legislative process. there were a whole host of regions that could be pointed to as to why things played out the way they did in the particular context of the kansas legislature. but one thing that really struck me was that one of the issues

was very clearly viewed by members of the legislature and members of the public in general as having very strong specific pro-life overtones to it. and with respect to that bill, there was a very mature, well organized and very sophisticated institutional presence within the state of kansas, organizations and entities that are used the rallying behind that type of legislation, providing it with support so that you have a plurality of voices speaking to the media about the importance of this legislation. you have, frankly, a conservative presbyterian church in kansas city. there's a methodology that conservative folks of faith in their churches are used to seeing operate, spread the word

with respect to those type of bills, to say contact your legislator, let them know what you think about it. that bill passed. the other bill which was more narrowly viewed as a religious liberty bill, and it certainly bombed up against some different type of opposition, did not enjoy the same type of institutional support. not because many of the people who are supportive of the other bill were not also supportive of it, but because institutionally structurally, they are organized to advance a particular cause, a very important cause, the cause of defending innocent human life. they have not fought quite so much, quite so carefully, nor organized themselves in a way to think about, discuss and educate for legislation that is more narrowly focused on the issue of religious liberty. and one of the reasons i'm so excited about this conference, so excited about the possibility

of caucuses, begin to form is what i think is a very strong need for people of faith and those who are sympathetic, even if they are not people of faith, to the importance of religious liberty, to begin to develop an institutional framework within which to pursue legitimate policy goals. the reality is that all of the philosophical underpinnings or the importance of religious liberty with had an opportunity to hear about here today are absolutely crucial. but there is a practical reality of the ability to move the political process with those ideas. and so certainly i agree, ideas have consequences. but those ideas require an institutional framework in order to have kind of impact that we

need it to have come even in a very small pool like the state legislature of the state of kansas. and so i would just conclude by saying, my hope is that today begins with this conference and with the work and ethics and public policy center and others, the beginning of not just think about what the theoretical underpinnings are for advancing the cause of religious freedom, but also thinking about what institutional structures need to be developed in order to be able to advance that ideal in a fashion that is politically successful. and so, thank you very much for having me here today, and i look forward to the discussions as we continue on this afternoon. [applause] >> i'm here today to talk about legislation that was enacted in virginia earlier this year, providing conscious protections for child placing agencies.

there we're talking about of course adoption and foster care service. there are a lot of organizations involved in the passage of the legislation. i particularly want to note the central involvement of the family foundation and also our bill patrons of course in the house delegate, delbert in the senate, senator jeffrey nick waters, the bill had the support of the macdonald administration and was found of course by governor mcdonald after it passed. the bill, as far as what it does, two things. it says that basically that adoption and foster care agencies are not required to participate in placements that would violate their moral or religious convictions, and then secondly, that they would not be punished for refusing to participate in those types of placements. so they couldn't be denied a license. they can't be denied

state-funded or an opportunity to participate in state contracts. they can't be sued for refusing to participate in placements that violate their beliefs. the genesis for the bill being introduced in 2012 was actually back in 2011 when our state board of social services was debating new regulations that would apply to child placing agencies. and within that debate there were some that wanted to say that agencies, private agencies, including faith-based agencies, would have to provide their services without regard to the sexual orientation or family status. and our viewpoint against that sort of provision eventually prevailed, and there was an overwhelming 7-2 vote against

that provision in favor of provisions that we found acceptable. but nevertheless, after having gone through that process, you know, even though in the end it was favorable, we didn't want to wait for that conflict to continue to arise, you know, say with a future administration, and having to go through that conflict over and over again. by the way, the provision that ended up being adopted by the state board of social services was that virginia follows the federal law, and adoption, foster care agencies certainly can't discriminate based on the -- those are the federal standard and that's what her state board of social services adopted, and begin with our strong support. but we didn't want that to go through that regular debate over and over again, so we sought

legislation to try to codify explicit conscious protections for private child placing agencies, including those that are faith-based. we learned some positive lessons from north dakota. north dakota was the first state to pass this law, and virginia now is the second. but north dakota provided a good model for us, and some of the key arguments that we used and that seemed to be effective are as follows. one was that we really were not breaking any new ground. all we were doing was codifying the status quo, and we were really making explicit what was already implicit, our agencies were already allowed to not have to participate in placements that violate their beliefs, and we just wanted assurance from the legislature that that could continue permanently. secondly, we were helped by

being able to demonstrate that the threat is very real. we weren't overreaching. we weren't imagining that there were some sort of a threat. we knew from the debate that was raised during the state department of social services that the threat was very real and we had opponents that were trying to force agencies to have to participate in placements that violate their beliefs. secondly, our opponents during the general assembly session actually introduced the bill that said that if our agencies were to be able to take into consideration things like sexual orientation and family status, then they should be denied state-funded. so we are also able to point to the bill and say here's another example why the threat is real. on the state funding issue we were able i think to turn the

tables and really kind of use the fact that that bill was introduced to our advantage. our primary argument was that our agencies were following all of the federal, state and local laws. and if that is indeed the case, you know, that seems to beg the question, you know, how are we discriminating if we are following all the state and local and federal laws. our opponents assertion that we were engaging in discrimination by taking sexual orientation and samuels -- family status into consideration was nothing more than a bold conclusory assertion, and were able to kind of turned around and say, you know, what discrimination? where's the discrimination? we are not discriminating. we are following all the laws. and if indeed we are following all the laws, as we are, then

