questions answered before election day, on election day. they're at the polls and someone is saying you can't vote. call. we are, we have trained attorneys who are there to answer their calls. in 2008 we had over, 10,000 trained legal volunteers. we plan to have the same for 2012. we've also created a resource sheet. we have handouts here on the table available to all of you. i urge you to get one. that talk about our website, the 866-our-vote website where you can find information on all the laws in all the states. if you want to work with voters to help them get i.d., we actually did a report alongwith other organizations about groups in tennessee and wisconsin that are working to help voters get i.d., what work, what doesn't work. the resources that are needed. so we have that guide. we also are, developing a smartphone app and because we realize that for the younger people this is the way they get their

information and use their information. . . >> in closing, we need the partnership between the church and the bar to continue, and you are the voices of the parishioners out there who needs to know of the changes, and we stand ready to provide you with any information that you need in order to do so. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we have two speakers remaining,

but before calling on the next one, i want to inquire how we stand on time. would the staff respond on that? 15 minutes remaining. all right. before calling on the next speaker, i think we have a few other cbc members who arrived, and i'd like to quickly recognize them. congresswoman marsha fudge from the state of ohio. congressman bishop from the state of georgia, and congressman bobby scott from the commonwealth of virginia. congressman benny thompson from mississippi. [applause] thank you. there he is. keith from minnesota. [applause] >> you took all the time. [laughter] good morning, how are you all?

i'm judith brown, and we are a next generation civil rights organization that believes that change is going to happen from the grass roots up. we support grass roots movements to work for racial justice. as you can see from all that you've heard so far, you know, in 2008, turnout among african-american and young voters were up. in 2010, we sat home, and others were planning. in 2010, there was a sweep of state legislatures by the republican party, and i will say i'm from a non-partisan organization so i'm just telling you the facts so in 2010, when they took over the state legislature, they moved quickly

in 2011 to redistrict themselves back into power for 20-30 years. in 2011 they also moved to put in place new rules around voting because they saw changing demographics in this country, and they saw we could actually turn out in good numbers when we wanted to. so they put in place new laws, and then they didn't stop. in 2012, they tried again. in some states, like north carolina, where they passed the legislation for photo id, they were going to do it by any means necessary so they tried to override the governor's veto. how many times? flee -- three or four times with the last time being a midnight session under the cover the darkness, and so it is important for us to understand that what is happening across the country

is very important to some people. some people that don't want to give up power, and it is important that we let our folks understand the lengths in which they will go in order to get that power, and so we have seen across the country these laws, and it's not just the voter id laws, but let me tell you about voter ids. there's lawsuits penning, and we co-con selled with a few cases. in wisconsin, 78% of african-american males between the ages of 18-24 do not have state issued photo id. that's 78%. we have a case pending in texas, we are part of the case brought by doj. do you know in texas 600,000 already registered voters do not have state issued photo id?

somebody has changed the rules on them. changing the rules of the game right before we get ready to get to the finish line is not fair. so we also brought a case in missouri, and missouri decided they were going to put it on the ballot in 2012, and we were able to stop them because their language was a little faulty, and a little untruthful. they called it the voter protection act. i took offense to that because we have the vetter -- voter protection program. they said photo id was protection. i said, no, no, no. it's not on the ballot in november unless the legislature moves to get new language on the ballot, which they are trying to do. we have a case with a

93-year-old african-american woman who has been voting, and he -- she says, "since we could." [applause] so that means the first election she voted in, she voted for president kennedy. that was not that long ago. so ms. applewhite since the first time since then will not be able to vote because she doesn't have photo id or a birth certificate. she was born in a time when many were not born in hospitals so we know that many much our folks, especially elrly folks face these hurdles because there's those who want to make it harder to vote, and they tell you it is because they want to prevent fraud, but they are not preventing fraud. they are preventing voting, okay? you do not need a state issued photo id with the current address on it that's unexpired to get on a plane.

by the way, getting on a plane is not a right. you don't need it to buy sud afed. don't listen -- sudafed. don't listen to the rhetoric. they want people to buy into the idea. buying intoed with the means we are underminding democracy. what is great about our country is the ability to participate in our election. it is the one day where we have equalized everything. equity across the board because it doesn't matter if you are black, white, rich, or poor, we all have the same thing when we go in the polling place and cast that ballot, and so there are those who say that, in fact, we don't want it to be equal and so they pass laws to make it harder. now, let me just say on the voter fraud, i have an article in the "washington post," you need to read it and share it with your congregations because

it's important that people know that it's rhetoric and it's myth around voter frauds because as we know, you're more likely to be struck by lightning than find voter fraud. moving on to florida. i love florida. i've been doing voter litigation since 2000 with barbara being -- bringing the case on behalf of african-american voters in florida. katharine said she was going to cast a wide net. that's her language, a wide net, in order to do purpose. they didn't do the purpose too well. people showed up to the polls, and their names were not on the roles, so in 2004, they tried to do it again. they came up with what was a bad selling list, and they did this matching and so if you name had an e on the end of it and the person convicted department have

an e, too bad, you were caught up in the system. 2004, we were able to say stop the state, and we advocated with the secretary of state and they dropped that list. don't use it, and they didn't. oh, but here we go again. deja vu in florida. florida's always notorious, congresswoman. [laughter] i know you know. here we go again. 180,000 people on a list that says they are non-citizens, alleged non-citizens. in fact, over 400 people have already come forward to say here's my proof of citizenship. understand that first of all, 50% of the list was la teen -- latino voters. understand they are sending you a letter saying you come prove to us that you are a citizen.

you've been voting for 30 years, we don't care. prove it to us. they know there's a lot of people who get frustrated by this, and they'll say i'm not going to vote if you want to put barriers in the way, i'm not going to vote. they are counting on that. what we've got to do is we've got to tell people that it doesn't matter how high the barrier. this is too important. this is a right that we will not turn off back on. in florida, we know that we have got to continue this fight. i want to tell you about another thing that's going on. there's a group called true to vote. you need to know that. truethevote.org. they are going to train 1 million people to be poll watchers this year. they've been having conferences across the country. they start in houston, the tea party, okay? in houston. the king street patriots, and

they sent poll watchers out in 2010, did a little pilot project and sent the tea party there for the black precinct in houston to look over the shoulders of people as they voted, and so here it is -- that was pilot. now they have taken it nationwide, and so they will be coming to a polling place near you, and you need to be prepared for this because the idea is that they are going to challenge the eligibility of voters. this is about intimidation. this is about trying to -- not only are we going to change the rules and make it harder, but when we get there, we going to scare you so we've got to be ready for folks to tell them that we will not be scared. fort lauderdale has an article about the 91-year-old on the purge list in florida. a veteran, okay, has served his

country, and he's on this list, illegally on the list. don't worry, we're going to take care of florida. don't you worry. [applause] so true the vote, what you need to know is they are going to be prepared, and we need to be prepared. we'll have election protection votes in place, but for those who can, for your congregations, get people to sign up as judges, election judges and poll workers because we need to be on the inside. we need to have an eye out for what is happening on the inside. the other thing i just want to tell you about is that we will be doing advancement projects in the grand center, doing communications work. i want you to write down this e-mail address because i want you to sign up to get our communications materials. it's ap@advancementproject.org.

now, if you send an e-mail to us, we will at ap -- the letter a, and p, as in paul, at advancementproject.org. we're doing polling and what voters think about voting, and what we want to know is that people are quick with messages. fraud, they are not preventing, what? fraud? they are preventing what? that's right. that's the message of the day for y'all. take that with you. that was a freebie. we're taking e-mails in and putting you on a list of people who get regular communications about the things you need to be telling folks about voting. there's going to come a period when you need to tell people, for example, to check your registration status. you know, we thought the numbers

about 40% of black folks in the country have moved between 2008 and 2012, 40%. so many of them are going to need to re-register. we're giving you over the the time from now until the election, the information that you need to get voters ready for election day. we are also going to give, you know, those little messages you need to debunc the myth, make sure folks are invigorated so that they understand. let me say this in closing. i'm closing. [laughter] she can't say anything. >> i don't think you did. >> that's right. we go way back. so it doesn't end in novak -- november. if you thought we had a bad time in 2011 or 2012 with these laws, you have not seen nothing yet

because in 2016, think about it. there will be no incumbent and so it's wide open territory and so that means there will be those who really got to get the game straight. you know, you don't feel elections by going in as mickey mouse and impersonating judith browne-dianis. that's not how voter fraud happens. voter fraud is changing the rules of the game so that we cannot vote. it's the misinformation that they put in our communities before an election so that we won't vote, and so we have got to be prepared so if you sign up on that e-mail list, we're going to keep you engaged because don't leave it alone in november because in january, legislators come back, and we'll see them come back and they'll be

drooling like a rabid dog coming after us. we have to be prepared. what i want us also to be prepared for is that our members of congress, the thing that we're going to come back for is proactive legislation. we have got to have some change. we're not coming back for proactive legislation, but the visionary thing that we need, and because of congressman jesse jackson, jr. has been pushing for this for years, but i will tell you we need to have an explicit right to vote in the constitution. without it, we see thesej

>> first, i start off by giving honor to god for this opportunity to be here to speak to you. you have heard from some powerful women already today. [applause] and so i just wanted to thank the congressional black caucus. i remember so well when congresswoman fudge led the whole fight to make sure people realized what was going on with voter suppression, congressman weaver, so many out on front of these issues. i'd like to say that when they

started this whole effort of voter suppression, remember it did not just start in 2010, but it started in 2000 with that election, and then they ratcheted it up another notch in 2004, back at it in 2008, and back at us again. what we got to understand is that when they did all of this, one of the most motivating factors is if you look at your congress, the state legislative races, you'll realize most of the races were won by less than 2,000 votes. in 2010, when the races were held, 25 million people who had voted in 2008 did not vote. they said, we're going to make sure you never vote now. so part of it is about how you really maintain and dominate

power illegally and artificially so our duty today is to remember that the bible tells us that for the lack of knowledge, the people parrish. you see, we have to ask the black church, the black organizations, as organizations committed to democracy, as organizations that believe in this new america, across multiracials, there ought to be gender equal, there ought to be about giving everybody their rights as we believe in this america, this vision, it is about us, us to open up the door to guarantee the path ways are there so what we got to do is understand that there's something for every church, every single church that's here

today, there's a role for you to play because when they came up with all of this evil, this nefarious, it's just downright evil, and when they came up with this, they counted on everything. they counted on our people being indifferent, counted on people not knowing, counted on folks being so into themselves that they would not pay attention. watching basketball rise and everything else, but they did not think -- they counted on these groups saying, oh, they'll be too under resourced. they won't have the funds. they will be so strict, so thin on everything else they are trying to do, and that they also, their eagles will be too big for them to pull together. you see, they counted on everything, but there's one thing they didn't count on.

one thing they didn't count on. they didn't count on us. they under estimated us because they don't understand the power of our god. he's not going to let this happen. he's not going to let us sit back. he's going to take us by faith. what our duty is today is to understand what we have to do, we got to take this up a serious notch. we've got to deal within our communities a resistance movement. we have to have our folks today understand what's going on. when i say "our folks," everybody believes in justice, no matter what they race may be. what we want to do is a couple of things. i want you to think about it as a black church. first of all, your first level of defense. i want you to take down this number. it was mentioned, and i want to

really make sure it becomes part of your mantra, your part, everything you say. put 1-866-our vote. that's 1-866-687-8683. that's your lifeline. that's your hot spot. when they say i can't vote, that's the line you call. when people come to you and say i don't know how to get id, and you don't know, that's the line you call. when people come to you and say they just told me that i'm not registered, that's the line you call. i want you to understand that's the hot line, that's the life lock. that's the first thing i want you to understand. once again, once again, let's bring it home, 1-866-our vote which is 1-866-687-8683.

8683. it's going to be answered live, live beginning monday, june 4th, until november 7th, and every day, monday through friday, during business hours, that line is going to be open, and when it's not being answered live, we will return calls that people leave us, and let me tell you that already we've been filing lawsuits and giving plaintiffs to other organizations for lawsuits because people have been calling the hot line and saying i'd like my rights, and they have been violated. second thing i want you to do. it's already been said, but take it home again. we need you to ask your congregations, your congress --

congregates to be poll watchers. they have that ability, and we need them this year. we need them to do that. third thing, register people to vote. register people to vote. churches can do that. you absolutely register people to vote. i want to just talk about it. you know, this easter, last easter weekend, black churches got together and registered 120 # -- 120,000 people. we can do this. there's nothing that stops us from registering people to vote. once again, become part of that. the second thing. we've been talking about this whole vip process that you need. make sure your congregation understands they have to verify their registration. they got to know what their identification requirements are, and they have to get the identification and they have to make sure they go through the

correct precinct to vote because you may not know if you go to the wrong precinct, you may vote, but they are not going to count it if you don't come back and prove it so it's critical, my brothers and sisters, it's critical that we make sure that we provide that information so i want to ask you right now, how many of your churches have a voter registration program? excellent. i want to see every hand raised next. how many of your churches have an id program going on? let's get them. let's make sure -- in the packet, this folder here called "the get id program" that tells you how to create them, this packet is at the front here for the congress people. please, please, please get those -- get that packet and make sure that you use these

resources. in closing, in closing, in closing because you don't ever really close, do you? [laughter] because the work -- the work -- the work still is here upon us. we have a duty, and jesus says if you love me, if you love me, feed my people. if you love me, feed me people. let's be the seed. let's do the work. let's do what we really are, and let's be in the center of our god. thank you. [applause] >> come on, let's show some love [applause] to -- love to the pam. [applause]

we had some chunks of meat. this has been a substantive discussion. this is what we wanted to accomplish. solid, methodology, solid procedures whereby we can actually make a difference. we are not here for decoration. we are here to make a difference, and these panelists -- we owe a lot to the caucus -- the congressional black caucus for facilitating this for us. come on, let's show our congressmen and congresswomen how much we appreciate them. [applause] that's right. [applause] i said earlier this is a historical event in the sense that the national church leadership and the national congress, congressional caucus has come together, but it is really a mirror in what happens each of the congressional districts all yearlong. it is a partnership between our congress people and our churches

that deliver services on behalf of our people, and we want to thank god for this opportunity here today. we had to adjust the schedule. we're going from here to lunch and lunch is going to be served immediately -- we need to go immediately from here because we postponed the schedule by a half hour. we need to go immediately from here to lunch. if you have not registered, you need to register. registration is not paying for lunch. registration is assisting in the responsibility of this conference. we give you lunch. [laughter] registration, if we didn't serve you lunch, we'd charge you $75, but we are giving you lunch. don't think that you getting something because you didn't pay for it. you know, lunch is a gift.

registration is $75, and lunch tomorrow too. it's a gift. one registration gives you lunch tomorrow, breakfast tomorrow, and lunch tomorrow. i want you to be clear that it's not about that. it's about you registering so that you can be a part of this dialogue. you can get into the lunch without registering. you got to be a member, membership makes a difference over there. i want you to register and go quickly. also, we had congressman al green from texas joining us on the stand. [applause] yeah. would all the congress people please stand again. have them stand. [applause] this is a wonderful presence. a wonderful presence. [applause]

we come back this afternoon for a very important session this afternoon with rs to get details about our own tax exemption, answer questions to you can be equipped. it's important because these things go hand-in-hand. when you talk about voter registration, you need to know how far to go and what to watch out for. the enemy comes in to take away your tax benefits and tax exemptions, and that scares us to death. be intelligent or you'll get intimidated by what you're doing. this is critical. this evening, we will have it at 6:30, a great service with the churches from the area of all denominations coming to the. we'll have nominational leadership and services and a huge choir made up of all denominations and a great message by paul brown -- thomas

brown from the cme church. they'll call out our man paul. [laughter] we'll leave for lunch and come back at two o'clock for -- what question was that? [inaudible] we'll have that over here. okay, so having said that, please go to lunch, go quickly. we've got to do more. lunch is right down -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] our live day long conference on this conference of voting rights continues at 2 p.m. eastern. panelists talk about a tax exempt status in an effort to obscure vote r rights. that wraps up at about 5 p.m. eastern, and it's hosted by the congressional black caucus and conference of national black churches. we have more live programming coming up on the c-span networks. at 4 p.m. eastern, c-span3 covers oversight and purchase for prosthetics for veterans. that's live on c-span3 at 4 p.m. eastern.