what our opponents were really doing, they were the ones that were promoting discrimination. because if their bill would have passed that would have impose the governmental scheme of viewpoint discrimination when faith-based agencies, for example. so we were able to really kind of flick that and i think even use the introduction of that opposing bill to our advantage. then i think i'll so it was important that we raise the fact that this impacts not just institutions, but also individuals. it seems like there's a growing trend or strand of thought that if we have the rights of institutions, you know, pitted against what's perceived to be the rights of individuals, that event there's a growing tendency, debate, to say the rights of institutions have to yield. and i think to counter that we were able to say well, this does involve individuals. the our birth moms and

prospective adoptive parents out there that want to be able to work with agencies that share their values. and that was an important point to be able to raise. so, i think the arguments, these arguments that i have listed were part of the success of the bill. i think it was also important that we're able to bring the heads of the various agencies to provide these services directly to the hearings, and they were speaking directly to elected officials. so we were able to really kind of see that these community providers were being directly affected. and also in that same vein, providing statistic to show the value that catholic charities and many other adoption, foster care agencies that were providing these services, private providers of services, the value of them to the state were able to aggregate numbers of how many children and families they serve, and the good work they do in our

communities. i'll just end with some challenges that we faced, and you know, that may surface in other states as well. you know, some insisted that the bill would be a trump card that would allow us to circumvent the existing laws, and nothing could be further than the truth. the bill was very narrowly tailored bill assembly set we don't have to participate in placements that violate i believe, and we can't be punished for choosing not to participate in those placements. but it did not say that when we do participate in placements we can ignore state laws, but that's how it was kind of portrayed by some of our opponents. the other challenge was no matter how thoughtful a we explained the bill, a common storyline still seem to be at what happened was a general assembly a loud agencies to discriminate. and again as i explained before,

the very opposite was true. if they imposed separate rules, even though we follow the law, we would've been the ones that were victims of discrimination. so i think those are the arguments we used the challenges we face, and i guess i would just end with, there are two states now but have is statutory law, and i think it would be worth any other states considering this bill, we know that the threats are at a national level, this is a national movement to try to force private, including faith-based adoption agencies, to provide services that are against their beliefs. i think it's well worth considering trying to lock these conscious protections into place while there's an opportunity to do so. [applause] >> good afternoon. good afternoon.

it is indeed a blessing and our to be with all due this afternoon, especially on this panel. our mission is to basically protect and defend -- certainly the issue addressed religious liberty is the one i consider where we see the greatest threats was going on in the country today. in arizona, churches basically rely on us to that each piece of legislation introduced to see if that will impede with the church's mission and what's going on so we very much play that role and were close with a number of different types of religious groups, including arizona catholic conference a number of other groups as well. in arizona we have real world issues and that's what has led to state legislation. what i see over and over again is the increasing trend that if you of certain religious beliefs, regarding abortion, marriage, adoption, a host of issues, then you should not enter certain professions where they be a doctor, an attorney, a

counselor that really if you cannot forgo your religious belief she should not enter into those professions and that's really what we see from our opposition. in my view it can be far more expedient to practice state law than to wait on the federal government or to try to litigate a case in the courts. in arizona, i guess similar to kansas we no longer have janet napolitano as a governor and so i'm sorry that the nation has her. that has been a seachange in our state of arizona and in the last legislative sessions we've had seven different state laws passed relating to religious liberties. i want have a quick rundown to easily gives up what he may be able to do in your state because a major were part of the -- if you want to know who is in your state, go to citizen link.com, click on statehood and you can find out who in your neck of the wood might be there to help you with some of these issues. in 2009 when a situation where a young girl in middle school had

-- should set your pencils office to find out why should a picture of jesus on her notebook. remember when kids got sent to the principal for talking too much? no, she had a picture of jesus on her notebook. that led to us passing an act that basically took a lot of the constitutional law, a lot of the caselaw concept and codified them in state law so very easy to reference but here's what the law is, for schools, administrators, parents do know. here's what you can and cannot do in public schools. in 2010 were able to pass a state religious land to act somewhat modeled after the federal law but this became because when the city in yuma, the city wanted to use the area for entertainment district and so a lawsuit was filed by our own fund. we lost a round in court. we went in the ninth circuit. acacia you do when an the ninth court circuit of appeals but

were able to get the state law through and we know at least two churches so far that have been able to locate their places of worship in industry use compensate for another city they want cash that they didn't want them there but they couldn't discriminate against the charge because of our state law. to making a real difference. in 2011, it was university of religious liberty and freedom of speech. we had one of those cases where the christian legal society in arizona state university have had some issues to see whether they would be recognized as a student organization because the religious police in who they would have us officers. that was settled out of course but were able to get a law through last year that basically said our universities cannot discriminate against students on the basis of the religious viewpoints. they cannot evaluate a student's core on the basis of the religious viewpoint and they cannot discriminate against student organizations on the basis of the religious viewpoint. so fairly broad-based act for university students. in arizona we been able to take care of basically so far?

or university level students in protecting their religious liberties on our public campuses. and 2011 we also had a fairly simple bill passed that basically says what he church speaks out on a political issue on a ballot measure that they cannot be required to register as a political committee under our campaign finance laws. that was another one that had been an issue. some of you may recall in montana a few years back were a church was asked to register as a political committee. they said no, they can pass through any kind of measure without having to all of a sudden signed up as a political committee under state law. this year we have had to critical bills get through. senator steve jarboe is with us today. is been responsible we call our vice of conscious bill for professional licensed professionals. this bill has several key parts to it. it says if you're a professional that has to be licensed by the state or has to be certified by the state, that the government cannot deny, suspend or revoke