also with the senate on break all this week, we're featuring some of booktv's weekend programs in prime time here on c-span2. tonight, a look at national and world economies starting at 8 p.m. eastern. they talk about the economic divide in america and the book "the rich and the rest of us" a poverty manifesto. at 9:20 #, grover norquist shares opinion on the current administration's performance and how to fix it in "debacle," and at 10:25, findings on the world economy in "inequality and instate," that's booktv prime time all this week on c-span2. monday, former british prime minister blare defended his relationship with a panel and relationships between politicians and the press. he had a working relationship with mr. murdoch, but were

personal friends after his time in august. a protester interrupted the proceedings calling the former prime minister a war criminal. he was prime minister from 1997 to 2007. >> the right honorable tony blare. -- blair. >> thank you very much indeed. [inaudible conversations] >> your full name please, mr. blair. >> [inaudible] >> you provided us with a witness statement, and i have not seen a signed copy. it doesn't matter, are you happy to confirm the truth of your inquiry?

thank you very much for providing the inquiry with the assistance that you have. you comment in your statement that you have not received some papers from the cabinet office. have you yet received them, and are you satisfied that you got what you required? >> yes, i'm satisfied i got what i required now. there may be a list of meetings with various media people, and we got, i think, the fullest picture of that that we can get. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> third page please, mr. blair. working from what the up -- inquiry provided. you say in the second paragraph, inevitable from what is wrong is a profound challenge, and we understand in that sentence the adjective "inevitable," but can you elaborate on the wrong, please? >> yes. look, in a relationship between media people and senior

politicians, that relationship is inevitably going to involve close interaction, and i think that's always been the case that's going to go on being the case, and what -- that interaction will always involve a certain tension. the politicians want to get the best story they can across the media, hold the politicians toability. there's inevitable tension in the relationship. i think if you look back over time, there's nothing wrong, indeed, it would be strange frankly, if media and senior politicians didn't have that close interaction. what is more, i want to make it clear out the outset, sir, if i might, that british journalism at its best is the finest in the world so what i'm talking about as wrong is a relationship or interaction that moves from being sensible and inethicble to

being unhealthy as a result really of a situation in which the power that is exercised by certain parts of the media and the use of newspapers, particularly as instruments of political power, then creates a situation in which that relationship is not merely sensible, but essential, and where i think that relationship can be and sometimes is unhealthy, and that's what i mean by "wrong." so up -- inevitable is a close interaction between senior media people and politicians, and what i found uncomfortable and unhealthy when you were so acutely aware of the power that was exercised that you then got into a situation where frankly it became not really sensible and important, but essential and crucial to have that interaction. >> the attributes then of a

healthy, appropriate relationship may be a degree of tension, may be a degree of professional distance so if that relationship becomes too close, then it may become your word, "wrong," is that a fair summary? >> yeah, i find sometimes in reading about this, and the use of the word "cozy," i think is not the correct relationship or description of the relationship at all. i think unhealthy's a better way of putting it because what it means is if you're a political leader, and you've got very powerful media groups, and you fall out with one of those groups, the consequence is such that it really means that you then are effectively from getting across your message, and you then have all the things i outlined in the statement as a consequence of that. now, the nature of the relationship between the politicians and the media and that closeness you described is

really derived from that. what in a sense happens is not necessarily that you become particularly close, but the relationship is one in which you feel this, you know, pretty intense power and the need to deal with it. i'm being open about that, and open about the fact that frankly that i decided as a political leader, and this was a strategic decision, that i was going to manage that and not confront it. we can get on whether that was right or wrong in a later stage, but that was the decision i took. >> right or wrong is an interesting question, but much more important, obviously, later on we will get on to how it should be fixed if it needs fixing. >> yes, and i've got ideas on that. i think i'd like, also, if i might at a later state put something actually down in writing, but i found when i was going back to read l --

the evidence already, there were things occurring that shifted my view on certain things, so i want to do that in a more concerned way so, look, i think, yes, as a result of what happened, this is a debate that's not permissible, and you have the potential to get a solution. let's hope we can get one, and -- but, you know, i'm just being open with you. that was my decision. you could decide it, and at some point, i thought about it actually, you took this on as a major strategic move of the government, and in the end, i decided against it, but -- >> okay, are you saying, mr. blair, you can now speak with greater frankness, but you feel you can speak with greater objectivity? >> it's the public to decide whether i'm objective or not. look, i hope so. look, i think what i'm going to try to do is tell you what i

think should be done. there's people who strongly dispute my ability to be objective over it. >> you say your argument would be the unhealthy nature of the relationship is not the product of an individual, but the draining the poisen that's the real challenge. third page. >> yeah. >> are you the poisen within the cull -- culture of the press? >> what i say is in certain parts of the media where the line between use and common use gets blurred, so the papers that take a particular view on a policy, a party, or a person, that is driven with an aggression, and frankly, a prejudice, that means you crossedded the line -- crossed the line, i think.

now, that's what i think is the problem, and that's why if you like political leaders like myself have to be in a position where you are managing these major sources in the beginning because if you fail to manage it and fall out with them, the consequences, and as i say it later, it's harsh. >> is it not necessary, though, at least to recognize the part of the responsibility to the current state of affairs is the development within our political culture over the greater citizens, and some say a disposition to be malleable with the truth, the consequences of which has been toxic? >> i would say our responsibility primarily is not having confronted this issue. i'll give my recent justification for it, and i actually do not think that the way this particular part of the

media behaves is a response to the way government is behaving, and what i would say is put that around the other way, for example, the fact we got a fully professional media operation operating really properly i think for the first time in the labor party's history is a necessary part of being able to deal with the media that's extremely powerful. >> well, you see in this situation that it's virtually impossible to disentangle cords from the press. if you have the purpose of argument, at least in relation to the labour party that it had a terrible time in the 1980s up until 1992, that election, that your strategy may have been a reaction to that? even on that analysis, that reaction created a political culture which is a degree of cynicism that you don't like it

to be malleable with the truth. we can turn it down a bit and say the best possible block on the truth. >> this is what i think. it's almost impossible now, even now, to dispute this issue to deal with less spin from the government. i can't believe we're the first and only government that wants to put the best possible gloss on what you're doing. i would be surprised governments haven't done that throughout the ages, and that is a completely different thing that you go out and say things that are deliberately untrue that you bully and so on. i read a lot of things we actually done, and i dispute things very, very strongly. i totally understand why there's a symmetry and saying, oh, well, the government was spinning, and so the media had to react to that. in my view, you can take a different one, but that's not

what happened. i mean, the truth is in 1992, you know, if you look at the way that election was covered, and by the time i took over -- four elections in a row, never won two executive elections in our history, the longest we'd been in power was six years in one go so, you know, i went through that in the 1992 election. i remember it. it was extra on my memory, and, yes, i was absolutely determined we should not be subject to the same flow. >> we'll come back to that issue. your spreech, mr. blair, the 12th of june 2007, a few days before august -- had this in tab 49 of the bundle we prepared i think in the second -- >> i think i remember it prate well

-- pretty well actually. >> number of points you make here would be obviously not as bad now as they were five years ago. on the numbering of the top of the page, this version, page 2 of 5 in the internet printout. your personal reflection is not about blaining anyone, and in the -- blaming anyone, and in the first paragraph you said you paid enormous attention to the courting and persuading the media so you're careful to use the word "courting" there, and then you say in our defense it's a point you just made to us after 18 years of opposition and hostility apart, it's hard to see any alternative. it ran the risk of fueling the

trends in communications that i'm about to question. ultimately, you're accepting there without exhibiting cause and effect or at least contributing to the overall culture problem, are you not? >> yes, i am, and, you know, i choose words carefully there about running the risk. to be honest, i don't think we actually created this phenomena, and i think we were trying to respond to it. what i do think, you know, to be self-critical about the government in this first stages, i mean, as i say, apart for 18 years, got into a rhythm, very much the rhythm of opposition, and so we were still, as it were, campaigning, you know, in the first eight months, possibly third year of government, but, i mean, frankly after that time, you got into a proper rhythm of government, and, you know, we

had a very strong media operation. it's true that i would argue then and, in fact, i would argue now, you really got -- and i think that's -- in a way, that's not simply what the media's doing. the fact is today you have a 24 hour, 7 day a week media, the social media and conventional media. i remember my first election campaign in 1997, you said, here's the story of the day. from the time i was fighting my third election campaign, it was a different story in the morning, the noon, and the evening. watching the most recent election campaign here, the pace is faster. there's a quite different rhythm to this today that i think, personally, my advise to any political leader is you got to have a very, very solid media operation. >> mr. campbell said was that the problem may be at least in

part the consequence of pursuing in government the same approach to the media that had been necessary in opposition, and it may not be now to discuss it, but i mention it because you talked about the period of transition. the question then arises whether there hasn't got to be approach that works not merely for government, but also for those who aspire to government because it's difficult to -- may be difficult to adjust the tempo of how you do the business. >> yes, i think that's that point. i would distinguish, however, between as it were how you, you know, do your proper media operation and relations and communications and so on, and it is important of those team media

relationships in circumstances where you are aware of the fact that supports the difference between support and lack of support is profound in terms of the effect on politics because that, you know, from the political leaders point of view, that's the thing you're aware of. if you -- this is all part of the media, by the way, and all part of all media groups, and so there's some papers that would fall out with the editor and proprior tear. -- proprietor. you don't have a problem with the news part of it, but those parts where you fall out with them, you then get a problem in the whole of the paper, the news as well as the comment. that's when you've, you know, that's when, frankly, those relationships move from being sensible to being crucial in a way that's probably not healthy.

>> now, the general point made in the speech, page three of five, the third and fourth paragraph, you deal with the constant hyperactivity of coping with the media and you said you were quite literally overwhelmed. any walk of life today, and you say people don't speak out about it because in their mind, they are afraid to which chimes with what lord mapped -- said. we were coward. is it as high as that? >> i mean, i think you certainly do feel the power being directed at you. the way i put this, though, it's not exactly what was said about this, and the question of

priority. my view is this, and i, as i say, took a strategic decision that this was not an issue that i was going to take on. now, the way priority comes into this is as follows. you know, i was trying to do all the things i believed in for the country, part labour party and so on, but to say we never won two full terms before, i wanted to be a government to compete on equal term, and, you know, when i came to office, we had a health service wait of 18 months, a b handful of inner city schools with decent results, rising crime, all sorts of things we managed to do in government bringing waiting lists down and increasing schools with good results, that set of things that we wanted to

do. now, my view, rightly or wrongly, was that given those circumstances, i decided what i'm going to do is take on the media and change the law in relation to the media. my view is, and i think it's still my view actually is that you had to clear the deck, and this would have been an absolute major confrontation. you would have had virtually every part of the media against you in doing it, and i felt the price you would pay for that would actually push out a lot of the things i cared more about, and although, you know, i think i say within the statement, although i think this is immensely important question, and i mean, i don't in the end, at least for me any rate, prime minister is more important for health services, schools, or law

and in order, and did i came to the end of the time thinking it was important? yes, i did. that would have been absolutely impossible for me to have taken it on. >> yeah. >> the way i would have put it is not so much -- i did a lot of things in government that was both unpopular, had to have character standing up to people whether you agree with the decisions or not, not as it were that i was afraid of taking them on in that sense, but i knew if i did, you have to be very, very clear about this, and that's the debate i had with others within government all the way through. if you take this on, do not think for a single moment you are not in a long contracted battle that shoves everything else to one side of what's going on. >> you made that point in your statement in paragraph 36, but to the point of paragraph 11, enyou say we should be aware that some of the media will kindly disagree there's a real problem.

do you believe that that's still the case even now, mr. blair? >> yes. >> you're identifying a section of the media, maybe insidious perhaps to start names papers unless you wish to, but we're confined to a section, are we? >> yes, i think we're confined to a section. look, this is a point, and it's difficult to discuss these issues without, you know, people misunderstanding what you are saying, but i'm not making a total statement when a say british journalism is at its best as good as it is around the world. there's others around the world i think at their best, the best newspapers in journalism is good as anything there is globally, but i think there's a genera, that's what i'm saying, writing that's gone into parts of the media where using lines of comments that's blurred that it

stops being journalism, and then it's propaganda. >> now, back to page 4-5, you make a series of points which you pick up in your witness statement in various ways. is the reference itself in the fourth paragraph, and you say it is like tearing people and reputations to bits. i wanted to ask you more specifically, mr. blair, about 5 of 5 in the sixth paragraph down dealing with accountability. in the absence of the objective yardsticks i'll come to in a moment, but any other walk of life, exercise is power. power external forms of accountability the not through the media itself. that comes really back to a

recurring scene which we've heard in the inquiry. is there a form of contact -- accountability that you were thinking of there either in absence at this time or what is desirable in appropriate form? >> what a mean is most people feel if you have a complaint with the law of liable, there's not a place you can go to in order to complain and get regress, and most people i think would say the pcc just does not operate in a way that provides that accountability, and i, of course, newspapers are to an extent accountable through, you know, choosing whether to buy the paper or not, but that's like says, you know, politicians who are accountable can never go four or five years to the election. ..

but the reason we just to explain this the reason i use the independent as the example is because the independent that the newspaper was supposed to be absolutely against one of the some blurring of news and views and the reason i think with the

editor given those interview in which he said we would demonstrating they were indicative of how this policy change but the point that i could have talked about was reasonable. she read the speech even when jeremy who i think on this issue is one of the people that is better to think these issues through have to make in the course of the speech a reference and it's interesting if the examples you give counties things become absolutely fixated so one is i didn't bother with parliament. the truth is i didn't vote a great deal because we had a huge majority. but in terms of my accountability as prime minister measured by the number of times

you go to parliament and answer questions i need more statements and answered more questions than my predecessors in that period of time and i was the first primm minister to go to the select committee. so it's an example of where something is actually wrong and becomes a fact and even someone like him feels obliged to repeat it. >> some of the reaction to the speech was predictable we just the daily telegraph red wolf 13th of june, 2007 you were described as a religiose figure in reference to the point it has become blurred dealing with the press, too dispensing with the

gentleman's agreement of the press complaints commission. to use the term mengin, an's agreement. >> it is the right body to decide the issue policy. i don't replace by the way. >> i think it is something that you stated and you are absolutely right on that and then substantively they say over the control they say this is suspicious in the eyes of the public he ignored the point. people don't like a particular newspaper he cannot be so naive as to imagine putting the newspapers on the steps would do anything other than make them eventually obedient to the government of the day. do you accept that charge or

not? >> i think in the speech i never went so far as to propose that. but the notion it's impossible to find the space between no proper system of accountability and the press becoming a subsidiary of the government of the day that is an assertion that has been ludicrous. >> the daily mail on the line may not have been the daily mail the 13th of june 2007 the headline is the magnificent self delusion of mr. blair and along the story of sure they characterize the media as behaving in labrador which its affections on you rather than -- >> there's a portion i don't particularly recognize. >> interesting, that one.

>> but i'm the one with self delusion. >> arguably there are the contributions in the guardian. as the leader of the 13th of june, 2007 which stated under tab 50. they say there's an easy response and i'm paraphrasing it is to accuse the primm investor -- this is actually the financial times i think. that's the last page. the guardians. do you have that one? >> there's the right and wrong preachers. >> i am only reading the headline. we are picking up the religiose

when there were parts of that. i never mentioned religion in the course of my speech on the media. but anyway. >> they do say in the second paragraph on five lines down they say she, that's you, is right to highlight some of the worst qualities in some british journalism. the theme of aggression and bullying solve regard kirsanow of the borders between public and private and obsession of proportionality. all of those are are there on a daily basis for anyone to see. that's not exactly how you put it in the speech. would you associate yourself with those observations are not? >> pretty much, yeah. >> and then they say in the next paragraph the bbc is still -- >> you are on the guardian? >> sorry, i'm on the guardian. the bbc is still the best journalistic organization in the

world, and then a little bit later there's something about the argumentative tradition of the british national press with a form of truth every bit as effectively as supposedly more objective newspapers in north america. again i suppose that meant he would agree with those as well, would you? >> absolutely. >> better than most of the papers. >> the point is about the messenger which again we will come to later. the financial times speech, pardon me, the piece on the 13th of june is the wrong messenger. it's difficult for you to comment on that. >> it would undermine my point that to have taken this issue on

would have been extremely difficult. i mean, you can see this was a speech made shortly before i left office. you could imagine if i had made the speech two years into being prime minister. >> let me go on to a slightly different topic probably still related. on 576. >> yeah. >> he made the point and others have made the same point it could be hard to adopt a policy when a was likely to be the subject from an intense media campaign about it. can you explore the issue of the space accountability? if the media were right and they do represent at least a majority of the readers voices or views why is there a problem here at all? >> there's absolutely no problem in the press being a part of that particular party or a particular political viewpoint,

and that's been part of our journalism for years and years and that is not acceptable. and so there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't for example choose to run certain stories because the courts. my distinction is between that and how you actually report the story as a piece of journalism. if you take the issue to deal with europe, what i did say is they are entitled to be skeptics and high highlight things that are wrong. but we shouldn't do is pick up a lot of nonsense about europe because how does the reader know that is not correct? so, you know, now towards the end particularly frankly i just remember when i had a huge battle in the european union of the british rate and when i had

the presidency of the union in 2005 when we had to do the new budget deal and so on, the descriptions of what i was proposing and europe was proposing for the first time britain was going to be paying roughly the same as france in the decades we hadn't come and that in my view i didn't expect but it wasn't straight reporting. that doesn't mean to say that if they find something out that supports their case that was monstrous of course they are entitled to choose to run the story, so i'm not suggesting they should be partisan and i am not suggesting that they shouldn't even within that because of the entitlement to choose i'm going to highlight this aspect of europe because it supports my case even though there's a certain in balance in choosing one thing and another thing and so on.

that's fine. in my view where this becomes very difficult on policy issues you know the actual facts within the stories will be thrown in a particular way then it becomes a lot tougher to deal with because you can go out there and say it's not correct. >> you're not arguing necessarily for balance as such but you were arguing for two things first the opinion and second of these defects. is that a correct analysis? >> absolutely and i would say that as a matter of good journalism. that is what the journalism is as opposed to the person that runs a comment that says this is against the british state. find, but the news piece should at least be within itself accurate even if you have chosen to do that piece because it supports your point of view.

there's a clear distinction between those two things. >> the example you give in the last sentence our visceral issues. just take one of them, take gay-rights as an example. how to use separate fact and opinions on that issue? >> it can be difficult to do that in that issue. i agree. on the other hand, i think that there is a tone in which you can have that debate. frankly on this issue things have changed a huge amount in the 20 or 30 years i was in politics. you've got a pretty prejudice way of writing about gay issues and so on later less so. all i am saying is an issue like that in the tone of your coverage to think that is also an issue and i would say

certainly the 80's when there was being debated it was, you know, you're basically if you supported gay rights you were not so much supporting gay rights you're kind of prof proselytizing. >> but on that issue some would say that the tone has shifted because it's shifted in relation to europe it may not be possible to know that observation. >> not of yet. let me be absolutely clear about this. i am pro european by a understand and they are entitled to be skeptics and but that case very strongly to their readers. it simply that i think someone who did this in the course of his evidence and i haven't done this myself when you tabulate all of the various things that have been said that should be correct, so if you disagree with europe you disagree but on the

fact that is a distinction that is pretty obvious to most people and by the way that is what i think he put that to the readers they say of course. they wouldn't say that it's impossible. i think it's right that they tell me something that is incorrect. >> is there any newspaper which meets your blueprint for appropriate behavior on the european issue? >> i think if you took the paper which is basically skeptics but i think it's -- it reports fairly that's not to say if they come across the story that's the receptors and they would publish it will not that it's entitled to but i think the pittard is it which reported. >> to come back to a point you

opened with, paragraph of your statement the entire page 573 use a most important of all certainly the newspapers are used by their owners or editors instruments of political power and the end of boundary between the views and commented deliberately and then in the paragraph seven you are careful not to identify which newspapers are guilty of these director sticks and which are not and you would not wish to do so now but some people would quite markedly as to which newspapers fall into the category. would you accept that? >> to a point actually. i think coming to know, whether you agree on that position or not is another matter.

but the heart of my argument to you is really this: the problem that you have as a political leader is that where, but certain parts of the media, the press becomes not merely a political partisan in their commodores editorial line, but in their news coverage, then it becomes all the more important and that's why i use the word crucial that you try to prevent yourself becoming an object of that attack, and that is what gives rise to this closeness. as i stated to you also in paragraph eight infil merkley this is not confined to the murdoch media. i'm not saying that murdoch media is and the tabloid once did not have that characteristic they do, but they are not the only ones by any means at all.

as the mexican i would say probably the -- i think you'd say the bulk of what we call the tabloid press basically rights in a way that if they are against a particular policy, party or person, it's a pretty all out a fair. >> certainly the position as stated with christa line and direct clarity in every conceivable instance one might say? >> yeah. >> can i ask you to comment on the sun which many have asked you to look at as a paradigm. do you agree that it generates a special power of influence because of its appearance of being a form of floating voters with a constituency of circulation 3 million or readers 8 million? >> yeah. the sun and the mail friend we are the most powerful of the papers and the sun partly because it is prepared to shift

makes it more important right i don't think there's anything wrong with that per say by the way just like there's nothing wrong with the mail against my government or me. as i say i think it's where i put the line once they are against you, that's a. its form, full frontal comedy in and day out basically a lifetime commitment. >> do you feel that that is some sort of a lubber strategy or is it just accidental byproduct of a fence? >> i think it's part because robert murdoch himself i think is not actually right-wing

person. i would never describe him as a sort of indicating my own political preference a tribal tory i wouldn't say that at all. there are bits of in their anti-establishment and marek craddock i would say. semidey is partly derived from his own thinking. i don't know. i suppose there could be. >> you said in paragraph nine in the political objectives with a commercial interest on this approach would be to the exercise of political power the second may be to advance the interest of the paper including its commercial interest. >> look, i think what i am

really saying here is, of course, like any commercial organization, they will have their commercials interests there, but i also point out in my statement -- and i will say this very strongly when we get on to the detail of this -- actually, we decided more stuff against the murdoch's interest than we did in favor of it. now, did that mean that the change to their support for me? no, it didn't as a matter of fact. even though we did some things they really didn't like. on the other hand, of course, all of these -- i mean, look, all of these organizations have their own commercial interest and other commercial launchers are important. i can't speak for others, i didn't feel under pressure in the commercial and interest from the paper and indeed anyone else it was more political but that may be because the issues didn't a rise in a particular way.

i don't know. >> you mentioned the daily mail is not through appearing to refloating voter because that's what we operate. therefore, how do they come in your view, exercise their power and influence? >> look, the daily mail, frankly is a subject on which i wouldn't claim to exercise much of which activity. the fact is, if you fall out with a controlling element of the daily mail, that is -- you are then going to be subject to a huge and sustained attack. the daily mail for me they've attacked me, my family, my children, those people associated with mechem a day in and day out, not merely when i was in the office but subsequent to it as well. >> so that is -- and they do it very well, very effectively, and it's a very powerful. you know, i did -- i just asked

my office to do a random and analysis of 50 stories straight after the 2005 election when, after all, i'd been reelected for the third time and 50 stories just prior to leaving office, just the 50 stories that you take on either side of that. so if you have a positive neutral negative column, in the positive, zero, in the neutral, zero, investing 12, -- speed 100. maybe i did nothing right during that period but i don't think there's that doubt where they stand. so my point is this is why i take a very important not to see this as about the murdoch media. with any of these big media groups. you fall out with them and watch out because its literally

relentless when that happens and mauney view as that is what creates the situation of which the media people get a power in the system that is on healthy but i felt throughout my time uncomfortable with. as i say i took the position and could be subject to criticism i put the strategic decision to manage this with the power of its is indisputable. estimate you mentioned the controlling element within the associated and when you start to the bill was the third. he died in 1998 and of course was editor of the daily mail from 1992 but david hinglish was editor-in-chief until his death in 1998. where until 1998 did the power law as it were on these titles

in your view? i think they would control people there and then when they pass away in a short period of time and obviously the chief person. >> said he would be described as the controlling element from 1998, is the right? >> yes. >> relationships between proprietors and editors, present prime minister's word to this effect may be exactly we got too close to the news international. should you be included in that? >> the way that i put is the

closeness for me with rupert murdoch and everyone else this is a working relationship subsequent to leaving office i would say that my relationship is completely different with him and his family now and in office this is why i say the concept of the coziness is not quite the way that i would put it you are in a position. the working relationship whether you're in a position with a very powerful people who had a big impact in the political system and as i say, the big impact was hugely intensified and multiplied by the fact that if they were against you they were absolutely out, all out against you and that's the issue in my view. would these relationships have mattered in any event?

particularly in an example in 2005i thought it possible the financial times going back to support and the conservatives. now all i cared about that. i would try to make the arguments as to why they should stick with us. now we wouldn't permit such just the financial times had they decided to support the conservatives would have been and gone all out in their news reporting against me. that wouldn't have happened. so even if newspapers are behaving in a perfectly -- you know, within the bounds of separating news and comment and everything, these relationships matter. and it's important to say that, otherwise i think we will get to a completely unrealistic view of where we sort of ignore history and say politicians and media people should have nothing to do with each other. we are bound to have the close interaction. it's not the closeness with in my judgment is the actual problem. it's the kind of imbalance that comes into it because you know

that at a certain point with certain elements of them if you're in a position where you're pursuing a course you believe in and don't believe in that, or they don't believe in you, then you're in a big fight. that big fight's something you've got to take into account before you decide to go off in a particular direction. so, you know, that's the difference that i would say. so i've always -- you know, when i've heard people describe this as cozy and clothes and so on, that's not quite the way that i would put it. i don't know whether it's worse to put it in the way that i'm putting it, but it's a little different i think. >> possibly it is on spoken that really self evident aspect to the terms of engagement between you. is that a fair description? >> yes, i think that is a fair description. i mean, you know, they are aware of the power they have and aware that you have it. >> in a slightly different

context i use the term finely attuned antenna which some people didn't like very much but does that come close to describing it or not in your view? >> in the sense that -- >> that was in the sense i think of a particular lunch at chequers for your time on the fourth of january. you probably will recall that little vignette but now i am speaking more generally. >> finely tuned and tama in the sense of your antenna to what you thought there -- >> tuna with their positions were to be very secret. but i think that in itself is why one of the things i find the hardest about this is that distinguishing what is wrong from what is inevitable. i mean, i think -- i can't imagine a situation given the penetration of our media -- and this is what he's i think the other really important thing, which is the way i think broadcasters are very, very strongly influenced by the

legend of the press. it would be pretty bizarre if the senior politicians didn't have reasonably strong relationships with major media people. i don't think that in and of itself is unhealthy i have to say. i think it is virtually inevitable and sensible for any political leader. it's this additional dimension that i am honing in on and saying that's what i think is the probable -- because that's what i -- i really almost describing how i felt the time. so, you see, for civil with rupert murdoch it was important to try to get the sun on board any way? absolutely. you know, they had been, you know, a major part of supporting mrs. thatcher and the conservative party in all of those 18 years and, you know, they did, frankly and do, represent a certain strain of

support that labour might have that hadn't had throughout the 80's and early 90's. so, you know, even if the situation had not been as i described, if i'd been given the chance to go and persuade them to come over to labour, i would have taken that. that's why i think it's just important that we try and calibrate this very carefully. otherwise i think, you know, we will get into a situation that's a bit unrealistic. >> do you accept that you may have contributed to the mystique, if i can put it in that way, by at the time of publicizing each meeting with mr. murdoch and door by inviting him through the backdoor? schoomaker i don't think we would publish the media people actually. but the reason for having i mean not just him that certain people who knew what to spend days trying to explain about would

simply be you'd spend days explaining what you're talking about, so, look i think in the future it's probably better that you publish everything but i don't think we actually published other media meetings either. but i can check on that. >> though there may be a huge leap between the lack of transparency and conspiracy, lack of transparency certainly gives rise to the speculation. would you accept that? >> i think that alistair campbell said in the evidence that there is no great spirits of whether he was coming back or taking over or whatever. >> in relation to mrs. brooks, do you feel that you got too close to her when you were in power?

look, rebekah brooks matter obviously because i think she was the editor of the sun during my time. she didn't actually come to this more senior position at the news international until after i left. i guess towards the end particularly -- and you will see a lot of the meetings and calls towards the end. there wasn't a great deal of support left. so those people that did, sure, i was pretty close to them. but again, bluntly, the decision maker was not rebekah brooks in relation to this. >> was obviously mr. murdoch. >> she was the key decision maker for sure. >> a schedule of all your contacts with proprietor's and editors between may, 1997, and june, 2007 has been provided. it runs 18 pages. i'm sure we can put that on the screen. is there any point out of those

earlier interactions that sit on the 15th of september, 1994 which had been arranged. do you remember anything about that? >> i remember the dinner took place. i remember a great deal about it, but i've seen this account. >> there's an account we don't know mr. neil full disclosure. it's in the bundle be put together for you. its pages 31 and 42. >> yeah. >> mr. fisher is described as rupert's senior man in london. is that right or not? this is september 1994, of course. >> i think so. i think i remember him being there for -- i think for a

reasonable short time, actually, but i certainly remember him, yeah. >> mr. neil says he had been lobbying from the were party on news international's behalf on such issues as the cross media ownership and scott atv's control of the satellite scrambling systems. did you know about that? >> i don't recall specifically being told about that. but that position was certainly on the media ownership and was particularly the issue that i do remember they were very strong on a statutory recognition of trade unions, which, given obviously that happened in the past, is not surprising. >> according to mr. neil, he -- this is gus fisher -- also struck a relationship with you. >> mrs. gus fisher? >> i think it's -- >> and everett -- i'm sorry, i don't recall that one.

[laughter] >> nothing of that nature here. >> which is not to say it didn't happen by the ways -- >> it's mr. fischer, mr. where. >> i'm sorry. i thought you said mrs. fisher. >> no. >> okay. >> i think relationship is just in the sense of a very loose friendship. >> yeah. >> i'm not sure exactly what the implication is there. >> right. >> i think the suggestion may be that you well knew what his position was and what his company's position was on the cross media ownership issue. is the right? >> yes, of course. i mean, and, look, our position was, as i say i decided i wasn't going to take this issue on. i actually don't believe, by the way, that ownership is the issue here. i think it is the rules under which the media operate. and -- but we had -- or i had taken the position we were not going to do a big inquiry into the cross-media ownership.

i thought it would be a distraction for the labor party coming into office and i don't specifically recall it is possible to come out at the dinner and i have expand our position as i would have on statutory recognition. stat yes, but mr. neil's account of the dinner, apart from it going, apparently, very well mr. murdoch indicated his newspapers were not wedded to the tories. does that time what your recollection? >> not specifically at that dinner, but i think it was clear that there was an openness that hadn't been before because of the way i was changing the labour party, and i think -- no, i hadn't actually put the calls for thing at that point up there but it was obvious it was going to be a different leader.

>> and then you apparently indicated that media ownership rules would not be onerous under labour. is it possible you said that? >> i think not onerous is not the way that i would have put it. i can't specifically remember what was said but it's perfectly possible if the issue had cannot i would have said that's not an issue we are going to be taking on. >> so whatever the position, by the end of that dinner, mr. murdoch would have had some degree of comfort from you come at least in this particular domain. and we agreed on that? >> yeah, but i don't know that he would have particularly taken it as -- i wouldn't -- this is not something i was doing in order to get support from the murdoch empire. it was something i wasn't going to take. if we coming to power there might have been a huge distraction for the labor party,

and as i recall, the big issues they were genuinely worried about and i think they were perfectly entitled to this by the way, where they were lobbying very hard was on the commitment to trade union recognition, because we -- and we did introduce trade union recognition. some get me be that there are two things going on here, that for separate reasons the issue of cross-media ownership was not an issue you felt you were going to undertake because it would have been too controversial and would have occupied too much time, but secondly, it might have been necessary to communicate a degree of revisions allowed that to mr. murdoch so at least he understood that. is that possible? >> look, they would have understood it any way when we published our manifesto and so on, but of course, i'm not -- i wasn't aware of the fact that this would have -- if we had decided to do this they would have been center stage in that, and one of the reasons why the

labour party have always advocated this was partly because they had fallen out very badly with the whole murdoch press and this was, you know, in a sense aim at them. it is absolutely correct. but i didn't then know and i don't think now that that's quite apart from the fact, by the way, of what you should do or taking on these border issues. consistently mauney view is it was not the owners of the was the issue. i held that all the way through and still do by the way. the question is what to do the foreign owners are british owners or be, subject to competition and monopoly issues and trust these issues about media ownership. the issue is the culture and rules under which people play. so that's -- it was, yes, of course but i wasn't aware of that fact, you know, the murdoch media group would have been worried we but decided to launch some great inquiry into the cross media ownership or media ownership, but on the other hand, that's not actually the reason why we took the position

we did. in terms of this schedule which she compiled, i think with assistance from the cabinet office to corroborate during his meetings, it runs 18 pages. i think we can put it on the screen. it is available. in terms of trying to discern the trends, which may be difficult, certainly at an early stage, after may 1st, 1997, you were fairly, indeed entirely eclectic in your choice of who you would meet with and speak to triet in other words, we see a whole range of editors and sometimes proprietor's from all main national newspapers; is that fair?

>> and there's even a meeting with mr. dacre on july 1st, 1997. >> yeah, i think there were several let chollet over time. some of those meetings with mr. dacre appears to have ceased a certain point certainly by about 2001. there's a meeting on the 18th of january, 2000 with him coming and i think that may be the last one could estimate i didn't -- i haven't -- we literally were collating this just on information that's come in on the last two or three days. you may well be right. >> there's some meetings with news international which haven't been included, which may or may not be correct -- >> i'm not sure that you're right actually come to be fair, because on the 13th of july, 2000, there was a dinner with mr. dacre and cord rothermere to theestimates 2001.

>> you said 2,000. >> there is one after 2000. >> i think i'm right about that. >> as this goes through, the picture i think is fairly stated to be of greater interaction with mr. murdoch and certainly with rebekah wade. would that be a recess that? >> well, i'd think -- yeah, i mean i think if you collate all of these meetings, i think about a third or with -- and calls, by the way, because we've included the calls as well -- i think basically half of the interactions that we have recorded were calls and not meetings, and i think it's about one third with a murdoch media, two-thirds or with others, but i think you are right. obviously, certain people -- i mean, frankly it became pretty pointless to have the meetings with, for example, the male group. that is passed a certain point.

so in a sense there is a -- this probably then -- some of the people got stripped out for reasons that i agree there wouldn't be much point in doing it. i think at a certain point the express' people told me they had to change their line and then it became also pretty pointless to see them. >> but just on the members of meetings, i actually found this a bit confusing as to trying to align the records in my diary, with rupert murdoch and others have put in their evidence. for simple, peers morgan -- piers morgan says that he met me on what would be 56 times he said. i can't find that many, but that's not to say that it didn't happen. i mean, i just -- so i'm sort of giving a disclaimer on this. and there may be, by the way sometimes calls or meetings that were fixed that didn't take place, and at other times they

may have -- so -- >> but this can only be taken as a broad picture. >> yeah. >> it can't be analyzed with sort of forensic accuracy that might otherwise be thought appropriate, and it isn't necessary, i don't think, for the purpose of the exercise. >> yes, because i wouldn't dispute in any shape or form that i wasn't interacting with these people closely. >> rebekah brooks come in her statement, has about five or six additional lunches or dinners which you haven't included, but she may or may not be right about those to the >> preferences or 05275, and 05276 of the mod3 file, but i suspect nothing much is going to turn all those. estimate it sometimes depends on whether, as it were, it's a -- i think my stuff is basically about specific meetings, but there may have been occasions where you go to somebody's house

or something and they might be there or something like that. now, i have included that as a meeting unless the purpose was to see them. >> at the time of the iraq war, just in the run-up to it, on page 11 of this little schedule, mr. blair comegys listed the three calls with mr. murdoch on 11, 13 and 19th of march. but you would no doubt wish to draw attention to the fact that there were calls with other editors and meetings as well. >> yeah. look, this is a huge issue, obviously. i mean, my recollection is that i initiated one of those calls. i actually in fact only remember the two. but the records show there were three, although i think they were no more than 45 minutes in total for all three. but, you know, i would have been wanting to explain what we were

doing, and i did this -- i think i had a similar calls with the observer and the telegraph, and indeed i had a lunch leader with the guardian. so, you know, i think that's -- it's not -- i wouldn't say there's anything particularly unusual or odd about that when you're facing such a huge issue. now, none of these calls were particularly long, but they were important. >> at that stage, of course, i think all the murdoch papers in the world -- whether there's 173 or 175i can't remember now, but they've all taken the same position before march 11th, 2003, so there was no question of you, as it were, persuade them to take a position which they had not already attained for their own reasons. but was the subject matter of any of the calls about the tone of the coverage in the sun and

the times one of? >> no. no, it was really -- i mean, it was really to do with -- i would be explaining this is how i saw things. i think with him, probably, i would have also have been asking him what the situation was in the u.s., for example, in australia which were also major parts of the collision. but no, it wouldn't have to know about the tone of the coverage. i mean, look, they were supportive of it and that was that. >> so the suggestion which someone has made that the articles in the sun which were hostile to president chirac, it's completely wrong, you would say, to see the cause and effect here, that the subject of the calls was nothing to do with that, is the right? steny absolutely. and by the way, since i have to deal with president chirac and

in the aftermath -- where i have to say we believed very graciously given we had this argument -- the last thing i wanted was the suggestion that we were sort of winding up the your skeptic media to go and denounce him. so both with him and the german chancellor the time i was actually very concerned to make sure. i think we have a european council shortly after the iraq action began and i was actually very concerned that to try to bring everyone back together because we then want to the united nations resolution, which we subsequently got, which invalidated the presence of the foreign troops there. so, for me it was very important we get these people on site. >> after the 30 election which was april or may, 2005 -- it was april, ackley -- virtually not at all, but the majority of your interactions are either with mr. murdoch or rebekah wade in this schedule. would you agree with that?

>> if circling becomes -- you know, at that point, frankly, there are the main group that are still reasonably supportive. although i notice there are others that came in, too, by the way commodity -- especially as i was coming up to the plight of the departure, because obviously i was trying also to get across the legacy of the ten years in office and so, by then, frankly there was not a great deal they could do for me, one way or another, as it were, but i think -- you know, inevitably as time goes on, you tend to associate more with those that at least will give you a fair shot of it. >> the remaining, i suppose, a sympathetic ear for a pair of ears in love was become increasingly hostile media landscape? >> yes, it was a very hostile during that time, as you know on had won a 30 election, i never intended to fight a fourth, but i was under pretty constant

pressure all the way after 2005 to step down and there was a lot of political maneuvering around that, of the gas leak. so that was important media relationship. but all i would say that that was sort of more important because -- for the reason you give, namely that there was a certain amount of support and willingness at least to put across our point of view, whereas by that time, a significant part of the media were effectively a kind of closed book to us triet >> can i look now at some evidence, if that is what this is, of your interactions in particular with a news international paper's and issues surrounding that from 1994. in her press mullins' diaries, which is page two in the bundle that we prepared, he notes a meeting that he had with you on the 17th of november, 1994.

you see at the bottom of page to the three lines from the bottom. we, that's you and mr. mullins, talked about his dinner with mr. murdoch who hadn't tried to sound him out on the plans. so far so good, at least as your recollection is of that meeting? >> yeah, that might become by the way a reference to that gus fisher dinner. i mean, i was saying to you -- i don't know what he raised at that. i can't recall what precisely the this is what i am saying -- this is in november, is it, 1994? the dinner was the 15th of september, 1994. there is no evidence of any other devotee to the 15th of

september and 17th of november. and you might say, well, any way we can see that this says. >> tony said he had the impression that these days murdoch's principal issues were with asia. and then this. if i think we are going to win, he will go easy on us but if he thought we could lose, he would turn on us. he added if the press misbehaves badly during the election campaign, i will stop everything for two days and we will have a debate about what they're up to, who owns them all lot. deduce that and mr. murdoch. not so many words. is that an accurate just then of your conversation with mr. mr. mullin? >> as i said this is going back 18 years or so, 17 and a half now, but certainly that was my attitude. i think now, by the way, i would have a slightly different view. in other words, i think -- there was a view of rupert murdoch, which i think paul keating

speaks to the same effect, which is that he just backed the winner. my view now is it's not as simple as that actually. there are very strong political views and those actually to come first, i think, or put it like this, they are equal first, let's say, with whatever interests she feels in being on the winning side were the losing side, and -- you know, so i'm not -- my view of this now is if he had been persuaded. i mean, it looked as if we were going to win, so you didn't have to be a genius to think we had a good chance of winning, although when you've lost four of them in a row, by the way, you never think it's that clear. so i'm not sure i would have the same view now about that, but that may well have been what i said to chris and, you know, yes, look if i had ended in a such a region where they turned on me, i would have had to fight back. you know, there's no -- that would have been the only recourse.

and we were not -- in 1992 we were not really in a position where we were able to fight back, but this time we would have. >> it puts them in a tremendously powerful position. i mean come here you are embarking upon the prospect of government, and you're sufficiently concerned to say well, look, if we were really going to turn moscow then all bets are off. we will have to do something about it. and i'd be just interested in your view on the power that that means there does in fact reside in just a few people. >> well, i -- i think basically there is a substantial power there. and i say in my view not simply in the murdoch media. >> no, i understand that, i understand. >> but, yes, look there is no -- i was looking at this as the leader of the labor party. we lose the 40 elections. as i say, i went through that 1992 election. now, live -- by the way, there

are all sorts of reasons, mistakes that we made, which meant that the election result -- i don't blame the media for us having lost. i make that absolutely clear. but, no, the power is significant, and it's significant for the reason that i get. it would be significant anyway. that's why i have to -- i keep qualifying that i'm saying because i think if you have a readership of three to 4 million, even if the newspapers are be hitting in the most totally proper way, that's power, and i think -- but i don't know any other way of describing it. but yes, i mean, if you looked at those mean media blocks, which the murdoch press for the most powerful, but there were others that were very powerful as well, yeah, that was definitely a major factor had

you to take into account when he were working out your strategy for winning and governing. now, as i say, was it more -- you know, supposing they decided to oppose us in the 1997 election. my view is we would still have won. so i think we have to also be careful of -- i think actually we were sometimes guilty of a spreading to them a town or that they ultimately don't really have and actually have less today than i think back then, but sitting -- trying to put myself back 18 years and sitting in that sea and thinking right, how are we going to create the right circumstances in which we get a fair hearing for our case? this was important. >> mr. jay, is that convenient?

>> yes. >> we have a break to allow the shorthand writer to recover. >> the other point on this extract from mr. mullin's diary, the line, did you say that not in so many words where you are intending to communicate and obviously the clear and stark message, which we fear the top of the page might not have been in part to mr. murdoch more attenuated might have been. do you accept that or not?

>> i can't remember precisely what i would have said, and frankly it wasn't -- it wasn't an occasion, that dinner as i recall that, where i was going out there to start banging the table, so i don't -- i don't know whether it sums up what i said to him or the implication or not really. >> than at the end of this little encounter with mr. mullin, you apparently say my absolute priority is to win. i know that sounds on principle, but i just see it as my role in life. might you have said that? >> yeah, sounds like it. i mean, by the way, let me emphasize -- [laughter] i don't think it's on principled -- unprincipled to win. i think if you believe in what you're doing you should. but yes, i don't -- it would be pointless to do anything else. but i saw an ability to go out there and persuade the murdoch group, as i did with others, as

important. >> mr. neil has attributed something that you said to him. page 15 of the bundle. this is the introduction to the paperback edition of his book "full disclosure." he says about ten lines down tony blair won said to me how we treat rupert murdoch's media interests when in power will depend on how his newspapers to the labor party in the run-up to the election. might you have said that to him? >> i don't recall saying that frankly that i think the general tone of what i might well have said to him is look, if rupert murdoch is going to wage a war onerous we are going to stand up to them. but, all the way through, for me as it were, the issue of media interests, other than the fact, as i ever to at the very outset, i'd taken a strategic decision i was not going to put this at the

forefront of our program as a government, you know, i was, as it were -- that was not my issue. so, you know, i don't think it's a question of media interests, but had de -- as i am saying to chris mullin back then, and again i don't recall precisely the words i used, but there's no doubt at all that if they'd done is started to treat me as they had neil i would have fought back in a very tough way. ..

is that what mr. keating said or words to that effect? >> it sounds absolutely what lord keating probably would have said. again, i don't recall the precise language. recording contemporaneously. >> you can do deals with him without ever saying a deal is done. the only thing he cares about is his business, and the only language to restrict -- respect is strength. was that advice given by mr. keating? >> that was his views. you know, as he does, he expressed himself and robust terms. i mean, i came to have a different view myself which was not as simple as that.

but, as i say, recorded that at the time, i'm happy to accept it. >> did mr. keating's statement chime with the implied deal which are be cleared to you accept or reject? >> as far as we are concerned. i can't answer for him obviously. as far as we are concerned, absolutely idea rejected. he's used to do with the media. deep than anybody else, either express or implied. and you never saw such slang. so was i aware of the fact that he had certain interests? was i aware that the media as a whole had a strong interest in legislating on the media? absolutely. but in terms of implied or expressed, absolutely not.

in my statement, when he actually came to this specific issue in relation to the murdoch's media group, we never decided against or in favor of them. >> the last comment, the 16th of july. had just been to a barbecue. about ten lines down. you have to remember, it's all about rupert. number one, two, three, and four. everything else is a long, long way behind. >> e-mail will have said that. again, i would be happy to accept. there was -- i mean, the relationship is strained with

the liberal party. rupert murdoch is a whole other as it were. and i think the view of it was very straightforward. at the same time i don't quite buy the crudeness of that. >> could we move forward and in time to the 29th of january, now and 1997. just before you moved. perfectly understandable reason. you wanted the murdoch press to support the labor party. understandable reasons. does that not come out and something else of his where he says -- where he has somebody to go through the speech from the

murdoch's angle. this is page six. have a clear message. nothing boy of the anti murdoch neurologic. >> look. i would not have been going all the way around the world. i had to go up through one prime minister's questions and return for the next if it had not been a very deliberate and, again, very strategic decision. i was going to try to persuade them. i had a minimum and maximum objective. the maximum was, if possible, to open the way for support. the speech i gave, you have to balance very carefully. the policy positions, and in the speech we were very careful about that to make sure i emphasize support for minimum wage, union recognition, pro european positions.

increases in public investment, all of which may not have been what they wanted to here. on the other hand, what i felt perfectly -- perfectly comfortable in doing, and this i was perfectly comfortable with. saying, this liberal party will be a party of desperation. it will be a party that will appeal to the, you know, emerging affluent working class. a party that is essentially about creating a society and expanding opportunity. it's not going to go back to the old ways. that was the messes that i was determined to get to the country part of this was the murdoch's media. using them. and i don't -- as i say, i don't think that -- i would strongly defense, you are perfectly entitled to do that. they were, you know, to bring this on and the news of the

world to the point where at least they were prepared to give you a fair hearing, you know, you have to think back to that time. that was revolutionary for the liberal party to be in that position. >> the required you to at least have thought about if not calibrated what he knew mr. murdoch would like to here. >> absolutely. you know, going out to go persuade someone, indeed you can say this about the voters in general and the rest of the media group, but, of course, you calibrate carefully. again, i think, you know, that was the sensible part. provided you're not changing your case. if he takes a stir recognition, for example. something they deeply reflects, something i was committed to. two ways of putting that. you can say, you know, wage war on the trade unions, and i am determined to bring the unions back to their proper place in

power. not very sensible to put it that way. or you could say, it should be the basic human right of any individual to be a member of a trade union insufficient support for union for them to be recognized. that is a matter of basic individual rights. put this in a way that was about collective power or way that was about individual rights. my view is it is perfectly open to you to say the best way of putting this case is to say it's about individual rights. i have already fought this whole thing within the labor party, getting rid of support and so on and so forth. a certain amount of looking into the credibility on this issue. you know, of course you want to put your case across in the best way possible. >> that is no different. would you say that is no difference to any speech you might make to any group precisely about what they want to hear and fits with your philosophy into what they want

to, what they want to hear into it, but also the other bets. >> yes, sir. that is absolutely right. you know, the first politician to do that, i would be surprised. what is important, i think, to emphasize demand that is why i draw attention in my statement to the guardian report in my speech the next day, actually did have all the things we were committed to they would not like. i was having to a watch my other audience as well. >> okay. the 29 to january, 1997. page nine of this bundle. mr. campbell's diaries. about two-thirds of the way down the page he says tb was due to see murdoch on monday. it angered him that the meeting

mattered, but it did. first of all, as mr. campbell said l. what he apparently told him? >> i think so. yes. that was my view all the way through in away. that is where i come so what i think, how i would define the and help the part of this relationship. because i felt that it really did matter. i still believe that, by the lead. and that is not, not simply a point with them, probably the most powerful of a group of what with all of them. and it mattered because the consequence of not getting it right was so severe, frankly. >> does it not ride with you in another sense that maybe you felt that your policies said to be calibrated in some way to

affect the views of this very powerful institution? >> no. not really. look. what i said to you at the very beginning, that i took a strategic decision to manage his people, let me make it clear. that was it -- i'm not saying i feared them in this sense -- obviously i was aware of their power. i'm not saying that i feared them in the sense that and i believe that was the most important thing for the government to concentrate on my would have done it. my issue is very simple about this. everything else had been pushed aside. no guarantee of winning. it is taken frankly what has happened in order to have this debate. me sitting here and for this inquiry to be taking place. so what i did in managing it, i was very careful.

for example, you know, before the 1970 election, you know, you stressed year european policy that would appeal. okay. that did not change the policy. some of the stuff in relation to europe we did not do things because of the murdoch's media. that is not correct actually. i was a pro european my command. i did not change positions on core policy issue. on the other hand, managing the forces was a major part of what you have to do and was difficult . >> in your conversations with mr. murdoch about this time or perhaps when you were in power, it is quite clear that the main subject matter was the big critical issue of the day including, of course, the euro which is very much a concern. do you also have concerns about

regulation or the bbc? >> no. not. regulation, it was basically 80 regulator rather than a regulator. in general terms i can recall conversations about the regulation per cent. i mean, it will be the media. not to say we were not aware of the positions the company sent because we were. as i say, we decided more often against and in favor. but the bulk of the conversation was about politics. the euro was a very large part of that because we had a serious problem. very strong views on your. so did i. so you know, that was -- the conversations were really basically politics.

i find this interesting. for example, in issues relation to the united states, anyone else i was talking to at the time. >> we will leave this year. you can see our coverage of testimony in the investigation of british media and the press and the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. and back now to our live daylong coverage of a conference on voting rights hosted by the congressional black caucus and the conference of national back to bunt by churches. discussions on protecting its tax-exempt status and initiatives to secure voting rights. >> very good. very good. come right in this section. congressman, would you come on down? , right on n. come on in.

congressman bobby scott, a longtime congressman in the state of virginia. a dear friend. a very effective. they love bobby scott in virginia. he is all over the state. he is in everything good that is in virginia, and we are happy he is here with us today. congressman bobby scott. [applause] >> thank you, reverend. thank you for your lead, particularly the virginia union university. appreciate your lead. thank the cnbc for inviting us. this is a very important panel because they're is a close interaction between politics and the church. you have to make sure that that interaction works appropriately so that you don't get in trouble one of the things that we have

noticed that, there are some things you can do in the church and some things you can do in the public square. how you kind of bring those together is extremely important. i mean, you had some things that you can do within your church. you can select to you once. you are not subject to discrimination laws that apply to everybody else on religious discrimination, whatever your faith is you can consider that in church activities. if you are in the public square you would not want people to be exercising that kind of discretion or discrimination. if you are discriminating based on religion, which church you get to, that has racial implications. so you don't want people out there discriminating on religion in public. you can consider that obviously in the church. and so if you are running a free clinic in your church you can

discriminate on religion, on which doctors are going to participate. but if you have a group of running a public hospital, have the money coming from medicare and medicaid and the other half coming from the public, you would not want them to exercise their religious discretion on who can be employed and you cannot. and so some of the things that happen in the public square, regulations and environmental regulations, licensing, what insurance to cover or not cover. of course discrimination of things that happened that should not happen in the public's where , you should be able to have discretion in church. one of the problems that you thought allowing discrimination, for a example, in the public square or with public money, that sets a precedent and seven tushes your ability and moral authority to tell somebody what they can do with their personal

money. and so we have a close interaction between the public and the politics and the church. we had a session about voter registration. we went through all that. let me to say that all these new republican voter loss have one thing in common. then make it harder to vote. does that make it impossible to vote, but part of of. as gkn dictated, it may not prevent somebody from voting, but it is like point shaving. in not fixing the game. your just sharing of a few points. in many elections that could certainly make the difference. we want to make sure that everybody who is eligible to vote can vote and without barriers. we want to make sure you are involved in that fight. as we debate the issues and participate we want to make sure that you do it in such a way that does not jeopardize your tax status.

so is my pleasure to introduce douglas showman, the 47 commissioner of the internal revenue service. earlier today we heard that if you did not know who eric holder was you ought to be ashamed of yourself. if you happen to know who the director of internal revenue is. [laughter] , well, he presides over the nation's tax system which funds the federal government, includes individual taxpayers, small businesses, large businesses, the tax-exempt status of the sector which includes house of worship. during his tenure the irs has played a major role in economic recovery efforts by administration tax credits and then making sure that all americans pay their fair share of the taxes. came to the ira's from the financial industry regulatory authority, the private sector regular is in of all securities firms doing business in the united states where he served as

vice chairman. earlier in his career the commissioner co-founded teach from erica. he was involved in several startup organizations. vice president of a private investment firm and see it -- served as senior policy adviser and chief of staff of the national commission on restructuring the internal revenue service. he holds a master's degree from williams college, master's from the harvard john f. kennedy school of government and a law degree from georgetown university law center. please welcome the commissioner of the internal revenue service, douglas schuman. [applause] >> thank you, congressman scott. it is good to be here. and have the opportunity speak at the face leaders summit together with the congressional black caucus and cnbc. one of my colleagues, peter lorenzetti who works in our

tax-exempt area is goingo actually speak to you at some length about the topic that the congressman talked-about which is the rules, the alliance around tax-exempt status and churches. what i wanted to do this stuff by, welcome you, say hello, and give you a little bit of a 30,000-foot perspective on the irs. then i will turn it over to my colleague for presentation then enter your all interested in. let me first say, the irs is often what i call misunderstood agency. [laughter] serious. and the reason i say that bad, when people in america and even in other countries to letters irs they think enforcement. they think of somebody coming in to do an audit. that is what the brand is about.

what a lot of people don't realize is that the vast majority of americans actually interact with us and a service capacity. 80 percent of americans by a -- file electronically, get a refund on average of $3,000.10 days after the file. that is their only interaction. so if you think of us from that perspective, which is the way we think ourselves, we are of financial service institution has to serve every american and serve them well. another piece of the puzzle i think a lot of people mess or just is not well understood is that we really think of ourselves as a non-partisan, non-political organization. i worked with the treasury secretary and the president of the united states. a long tradition of having all of our actions be independent of

politics and the nonpartisan. nowhere is that more important than in the tax-exempt sector where a lot of ideas and beliefs are shared and exchanged for the good of the public. what we need to do is apply the laws that are written on the books in a fair and even-handed manner. it is one of the reasons that myself and our chief counsel by the only presidential appointees and the whole irs. we have 100,000 employees. the rest are career civil servants today in and day out serve the american people and tried to run a fair, efficient tax system. the other thing that the congressman has mentioned that is unique about us. we touch everyone. we have an interaction every year with almost every adult individual. most small businesses, most large businesses, and most

institutions in the tax-exempt sector. and so another way we think about ourselves is that we need to be efficient and effective, respectful and competence because being all those things actually affects the way people view the competency of their governments. the whole notion about being part of the fabric that makes the country work, we collect two and a half trillion dollars which pays for vital services. we also more and more have been called on to help execute very important policy initiatives for the nation. take the recovery act. one-third of the recovery act, almost $300 billion, ran through the tax system. so while we were doing our everyday job we also turned on the dime and with $300 billion out to help stabilize the economy. so whether through the make work pay credit which 95 percent of americans received or the first-time homebuyer credit

which was instrumental in stabilizing housing market or net carrybacks which helps small businesses get some extra cash when credit markets were frozen. one of the things that i would say is, we are quite efficient. the revenue center of the government -- government. a lot of ways to measure our return on investment. if you get the total amount of money we bring in another budget, for every dollar spent on the irs about $200 comes into the u.s. treasury. there is no other agency that has that kind of return. i have been trying to make sure people understand in the dialogue, especially one around debt and deficit, that an investment in the irs makes sense. we, unfortunately, have been caught up in some of the budget issues. it has affected things like service. we did not have as many people answering the phones this tax filing season. if you call this you got there eventually but usually have to wait a little bit longer and

sometimes you would call back at a time which was more convenient to. we also have tried hard to be good stewards of taxpayer money. and so while i would argue and the president has proposed a significant increase in the irs budget for next year, even in these tough fiscal times were a bunch of agencies he has proposed decreases, we have also been aggressively cutting where we think we can without fundamentally hurting the tax system. and so between 2009 and next year's budget we will have taken a billion dollars out of our operating run rate. we have done things like shut down service centers as we move to more electronic filing. shut down processing centers. we have offered buyouts to employees in selected areas. we have cut back on travel and non case related travel and conferences significantly. even last week i announced we

are shutting 43 smaller offices again to try to get budget deficiencies. but with all of these efforts at think it is still important. i am always an advocate, you have to fund the tax system because our job is long-term to be fair, long-term to run the system so that we raise the funds to fund the government, long term to make sure our people are trained well. long-term make sure that we provide goods service to america's taxpayers. so with that, no one of the things you really want to hear about is the whole issue of churches in keeping your tax-exempt status. as i mentioned, peter lorenzetti runs are northeast region for are tax-exempt organizations grew. he has been at the irs 39 years. he is one of those experts i talked about his serve the american people well for all those years. he is going to talk to you about that specific issue.

i hope you have a great rest of the conference. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you, commissioner. thank you, congressman. thank you to everyone for the opportunity to spend a little time with you this afternoon to talk about a topic which hopefully you will find interesting and informative. just to begin, you know, there are 30 different types of organizations that are described as tax exempt in the internal revenue code. section 501c3 is by far the most common type. the organizations that are exempt under section 501 included schools, hospitals,

foundations, and as we are going to talk about today , churches and religious organizations. so that is just sort of the big picture opening to show where churches and religious organizations fit in the internal revenue code. those organizations are exempt under section 501(c)3 of the internal revenue code. now, you should have a handout. it is one page front-end back. the title is dos and don'ts for churches and other 501(c)3 religious organizations. the information contained on this handout, the information that i will be discussing is all discussed in great detail in a publication which is also referenced in the hand that that you have. that is a publication that is called for his organization's. we have a few of those. report them with us. we did not have enough for

everyone. those can be ordered or viewed online. publication 1828. an excellent publication. okay. churches and religious organizations. church is generally a place of fortune. it is not defined in the internal revenue code. the term church is used as a general term, but it includes all places of worship, temples, mosques, some might to us in a box, all places of worship. includes conventions and associations of churches, integrated others hilary's of churches and very importantly, a church has to comply with the requirements of section 501 ct in order to be tax-exempt.

now, as i mentioned, churches are not defined in the internal revenue code, but there are certain attributes that have been developed by the irs and report cases that help define a church. those are discussed in detail in the publication that i mentioned, publication 12 -- 1828. to mention a few, a distinct legal existence by recognized cree and form of worship, a formal code of doctrine and discipline, established places of worship, regular religious services, schools for preparation of ministers is just a few. the list, those that is provided in the quotation is not all inclusive, and there is no special number of those characteristics that an organization has to me to be a church. it is just some hatchery that helps us define a church. abcaeight. a religious organization is an organization that is broader

than the church. it can include nondenominational ministries. it denominational and ecumenical organizations. into these organizations whose principal purpose is the study or advancement of religion. now, it might be helpful or is important to you to distinguish whether or not you are a church or release to cover the disorganization because both entities, whether a church or religious organization must comply with the requirements of section 501(c)3 of the internal revenue code. but if you are church you do not have to submit an application, form 23, to be exempt under the internal revenue code. if you're a church you're automatically considered to be exempt under section 501(c)3 of the internal revenue code. but, you must still operate in accordance with the provisions of section 501(c)3 of the internal revenue code. now, if you do not submit the

application you will not be listed in our publication which lists all organizations that we have granted the internal revenue service has granted tax-exempt status to under section 501(c)3 of the internal revenue code. that is why some churches to submit the application so that once they get to that determination letter from the internal revenue service saying that they are tax-exempt they will be listed in the publication as exempt under section 501(c)3. we will talk and a couple of minutes, but just to mention right up front, if you are a church you do not have to file the 990 series information return. by that i mean, then 990 and which is sometimes called the e-postcard or the 990 easy or than 990. if you are a church should not have to file any of those information returns. now, if you are a religious organization then you must submit an application, a form

1023 to the internal revenue service in order to be recognized as tax-exempt. you must take that determination letter from us. that applies if your gross receipts as indicated on the hand that is more than $5,000. an organization, except for a church, is not exempt under section 501 cd of the internal revenue code unless the organization submits an application to the internal revenue service and receives a letter from us stating that organization is tax-exempt. again, as i mentioned, the exception is the organization with chris received less than $5,000. it is organization is required to file the appropriate form 990 return each year, and that is based on the size of the organization, the assets, and the income of the organization. either the 99n, 99 easy, or 990. those are important distinctions to keep in mind. very importantly, whether you

are a church or you are a religious organization, you must still comply in operation with the requirements of section 501(c)3 of the internal revenue code. and there are a couple of activities that tend to jeopardize the agent status. and you see on the handout, there are four which i will discuss, substantial lobbying activity, a political campaign activity, unrelated business income activity and private benefit. let's talk a little bit about lobbying to begin with. lobbying is attempting to end plus legislation. and it is not just federal legislation, it is legislation at any level of government. okay?

an organization exempt under section 501(c)3 can engage in some lobbying activity, but it cannot be a substantial part of its activity. the lobbying cannot be substantial. if the lobbying is substantial the sense status of the organization is put in jeopardy and might also be excise taxes that must be paid. now, how do we measure the lobbying activity? wow, there are two different tests. one is called a substantial part test and one is called -- the other one is called the expenditure test. the substantial part test is a fact and circumstance test. the irs would look at all the expenses that have gone into the lobbying activity. beyond that they will also look at everything.

they will look at the time devoted to the various activities, even if the activities are conducted by a volunteer. it is a substantial test to determine how much of the organization's effort and activity, not just expenses, but after an activity, has gone into lobbying activity. if it is considered substantial it jeopardized the exam status of the organization and could result in some excise taxes. the second test is the expenditure test. the expenditure test is not available to churches. churches, the degree of lobbying activity is measured only by the substantial part test. the expenditure test is more of a mathematical analysis of the amount of lobbying expenditures put forth by the organization as compared to its total to exempt purpose expenditures. and in order to avail oneself of the expenditure to as the

organization has to elect that on a form 5768, and that stays in effect until that election is revoked. the important point here is if the organization is involved in substantial lobbying activity it could jeopardize the sense status and could result in some excise taxes. let's talk a little bit about political activity. if you get -- if you look at the handout in italics at the end of that section is says absolute prohibition with an exclamation point. organizations that are exempt under 501(c)3 of the internal revenue code and that, again, includes charges and reserve organizations, absolutely prohibited from engaging in any political activity. if the organization engages in political activity it puts its exempt status in jeopardy and, again, there are some excise

taxes that might be associated with that. >> do you mean partisan political activity. >> you will get into that and a second. mills is a political activity. political activity refers to direct and indirect support for a candidate in an election. and it is an election at any level. just not the federal level, state, local government, and the election. the prohibited activity includes making contributions, participating in campaigns and making public statements for or against a particular. included would be publishing or distributing materials on behalf of or in opposition to any canada for public office been sponsoring a debate or form where preferences shown for or

against a certain candidate and encouraging people to vote for or against a particular candidates. it is important to note, however, that an organization is exempt under 501(c)3, the church or the release organization can conduct educational collection activities. they can educate the debates or voting guides. those activities must not favor a candidate when doing so. an organization that can't even in by canada to speak at an event if all candid it's have equal opportunities speak. the organization does not indicate any positive or negative endorsements and there is no political fund-raising by the speaker. a church or religious organization exempt under 501(c)3 can never say, vote for this candid it or don't vote for this candid it's.

i had mentioned that publication to my church tax church and organizations from that publication devotes about eight or nine pages to the discussion of political activity and it discusses it in different topics and has some examples, some sort of questions and then answers, whether or not it sets out is an area and answers whether or not it would be political activity. very good information and helpful free to take a look at. there are a couple of other areas of want to touch on that are important. one is unrelated business income what is unrelated business income? that is and come that is derived from a trade or business activity that is regularly carried on and is unrelated to the organization's exempt purpose. i have mentioned in this context because if the unrelated

business activity becomes too much a part of the organization's activities then the organization's exempt status could be in jeopardy. but if you do engage in unrelated business activity, that may be fine. you may be required to report that and come and pay tax on the net profit. let's give an example. first of all, it is expected or hoped that an agent organization will not lose money. the organization wants to remain in existence. hopefully it makes some money so that it can't -- continue its exempt purposes. sometimes and ordered help raise money and to have money to use exempt organizations engaged in other activities. for example, some exams to have

some examples listed on the information and. advertising, a church may publish a weekly or monthly bulletin and may sell advertising space. it may engage in some gaming activities. may sell merchandise or publications. they have a parking lot for the general public. rental income. okay. now, that would only be unrelated business income if it was debt-financed for personal property. some ideas of activities that to raise income or income producing activities that your church an organization may be involved in that may be considered unrelated business income. that is okay as long as that does not become a substantial part of what you do, but you may have to pay income tax on the unrelated business income. give you a quick example to help illustrate the point. let's say a church has bequeathed the gas station. now, running a gas station is a trade or business activity.

it is regularly carried on, and is certainly unrelated to the church is exempt purpose. maybe the church does run this devastation and it makes a nice profit. well, that's fine. the church will be taxed on that income from running that gas station, even if that money is used to further the church is exempt purpose. it is the source of the income that determines whether or not it is unrelated business income. there are some exceptions to whether or not it is unrelated business income. if all of the work is performed by volunteers, and remember i mentioned gaming activities. sometimes an organization engages in gaming activities to help raise money. if the -- if they perform substantially by volunteers, it may not be unrelated business income. if the activity is conducted primarily for members it may not be unrelated business income. and if it involves the sale of

merchandise which was substantially donated then it's not unrelated business income. the last topic i do want to mention, one of the ones that may jeopardize a sense that this relates to what we call private benefit. okay? in your is a legal term. you probably will only see it regarding exempt organizations. it is taciturn language that refers to the accrual of benefits, particularly the sharing of net profits to insiders that would include dividends or other similar payments as well as contractual payments to an insider that may be unreasonable. to illustrate the points.

when we talk about an insider, we are talking about someone we sometimes referred to as a disqualify a person, a key individual in that organization, a decision maker in that organization. it could be a director, a trustee, the minister, a key individual, a decision maker. does that mean -- laissez the minister of a church, does that mean he or she cannot be paid compensation? of course they can be paid compensation. that is not in a garment. the compensation has to be reasonable. if based on the the duties that minister performs, it's a reasonable amount of compensation for those duties with $200,000, that's fine. no problem. but let's say that minister, the reasonable compensation amount of 200,000. >> caller: in 2000. well, now we may have enormous. that could be a problem.

reasonable amount of compensation for the duties was 200,000. here she was paid 300,000. another example, let's say a minister also owns a car. the church is in need of a new automobile. the minister dictates that that car must be purchased from his or her car. that would be enormous. on the other hand, let's say their is a board he takes a look at where we get the best deal, and it turns out that we get the best deal at the masters car. that is not enormous. that is a day. what you have there is some incidental private benefit.

there is some incidents of private benefit, but it was done at arm's length. an independent board voted and found the best deal for the church. there is a distinction. the church has a custodian. the church as an automobile. they allow the custodian. the custodian uses his automobile for judge purposes. they allow the custodian to take the automobile home on weekends. there is a small percentage of personal use involved. that is considered private benefit because the custodian is not a key individual and not a decision maker, not an insider in that organization. now, if there is any or a significant amount of private benefits, the church is exempt status could be in jeopardy. we also have organization's exempt under section 501(c)3 and the section actually for as well, just to mention, a change a law which came about a number

of years ago which is commonly referred to as sanctions. with that allows or provides is that if you have that the individual has to pay an excise tax on that excess benefit. remember the example i gave call reasonable compensation. the church paid the minister 300,000. so that $100,000 difference is called an excess benefits, and the minister would have to pay 25% excise tax on that and undo the transaction. and the organization's exempt status may not be revoked. okay. those quickly are some key areas , some activities that churches need to, you know, be careful of as they -- and religious organizations, any organization exempt to be careful. on your hand out there is some very important things to mention about filing requirements and

record-keeping requirements. first of all, the filing requirements. let me remind you. church is to not have to file a form 990 or easy or the 990. did not have to file that. they may have to file the 990 teefor unrelated business income that is if your gross income from your unrelated trade or business is in excess of $1,000. all church or religious organizations would also have to file the employment tax returns. 4941 because the churches or religious organizations may be an employer. people that they hired to, you know, on their peril. they do need to file those returns. frequently the question comes up, what recordkeeping, if we are exempt, what records do we need to maintain? to we need to maintain records? you always must maintain records that justify your right to the exemption. and records that enable the filing of your accurate required

federal income tax or information returns. for example, if the church even though it does not have to file the 990 series, the church engages in activity that is unrelated business income activity stemming you need to keep those records of the income expenses, both related to the church, the unrelated so that the 990 t can be accurately filed. if an organization did request to exempt status it should keep its exemption letter that it receives from us forever. just keep it. is it always maintained the bylaws, the organizing documents, if anything gets amended, always keep those things. on there you will also see some contact information. we have our website there. it has some fabulous educational information on there. it goes into detail on many of the topics are covered. and we also listed some publications you may find helpful.

that publication i keep referencing, publication 1828 the texas churches and religious organizations is an excellent publication. everything i have covered is in there and in much greater detail . i think you very much. [applause] >> okay. >> all right. >> you're going to be entertaining questions in just a few minutes, but i was told to wrap it up and then open it up for question. some of you may remember me from this morning. congressman j. k. butterfield representing the first congressional district of north carolina. let me just think the internal revenue service for their willingness to come today to have this conversation with the spirit did not have to come today.

this is a very touchy subject sometimes. very technical, but their willingness to come today to engage in this conversation speaks volumes for the agency. thank you so very much. [applause] prior to serving in congress i serve 15 years as a judge in north carolina. thirteen of those as the trial judge and two years in our state supreme court. when i was a trial judge, for some reason i was assigned the controversial church cases. that was not the only thing that i did, of course, but whenever there was a real sore knee church case, especially involving congregational churches like we have in the baptist church, somehow some way i get the assignment. and so i can relate very easily to the work did you do in my home church and in north carolina. at one time i was the treasurer from my church and trustee for

the church. so i understand the challenges that you face every day. this subject that we are talking about today is, indeed, very timely. there is so much misunderstanding about the ability of the church and the pastor the recognize a political candidate in the church during a worship service. there is so much misunderstanding about what you can do when an elected official comes to your church during a worship service. it does not always been that way our pastors down through the years have been very comfortable in recognizing elected officials and political candid it's. in recent years somehow that is beginning to change. many of our past is go to seminars and meetings and leave with the impression that a political candidate or an elected official is, if one of those individuals is permitted to speak but -- that is indeed,

that is indeed not the case. churches are automatically classified as exempt organizations. when i was a lawyer years ago i would tell churches, start of churches, that you automatically are tax-exempt by the very nature of the work that you do. you are automatically tax-exempt the church is not pay income tax on its receipts. those who donate to the church are allowed a deduction on their personal tax return. the penalty for proving a case of intentional misconduct on the part of the church is revocation of the exemption. of course that would not be good the irs does not have the authority to tell the church how to conduct its affairs.

i want to repeat that. the irish church how to conduct its affairs. the only thing the internal revenue can do is to discipline a church, to penalize the church if it engages in impermissible partisan political. so it is important to know the rules. my experience has been that pastors have varying approaches to recognizing. from one extreme to the other. some pastors who are uninformed if will approach their political candidate and church and thank the candid for coming until the congregation, we want you next tuesday to go down to the poll and vote for bobby's got for congress. that would be impermissible partisan political activity. but then there is the other

extreme. when the pastor is so reluctant to give any type of recognition to the candidate. a pastor would just say, we wanted thank mr. scott for coming today. congressman scott, thank you for coming. that is the other extreme. of course, the extreme extreme is not to recognize the candidate at all. we see all of these various extremes. but i urge u.s. pastures and clergy in your communities to recognize the candid it's and recognize the elected officials when they come in to your church and no where the line this. the irs precludes campaign intervention. you cannot get involved as a church in a political campaign. you cannot do it directly or indirectly. you cannot get involved in any type of campaign, whether you are supporting or opposing a candid for public office.

the pastor may do it as an individual, but you cannot do it as a church. this means that you cannot endorse a candidate for a political party as pastor. the church cannot distribute political material. the church cannot read candid it's or solicit financial support for or against the candid it. it means that you cannot use church property for partisan political purposes. you cannot run off 500 copies of a sample ballot on the church copier. that would not be permitted. you are permitted to endorse a candidate in your individual capacity as a citizen. you can appear on a program away from the church and be presented as the pastor of zion baptist church or richard allen a.m. each church.

you can do that and without violating irs regulations. he simply cannot do it in your capacity as the pastor of a church and give the implication that the church is endorsing the candid. you can even run for office yourself and be involved in political and partisan activities so long as you do away from the church. there are so many things that you can and that you should do. i want to encourage you to get involved in nonpartisan voter registration. nonpartisan voter registration. send your people out into the community. knock on doors and go to the street corners and encourage people to register to the. don't tell them to register the democrat or republican or any other political party. encourage center exercise their right to vote. and on election day get out into

the community in a non-partisan way and encourage people to vote . they will vote. you know it as well as i do. they will vote for their interest. we don't have to tell them how to vote. ..

it is absolutely permitted for you to recognize an elected official in their capacity as an elected official. something i think would be appropriate for you to say what the brothers and sisters, we are delighted to have, bobby scott worshiping with us today. congressman scott is no stranger to our church. he's a strong leader and we are very very proud of him. we will continue to pray for the congressman as he confronts the great issues facing our community. congressman scott, thank you for worshiping with us today. i yield to the gentleman for more time. [laughter] >> i don't see anything wrong with that. he's a sitting have united states congressman who's come to your place of worship and it is appropriate for you to recognize him home but not to endorse him in a political way if the church

or the pastore permits the congressman to address the congregation you should then instruct the congressmen were the elected official his or her remarks are in their official capacity. you need to remind us from time to time lancaster's called me and i know i get it put before you bring on the elected officials make sure, remind them that they are there as an elected official and not as a candidate. he should talk about his work in the congress and the issues facing his constituents. but he should avoid remarks such as we must vote for the too of a candidate in the next election. that would be crossing the line. finally, let's talk about those candidates who come to your church. i've been to my chair over the years. some candidates will give you the courtesy of calling you at the church office the week before and asking for the

opportunity to come to the church. others show up on sunday morning and you have seen both kinds. but whenever a political candidate appears at your church, you must decide whether to introduce the candidate, you must make that decision. you are the pastor. past feel right. but you must decide whether to introduce the candidate and then you must decide whether you will allow the candidate to make any remarks. you may choose to introduce the candidate and then not allow her to make remarks or you might want to do both. in introducing the candidates to your congregation be very, very careful when you do not in any way directly or indirectly endorse a candidate in have your introduction. you will say something like welcoming you know, congressman

space is here we want him to come and speak because next year when we come to washington to sit down and talk about the food stamps, we expect to have your year. that would be an indirect probably endorse that the candidate. you should inform the candidates of your expectations as the pastor and warned him or her that they should inform your congregation only of their qualifications, their positions on the issues and simply state that they are a candidate in the upcoming election. it is unwise and probably unlawful for a candidate to stand in front of a congregation in a church and say vote for me and vote for the democrats or vote for the republicans and the next election. that probably sticks over the line. it's good to see something like this house to introduce your candidates. brothers and sisters, we are

delighted to have with us today john jones, a candidate for the state assembly. as you know, our church does not endorse candidates but we certainly want to know a candidate's background and where he or she stands on the issues are important to our community. we invite mr. jones to come out and briefly give us some information to better inform us in this election. in my opinion that is perfectly permitted. so i encourage you to go back to your communities and know that there can be some degree of activity in your church that surrounds the electoral process. it cannot be partisan. it must be reasonable, it cannot in any way suggest to the members that they should suggest defeat to endorse a candidate. you have jury intelligent members in your church and they

get it. with the need is accurate information about what is happening in our state and country and if you give them the information come they will make the right decisions. thank you very much for coming today. [applause] >> what a wonderful panel. we want to thank, for sharing with us and no open to questions. jongh, senior bishop? >> if you have questions please go to a microphone. >> [inaudible] if you are getting paid 200,000 that's acceptable.

if it's 300, that's over the line. is there any way the church can know in advance with the boundaries are? and use that example and say as long as it is appropriate and it is not too much but you didn't talk in terms of the fact is there a way we can note some of those exacts before it becomes a question of being penalized in the 501c3 being taken away? >> there is no set dollar amount. those are numbers i threw out to illustrate the math and that's all. it is up to any organization to determine what their reasonable compensation is. the suggestion would be to document the process you go through to determine what is reasonable. sometimes a very large

organizations have higher compensation experts to do studies and make recommendations. small organizations matt what many believe could be necessarily in the position to afford that there's a lot of public information available on the internet. it's good to take a look at what similar types of entities and what types of organizations, similar sizes etc in their geographic location, what they do and maybe what compensation is of the key individuals and with other process is followed though it is important that it be documented it needs to be for example of there's going to be a brough quote on the compensation , the compensation that is being determined probably should not be voting. you know, so you need to have as independent a process as possible to determine what is reasonable and then document the

process. space the congressmen said we shouldn't give out materials time under a candidate pushed the usually to come with materials can we allow them to get material? >> i would encourage you not to allow the candidates to distribute political material on the property of the church. would you agree with that? >> yes. >> i want to follow-up on the first question. who determines once it gets to your place whether it is unreasonable in come for a ceo pastor of church what is looked at, the duties, the individual performance, the size of the organization, everything that went into that and the process the organization followed in setting up the compensation. there's something called her rebuttable presumption, where if the organization has gone

through a process of setting up the compensation they and the internal revenue service thought it was an unreasonable amount, we would have to try to show what a the process followed by the organization and the studies what have you -- yadin whoever the reviewer is? >> he would say on the side person who would determine is the tax review r? >> it's much more involved than that. the first thing the agent or the altar would be looking at is what process the organization follow, how did they arrive at that figure? if at that point the agent felt it was potentially unreasonable fears of questions that get asked and maybe we would have to get our own engineers involved if it was a large enough amount

no one person comes out. >> that's a very good point. >> yes. >> i am a senior pastor of douglass memorial church in baltimore. question along the same lines participating in the process and lobbying your expenditure test in percentages you don't speak to with the guidance as on what that percentage might be to trigger the threshold on the expenditure test if you cannot support a candidate very often political positions around issues are expressed by a particular candidate what is the sensitive matter in terms of taking the position of round in the political issue and finally the talk about the three political engagements what about the sea for? >> see if i can reach the

question now. the first question regarding the expenditure tests to remind you a church cannot analyze its activities to the expenditure test the church only gets a substantial substantial test available to a church. the expenditure test you follow that form the election is on the for my don't know the exact percentage measured over if period of years and if the percentages of the lobbying activities of a certain amount of the overall expenditures the might be an excise task over a number of years that the exempt status might be in jeopardy to i don't know if there is one set percentage or if it is based on the size of the organization. i could check that out for you and get back to you.

[inaudible] >> that's not a question lahood in answer to there are certain issues that clearly define a candidate. i can't answer that with a simple yes or no they have to be careful to do something, you know, which would directly or indirectly support or oppose the candidate, but that's not as easily answered. >> let me ask one question. >> the answer is an organization

in the 501c for come and organization exempt can engage in some political the activity. it can't be substantial. >> the question should be interested in context you have to make sure that you endorse the candidate in some ways an overlap but you just have to be very careful. we're going to go to the gentleman that said he can't get to the microphone. >> [inaudible] in 20041 of our civil rights

leaders gave a critique regarding a sitting president and his policies to lead that preacher nothing happened to it. the civil rights leader was challenged and they went after his organization. my question is how do you explain that? if people even on their website say i'm supporting this president for this office and nothing is done about its but in the context of our community we can just give a critique and

it's all over. >> honestly i'm not in the position to address that. let me get some specific -- if you get more specific with individuals we can get a better set of answers. i'm going to ask the gentleman over here with a microphone the next percent the microphone will be here. yes, sir. >> i wanted to ask in relation to the candidates most of the local that come to the church to congressmen mentioned that if they are not to ask for the congregation's what you say

accounts. >> that is a gray area. i've always had a philosophy that i would go to a church congregation and educate them and talk about the great issues facing the country but i would never say vote for me. there are other politicians and elected officials who do go to a congregation and say vote for me, but you must understand that once you allow a candidate to come to your congregation and to make an appeal, then you're opening the door for the competitors, the opponents of the candidate to do likewise. you can't allow the candidates to come into your church for an office to do it but put on the gray area and i try to stay away from the gray area. back to this gentleman's question i don't we give them an answer any pastor conservative, liberal or moderate can either

support or denigrate a politician as long as it is done away from the church. if a pastor has a personal web site or wants to engage in partisan activity away from the church, he is permitted to do that. as long as it is not on the auspices of the church that is the point i think we are trying to make. correct? >> we have run out of time. i know. i know. but we have another just as important panel, and i would like -- to have one pressing question that i just know you've got to ask. >> what i wanted to know is can a church form a pac political action committee of?

>> no. no, no, no. >> can a church the we cannot support this and earlier we can't support the individual candidates b can we ask our elected officials to support certain bills such as something in the situation. you can do it and you are expected to do that is a lobbying activity. yes, you can. >> was a small part of your

outreach. >> the last question. >> thank you. >> tenet pass on how to vote on a referendum? >> i'm glad you asked to the religious organizations permitted to purchase a kid in the referendum constitutional amendments and balance initiatives the answer is yes. the government a constitutional amendment and balance initiatives are classified as lobbying activities for the purpose of the internal revenue code. as such there subject to the substantial lobbying limitations not the political campaign for provision. the answer is yes. [applause] >> don't you feel a lot more informed? [applause] about your engagements and not

having to operate in the future of not having information intimidation. again let's give this panel a hand and thanked them for being here. we want to stay on schedule. one final panel inverting rights call to action, and we are going to ask the root congresswoman the honorable of ohio she's coming as she is to find by the panel and i hope that you will maintain respect for the fact these people have come to be our guest and we need to be with them until the end. it's not a long panel and it doesn't go from 3:15 to six thanks 30 if you think that. we have buses that are going into this program should run about an hour, an hour and 15 minutes of the most. thank you. converse one, we are happy to have you.

>> the announcement is some of you want to know where i was reading from a moment ago and that is a fair question. if you would go on line i don't have the website, but its politics and the pulpit published by pew forum that is an intellectually based organization, it's not a partisan political purposes a think tank. it is a good resource that is called the pew forum politics and the pulpit to read and the internal revenue has a good website that deals with frequently asked questions.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> thank you all so much for being here for our last official session of the day. i want to thank the chairman and president of cnbc for allowing the bbc once again to participate and thank my chairman whom i've always told people could tear it up and he tore that this morning's i want to thank am i chairman again. [applause] the members of the cbc that are here my colleagues we've just been joined by the congresswoman

sheila jackson lee from texas we are going to begin this panel even though the congressman maxine waters isn't here yet she should be here shortly so we are expecting her to join us and of course you met our doctor and vice president earlier, donna christiansen from the virgin islands, so again, thank you all. it's my great pleasure to serve as the moderator for today's final discussion. i am the representative marshall fudge from ohio representing the 11th congressional district. thank you. [applause] i am honored to be here with you for many reasons. i serve as a cbc for the people voting rights initiative co-chair with my friend and colleague representative john lewis. let's just take a walk down memory lane. the date is march 7th, 1965 and

the place is selma alabama. young people led the way. their goal was to achieve the uninhabited right to vote. hundreds of brave men and women and children march. black and white, hand-in-hand. i can hear it now many of them were probably singing some of those old freedom songs like freedom we shall not be moved or we shall overcome and then all at once the marches were attacked by police with a billy clubs and tear gas. that they will forever be known as bloody sunday. the day when hundreds of americans in the lead on sola alabama's bleeding for the struggle to secure our right to vote. our right to have equal unrestricted access. the marches were beaten and knocked down but they didn't stay down. they got up. one week later they marched again and a few days after that, they marched once more.

now clergy and young people with the massive crowd. this time thousands marched along the trail from selma to montgomery. because of bloody sunday and the thousands of americans who were beaten and killed over the years so that i can vote so that we can all vote i am standing here today and i refuse to let their efforts be in vain. the tactics used today are not new. what we call the tax is now on the new voter i.d. locker it is unnecessary and confusing to restrict turnout on the early absentee voting. was the church in 65 and we need the pulpit of the church and energy of young people to leave the way today. this panel is going to talk to

you about how we make that happen. this is a call to action so you're not guarantee your any speeches we are going to ask them some questions i'm going to let you answer some questions. as i said we are going to be joined my colleagues representative maxine waters we will move on and start out by introducing the reverend tony lee is the founder and senior pastor of the community of hope african methodist church who served as the senior minister to young adults at ebenezer in fort washington. he oversaw the development of a wide range of youth ministries that engage young people in a phrase of worship that embraced of their unique styles and interest to read he received national media attention on the chronicles cnn and c-span.

reverend the serbs on the leadership team of saving ourselves, an organization marking on the gulf coast on the socio-economic and physical devastation of hurricane katrina triet next we have the president and ceo who served as the manager of federal affairs for the new england council, the nation's oldest regional business organization where she had a ticket for the interest of over 350 businesses across the new england region in a washington, d.c. where few worked. the areas of responsibility were health care and she also was a special assistant to our own vice chair of the democratic caucus and john larsen of connecticut. she earned a bachelor's degree in political science from

southern connecticut devotee and a master's degree in religious studies with a concentration in religion, ethics and public policy from howard university. she's also an instructor at the calvary bible the institute where she teaches a course on faith and politics. next we have cindy smalls the national voter protection manager for the afl-cio working in the political department overseeing the 2012 my vote my right voter protection campaign. prior to coming to the afl-ci she worked from 2007 to 2012 in various capacities as the men of planted area political director senior legislative that ticket and coordinating manager oversees in the retiree program. she served as a director for us off carolina democratic party and provide technical assistance to the candidates for council mayor and school board and has a ba in political science from the

university of south carolina. marcus mason is a partner at the madison group. he is responsible for managing the firm's transportation energy tax homeland security portfolio. the complex integrated campaign and coalition building. i guess more than 15 years of political policy experience. prior to joining cng he served as amtrak's senior director of government affairs. marcus is a member of the board of directors on the congressional black caucus foundation and is also on the board after actors of the congressional black caucus political action committee. markets is also a published author who writes for lawyers which i just found out. next we have my homeboy jeff johnson. an award winning journalist, social activist and political commentator for his celebrated conversations with world figures in the political business

entertainment arena the grassroots trench work to inspire the next generation of leaders investigative journalists, political press delete the correspondence johnson continues to the trail blazing social conscience nor is the authentic voice for change. currently he's in a msnbc contributor and executive editor of politick trees 65 and a weekly commentator on the nationally syndicated morning show and to jeff johnson institute for urban development. currently leading a fight your process to recruit and develop 80,000 black male teachers and he served irritation as a voice of conscience please give iran of applause. [applause]

[alarm sounding] in the vietnam we ask the question and i ask the question because i believe we are at war today to be and oftentimes members of the community pulled politics and politicians at arm's length and choose not to engage in the process. how do we remind the young generation of leaders about the black church historical connections to politics and social change and motivate them to act? the floor is open to anyone that would like to ask. >> sorry. i think that many of us in the room are clear on the fact that there has been a considerable shift as it relates to national

fifa leadership in their ability to be apolitical versus political and that shift has happened because in many cases which is the onerous attack on those that would have attempted to be political and focused it would be to model not what dr. king was about the legacy that i think comes from the black church in particular and that's using the voice to be able to speak to issues beyond that a church to that of life because in many cases they don't always see it and there's a great deal of discussion about the legacy of the church as it relates to sociopolitical issues and the ability to be able to mobilize around them but not a lot of modeling so until that modeling happens it doesn't exist, and we can have a lot of rhetorical discussion about it

and i will close with this. i think that when we start the whole notion of this discussion here is the call to action and when you say call and reaction that implies that there is and ask and response but in the middle there has to be training in life and one of the things we have removed from the african-american institutional tradition is an emphasis on training, and by that i need not the theological training that comes from seminary from the standpoint of being able to be a pastor with a nadel nomination to the training of what it means to be a grass-roots organizer to losing the prophetic voice to be able to mobilize folks with a level of proficiency not just passion dhaka and one of the things frustrating means that we put an overemphasis on passion and under emphasis on direction and focus, so i think there's a tremendous opportunity -- many

of the churches are doing this there's too many that are not and i think their needs to be institutionalized process that puts us in a position where we are seeing not just the young leaders of the conference constrained proficiently on how to do the social justice activism said that when they are coming out of the houses of faith is not just with passion and not just with vision but with proficiency, focus, strategy that is connected to it, measurable goals associated with the committee that is collected as a result of it and at the end of the day we are able to see here is what we would accomplish is the result of our confidence going out into the local community and its addressing these issues to the goal of creating this result not just speaking to the state of activities before we started talking and note there's no transformative change.

>> i think another piece to connect on to that that was so significant was connecting it to something that makes sense for people under a free lives there's a disconnect from many especially your generation's i will explain the impact of policy and what means so we are talking about policy issues and talking about a legislative issue have a policy in texas where they live in the policy where people who live on just that but even a historical reflection on what we have right now is a lot of it and i love the generation. the generation leads to what the policy changes did to impact the

current lifestyle and needs to be a way to shake that. let me give you a good example. we tell them what was like for the generations across the red sea but am the wilderness the hearing victories of the past while in the wilderness trying to figure out what they are going to do the need to be able to show to the same tactics we use of the red sea would be helpful to get them out of the wilderness and to be able to tear down the wall all they see as wilderness and hand me downs and making enough just to make it today but they don't see how to move forward to make it through tomorrow and all the here are the giants. >> all right.

i'm going to take a brief pause. i indicated to you that we would be joined by colleague and friend representative maxine waters from california who's joined us and all of you know maxine waters. [applause] i also want to recognize the representative from of alabama terrie has joined us as well. to draw your attention to the congressional black caucus program which all of you, i don't know if you have but if you don't please make sure you take this when you leave it is part of our call to action this afternoon. the next question, just see if you can help me understand and articulate for the audience the message that we are hearing. what is the message we are hearing to do with this resurgence of the voter suppression and what message is being communicated to our communities, and how can we

counteract the message being sent by the passage of the law? >> this is open to any personal look panel. >> i just ask if she did give me a little breather room. let me take this opportunity to thank all but clergy and ministers and pastors that are here in washington, d.c. this conference and the fact that he wore taking time out from your schedule to talk about how you can use your power and influence to intact the politics on behalf of not only the president of the united states, but for all people who should be involved in

voting and this democracy without participation there will be no democracy. psychiatry pleased that you see this as a part of your responsibility and something that you can have great influence with. now, having said that, i want to point to something a conversation i just had a with reverend jesse jackson. reverend jesse jackson has played an interesting role in the politics of the country for many years particularly registering young people to vote and representing large numbers of people to vote for years now. and she has an interesting way of connecting with young people. i find myself sometimes feeling as if i am talking at young people rather than connecting with them. but in this conversation that i had with them recently, i better

understood why he connect. when he talked to young people he talked about trayvon martin and wanted to know what they cared about and understood and new. they were all fired up. he had been killed. the wall of the circumstances and they were mad and they wanted to do something. and then he asked how many people were registered to vote. so i guess less than half of them were actually registered to vote. and then reverend jackson said well, if you're asked to serve on the jury to make a decision about whether or not trayvon martin had been murdered, had been killed and deserve to be punished you couldn't serve on

the jury and they said well, the lead out and explained it to them that in order to serve on the jury had to be registered to vote. they didn't know that. but that connected in a way that most of us do not often understand how to make that connection. we preach about the way that it used to be. we preach about what they ought to know and understand and as my kids say in the olden days the civil-rights movement and they look at us it is not always connecting when you can take something that is going on in their lives and connective in a very graphic way then they begin to get it and so i think as we talk on this panel what you just asked us to do, you know, how do you connect, how do you get the message across we have to understand that we have to pay

attention to what it is that young people are listening to and what they care about and we've got to get -- i'm sure someone may have talked already or will be talking about social media. i get many of you have not thought about what a rule you can play with the social media and we can take a lesson from president obama and what he did in the social media power you raise money and you'd be surprised if many of our young people the read the newspapers that surpass what is going on in the news. they are on the internet. they get their information from the blogging and of the tweeting. guess what? one minister out about his business tweeting to thousands with a message to do more than i

dare not say on a sunday morning, however, you could connect and talk to people on your own time during the day and evening and as you build the following it becomes broader than the church population swain pingree to that to date the power and influence of the church still isn't being utilized they're underutilized perhaps not understood and lacey jefferson back there shaking his head because i think he understands something about the telecommunications and all of that.

just after a sink the question what is the message with all of the voter suppression bills that we are seeing past what is the message? coming from a labor perspective, this is an attack on working people in this country. we went through in the 2011 starting in 2010 the attack on working people around the collective bargaining we would need to come back. the messages it is an attack on working people. how we combat that. it's with the people in this room. we are the ones who organized. we are the ones that protest in the street and we have to get back to that. and we have to create a message that resonates not only to older folks to this younger generation. we have to connect in a way that

they understand. we have to tell the story about how we came over but we haven't yet come over because we still have a lot to do. there is a lot of work to be done and for all of the rights that we have enjoyed as citizens in this country around collective bargaining and around the basic right to vote it is under attack and that is the message. we are under attack. so the message is we must rise up as one like we did in wisconsin and ohio and we have to come together and tell the story that we will not lead down, that we will be in the streets, we will be on the internet, we will tweed and be on msnbc and cnn to tell the story but it starts here by us freezing our voices. [applause] >> i'm going to follow up on what my friend said the first

know what to clarify the record as the congresswoman was reading my biography i noticed that the wrong one was being read. i am a man of many political hats as some of my friends have said i wouldn't be here were it not for a black minister who was the son of another black minister the empowered me as a 21-year-old to run his campaign for congress and to run the campaign so i've been in politics now for about i don't want to say at - in politics now half of my life i started running the congressional campaigns with campaigns i've managed, but interestingly enough the 21 black minister empowered me and the black church was the key to that election victory. it's critical to that election

victory, and when that african-american minister in howard me, i went to the ministers and the congressional district and asked them to empower one young person in the church that could be a liaison that i could use to help organize and turnout in number of key votes by one to get back to the question of messages being sent to our young people buy these voter i.d. laws because that wasn't something that i had to deal with during that particular election. i have a 19-year-old daughter that survived the junior at howard university and as offers of daughters know sometimes they will come to you and say very prophetic things. after watching the news coverage, the assault on the women's rights and female reproductive rights and of the assault on the voter i.d. my daughter came to me and she said something that i did not expect her to say. she said it seems to me like we won the battle but someone wants

to make sure that we lose the war and that is the message that is being spent to the cause and to young people with the new voter i.d. law. we won the battle with the passage of the civil rights voting act. we won the battle every year we get the voting rights act on it and we authorized. however, some one setback after 2008 when there were 5 million new voters registered. 4 million of which were african-american. someone said it's time for them to lose the war and let's put in place a strategy and execute tactics that will cause them to lose the war and let's catch than flat footed while they are cheering and suffering. let's catch them flatfooted and implement it right now. so, we have to fight back. and i was always taught not only do you choose your battles but you also choose the field on which you can fight and you can

win. malae here is the treasurer of protecting the vote cyberattack which was a super pak that we stood up we had the two years to do to release the two months and now we are ready to roll. we are choosing our battle and we are choosing the field on which we fight we can't match them dollar for dollar in an air campaign that we can match to the ground campaign for. our strength and the strength of the black church has been on the ground. they've been able to put food on the ground, and win by going door to door, block to block from precinct to precinct until you've ultimately had a district or county swinging in one direction. that is something we have to remember and even though they

have been enacted in several states, we have to get back off of our heels and that on the walls of our fees, leaned forward into the fight and engage because if we don't come the games of 2006 to 2008 would have been for naught and that means everyone that fought before us, long before i was a life would have been for naught. we may have won the battle with the message that is being sent is you will, not you might but you will lose the war and that is a powerful psychological message to our young people. we have to reverse that. >> thank you. go ahead. [applause] >> in response to your question on how to counter that message that we are getting i think what we have to do is focus on the education peace.

i can across an interesting stat the earlier to basis 61% of all african-americans say that the houses of worship should express their views on social and political issues now that is compelling to me because i'm not sure how many understand that that's the case if in addition to talking to our conversation about what the issues are we need to engage the al-sayyid on where we stand on certain issues but we need to be in the social media outlets and a of the forefront saying this is our stance on this issue we don't agree with them and we need to make sure that we are heard. we can't fly away from that, so i think in order to counter that what we are hearing from the opposite end, we need to be as forceful as they are expressing where we are on the issue.

>> think you very much. i think all of us know how these people are that we deal without your. when we voted for years ago, it was historic and everybody wanted to be a part of history. so, we have to make people understand today now it is personal. we have a personal stake in what goes on. so my question really kind of becomes how we get past the point of just complaining about someone has done to us? i mean, we know that in every single congressional district, throughout this country from the black vote can make or break an election. we know that and it reveals knows that and that is why all of these laws have been passed. but also, i wonder at some point are we've really still relevant? because you look at 2010 and you see what we did and i have people now telling me people my life didn't change. but i don't understand, and

maybe you can help me figure out how we get to people who probably need more than anybody else but people who need to vote the most are the people that voted the least. how do we encourage them to take ownership in the political process? without having to literally go to their house, put them in the car, tell them how to vote, how do we get them to understand that it is in their interest in their best interest to vote. >> i think the reverend talked about it a little bit earlier and congresswoman waters mentioned it's about being relevant with our messaging making sure we are connecting what are you angry with to somebody in office seven the responsibility to deal with it. but i think one of the things that is not necessarily a 2012 opposition but post 2012 opposition is we keep on playing checkers and reveals his playing

chess, and we want to talk about folks being engaged in the process when we haven't been engaged in the process. so being engaged exciting people about the electoral process is by making sure people are engaged when there's not an election taking place, and the way to do that is true the institutional infrastructure and so i think we talk a good games about counterbalancing the folks that we are going against the to the invest in their institutions and so what i mean by that is all of us that see a fight in the community, right, you've seen something go down in the community and sometimes you can get a big brother to help you out. but sometimes we have to go down to get daddy. we keep trying to have the big brother organizations to put the institutions are supposed to do, and by that i mean if we are going to be serious about

playing politics then we have to be able to create the kind of institutional infrastructure that has the ability to contract with the institutions do, so you can't have local churches counterbalancing with a multimillion-dollar national institutions to. that's not our job, that's not the local church's job. they have a job to do and it has the ability to be able to excite and galvanize and organize and even train pass some point we the focused institutions on whose job is to policy work, to training work, to do organizing work, and whether or not that is investing in the focus work with the naacp and urban league to the big institutions and utilizing the resources to deliver the kind of institution to the religious right and show that there is a black religious

organized political force where you don't have to risk your 501c3 because you developed a 501c4 that has sensibilities from a perspective to battle those institutions that you are fighting against. until we do that we continue to try to get to the end and say i am the chief negro speaking more than anybody else and they're like checkmate you're playing the wrong game. let's get to the point we begin to have -- this is in a 2012 conversation. i think the 2012 conversation is about how do we begin to develop the local agenda that says how we educate folks around the? how we educate people about their rights and the voter disenfranchisement? how do we begin to make sure people know all of the information that is on the ballot and not just who is running for president? how do we make sure all of the folks are registered to vote and make sure we utilize our infrastructure to get people to the polls that is a 20 to of conversation.

but if 2014, 2016 conversation how the church is in my states began to organize and develop institutions with people for already in the state to develop them how do we begin to make sure why people are protected and raising money for the congressional races and we are dealing with fellow initiatives in california to be training young people not around the issues that we want them to address but if we want young people to people engaged and address at the end of the day it helps you anybody even though you don't agree with how to do it. how do you begin to beef up institutions that say we are serious about playing the political game, not just being involved in the political rhetoric. >> thank you for a much. >> this conversation that we are

having is a conversation that we have been having for a long time. we have been having this conversation for a long time as we have watched our communities get excited in 2008 because we had an african-american on the ballot that could be president of the united states and then did become president of the united states. 2010 in the midterm elections they felt their job was done and they didn't go and we lost in the united states. as i campaign now there is an enthusiasm gap out there. why is there an enthusiasm that? we can sit here and talk about all that we want about what they should do and why it's important to talk about the labor issues. but people don't have a job don't care about the labor

issues, you know what i'm saying? and so i want to just take this in a respectful placed and that is this, this joblessness, these home foreclosures, what is happening in our communities have people turned off. they are not jumping up and down loading this time, and as i go through the communities all i can think about even though this does not sound that sophisticated is the politics that talk about a chicken in every pot. people are hungry, they don't have jobs, they thought they had invested in the american dream by signing on the dotted line for march is a gut check on and their homes are being taken.

.. and so, i was shocked when i learned that the very super pack that was responsible for supporting the work of getting these legislatures on mine to require more identification, et cetera at the same ones we vote

for everyday in the congress. these are the ones that considered. you know, at&t and all of your big organizations who are supporting and giving us millions of dollars to a super pack defender menninger writes. so we have a responsibility to know this -- and should be able to love for it and talk with them about it when they come in. the other thing is this, not everybody, we all belong to the democratic party and the democratic party raises millions of dollars and it decides how it is going to spend next. we are the base vote of the democratic party. were the ones that can be counted on. were the ones at that though we don't have to ask about those. we vote democratic. but when you develop your strategy are your plans for how you want to get to your community, i turn off the democratic party is there with the resources, but they are

expecting from this over law community. now, having said that, semi-detached about wisconsin and labor. well, let me backup to talk about the legislatures to have passed these laws that would interfere with our rights, whether they are idealized or early voter company cut down on the early voter days, all of that. verifies the democratic party would know if this is going on? this is what parties are organized for you. how is he you cannot 25 or 26 legislatures have gone to the past two years doing this and the democratic already didn't know anything about it? i mean, we are pulling up the rear. and now we've got to figure out how we are going to get ms. jones, who is 80 years old to the polls because she doesn't have any ide. i mean, so we are doing this

work. so now, institutionally, church, you're so generous to us. you let us come and speak in your church is. and we get up and say other good things. don't nobody ask us any questions. we don't have to answer any body. we just saw this good stuff we've been doing and we get away with it. stop letting us do that. stop letting us do that. [applause] as a matter of fact, i want you to have your social justice committee or whatever you have in that church. i want should know my voting record when i get it and i want you to go down that list and you say you voted this way on this. you voted for payday loans. they take 400% interest from our people in our community. why did you vote for this? and in their going to start stuttering. okay, they don't know that you know he took money from them.

he took the bait contributions, but she undermined. so, young people know when you're too full and mini stand for something and when you love them or not. they really know this. and so, when we can't and you allow us to have that platform and they sit in the church not paying any attention to what we're saying. so the church has a responsibility to understand why you're letting somebody speak. and on until you come in the democratic party status to last, take me to your church and here we come. yeah, yeah, yeah, two weeks the report in the the election. pastor, this is so-and-so. this guy don't care nothing about the church and nothing else. so we're bringing them to you. and because you love us and you

are generous, you give us the platform and then you allow us to transfer the platform to other people. stop doing that. [applause] stopped doing it. and so, let's all take responsibility for our civil rights organization who have to take the money from certain folks. we're just going to have to say, look, or certain places you can't go. there's just certain places you can't go because if you go there, you just sold us out. okay? now, this conversation -- this conversation that we are talking about, let it start to be sent in real, real, where you will tell us and we tell you and we tell them and everybody else than we do about the organizing together with labor or pay later. we want your resources, too. we want the resources of labor for voter registration.

we want the resources of labor to help create some jobs for these young people. and i want to tell you, ministers, you've got all these young people in your church and we spend millions of dollars on everything, but she don't make us go to the printer, the black printer or minority printer in our districts to help generate economic development. and now these kids we say volunteer. well, i'm past the volunteer at the speed these kids. let's pay them to work in these campaigns so that number one, they can earn some money, that number to come they can learn and we can learn to respect them. they can learn to respect the system. so let's start thinking outside the box about how we do our politics. and let's love each other and let's respect each other, but let's call a spade a spade. and that's that.

>> for me just do this. i'm going to go to reverend tony and let him respond to the question and then take four or five questions and then asked each panelist to take two minutes to wrap up and give for what they think the call to action should be. >> one of the joys of congress amend matters is she's always straight up so she's talked with strata just as regular folks. if you allow me, i think the church also needs to be strata. it needs to be straight up about where we are and even analyzing our level of strength in this moment. sometimes when you act like you're stronger than you are, and you don't do what you need to do to get stronger. and one of the challenges i don't think many folks want to deal with as we are looking at a time period in which most of the major houses that have historically been utilizing these kinds of efforts aren't as strong as they used to be. you will act like i'm not

telling the truth, the retail shrinkage of the nation. a procession to shrink a church. it was the church. we are dealing with, i would humbly pause is a generational transition. we are dealing with the fact and most of the major house we are dependent on solon had been built by and for baby boomers. they were built by and for baby boomers and no baby boomers are grading. and if they be boomers are grand comest of the churches of assistance are still built to meet the needs of boomers communicate to boomers is the apparatus has a shape to mobilize rumors. but they are not shaped to communicate, to deal with her mobilize generations x, y or z and that is famous to the research shows the millennial generation, 20-year-old age is one of the most unchurched generations we've ever seen, but it does not save italy's critical generation. they love god, but they don't think about this in church

because our churches were shaped for each different generation. i am saying that because there is no way you can really deal with the grab ahold of social media if it is all run by boomers. there's no way you can talk about mobilizing, speaking to an energizing the base of young people we keep saying if young people aren't even coming to your church. so there is a need for us to honestly deal with where we are now and as we're talking about this long-term game plan, not just right now, but even down the road is the need for us also to be identifying young, up-and-coming pastors, brothers and sisters, and maybe even youth ministers who know how to touch this generation and the generations that follow and help them get connected. stop staying at the table just for yourself. you're getting old. but somebody else at the table. stop using all the reasons for yourself. they were to send me to the

meetings and one of the greatest blessings of the youth minister and dr. creature bronze with a let's go to jesse jackson's house, said at his dinner table and talk about will talk about with black people for the next year. that is how i grew. but i agree 10, 15 years ago being put at those tables. you are going to sit in their agreed to with 40 five years old and act like we're coming to the kids table. i'm a grown man now. let's look at the 20 something girls who can communicate to john ensign help mobilize and energize them and that is how we've got to do it. [applause] >> will take five questions. fighting a stroke which he won, to commit three, four, five. i am going to take six as my colleague is still out there. one question meets. [inaudible] >> it makes sense because the makeup of the panel. but are we on the brink because

we don't care and they've got apathetic attitude, are we at a point of anarchy in this country that you see it happening if we don't get a handle on and we can't get people excited at a place with this country really could erupt? >> thank you. anyone want to tackle that? >> i will say this. i don't think so primarily because if it takes as much to get our people out to do something like voting for the president or doing some other things, i don't see the kind of uprising that you are imagining happening. i don't know that there is any kind of leadership strong enough in our communities today to galvanize people across this country to do that.

i think things have to get significantly worse. and they are bad now. so i don't know. who knows what tomorrow holds, but certainly it is he that happening anytime soon. >> the major factor had another group of congressmen, but i would say this. we have to match for that to happen. we have to match. if you sit back and think about the arab spring and think about the people who use social media to change the very head of government and their country, they have nothing, which meant they had nothing to lose. when you have a little something -- when you have a little something can be start to think about it. you start to march out there. got your spirit in your hand in the next thing you know, you go, i've got a sony playstation. i've got a color television. his 52 inches. i've got a lincoln navigator. and i live at home for free.

so when you have to match, when you have to match, it is almost impossible to be incited to riot, to be incited to that server. >> i called on five people. stand up. go right ahead, sir. >> one question meets, remember. >> i'm about the oldest wine industry has been involved in the movement. hey, ms. brown. i got involved last 15 years old. let me ask a question for the young people. don't glorify the civil rights movement. only 3% of the black churches according to a study that was done were involved.

there's a handful. so let us stop glorifying that the churches taught us don't come in there with the civil rights movement. that's reality check number one. number two. in 1901, president of baptist college said there's too much pride and our community. and you young man that's not make the street corner you're resting place. 1901. 1820, jane mercer lake stir when that to your state, madam chair. you know who is there? black brother's family came from virginia to ohio thinking is to be the promised land.

but the only door that was opened to us was the prison door and the penitentiary door. as long as they got this white privilege mentality in this country and we've got contention of race, the struggle is on. so don't become discolored, just use what you've got and energize the crowd that she's got a work like because as long as you've got people around you who don't look like us, they're going to forever going to be in control of a semester reason that we cannot deal with this issue. right now of same-sex marriage because many of us have been viewed by white eurocentric theology. i don't form of same-sex marriage. it's time for black folks to think for themselves and stop letting other for things for us and stand up and hang in there in years but she's got an stop

looking at what she don't. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> with the other three people i called on please stand up. we are going to do this quickly. >> hello i am a minister in baltimore maryland and my question is, happily caved in in to political correctness? i know we've been compromised on mousers of issues and wants to stand for and say what needs to be done. civil disobedience, unjustified cause people to the ballot box. but his political correctness telling us what we need to do? >> someone is saying yes, but let me say this before they answer the question. but to say to the congressional black caucus does not here for political correctness.

our problem is when i look around and nobody standing behind us. that's our problem. antenna say something to me doesn't like him you will want to be upset with us. so what we try to do is tell the truth. we represent most of the black people in this country. but how many of you i'll stick with us? now the truth is what it is. december were going to be taking a tour around this country, talking about how to get people registered to vote. programmers taking buses. i want to see the house analogy many all of you on the bus. i'm going to look for you. if you're not in the bus i'm going to call you and i'm going to call you out. anybody want to answer that question? >> really quickly come the short answer is yes. the medium answer is that we need to employ a little bit of political sophistication because it doesn't mean we have to be such antagonists all the time that were just not. there are no permanent friends or no permanent enemies. i think what the congress of a

tattoo that where we seem to fall short, which is from the church's perspective, what is their political agenda so we know how to engage, everybody all the time, which means that she will always be my friend because they are going to be some issues i've got to rule on the one and i can't be afraid of doing that because i want to come to your house for the private dinners the issue has. and i think that was mentioned earlier was that many of us have gotten too comfortable based on the things that we have. so i think leadership, by a large and i don't think that's just the a the partnership it as my colleagues in the media. those that are elected officials or all of us in many cases have got to be a little bit more politically sophisticated and say what is this comprehensive agenda? and not even some institutional agenda. with my personal political agenda so that i know how to not be politically correct when it's expedient and when it's necessary, but also not be

politically sophisticated enough to know this is not a battle any desire right now because i need to win this one later. that's not punk enough. that's been strategic. when all you do is taunt cow, that is political correctness and we've got to fight patent challenge that a little bit. if we don't have a political agenda, then what do we have to drive us? and so i think that is a necessary piece to be out of come out of the political correctness is to have the agenda be sophisticated, be prepared to fight when necessary so you can negotiate this. to appease. >> i think also as we also especially the black church has to deal with the liberal orthodoxy. there is kind of a progressive -- what it means to be progressive or liberal. if you don't need this litmus test, you are no longer the club anymore. we have to do with the fact that we cannot -- that our agenda is not dictated by any party or any

kind of faction, but is dictated by god. and so therefore we have to be prophetic more there are progressive. as they move in the prosthetic, that is what we find our base of power assigned as we are connecting to some kind of liberal or progressive orthodoxy, we lose our power because we lose our moral voice. that is why power as the church is not about who we are connected to hear, but who we are connected to the air. and that as we regain our power and our strength. >> i'm going to ask both these gentlemen. but if you ask before we have any responses and then i'm going to ask as we try to respond to you ask mr. randall to come up in clothes the nascar chairman to do the benediction. both of yester questioning askers immediately and will try to answer them all. >> congressmen shared with us about the keeping the democratic party accountable. how do you suggest we hold them accountable to them take their

money with these issues run the vote in suppression? >> both jeff johnson and pastor tony lee made mention the fact that we have an election to win here in 2012. we have work to do beyond 2012. i would like to know from the congressional black caucus perspective and particularly in my region i am dealing with the right wing evangelical movement that has bamboozled the black brethren. what's the message? was removed to attempt to violate those that congressman waters had referred to were not

really concerned because there's no food on the table, there's no jobs, how do we make the connection with the agenda to make the connection between the political process and not being bamboozled if that makes sense. >> thank you. or going to go to congressman jackson late. >> thank you, congresswoman. let me think congresswoman and thank our cochairs congresswomen wrangle an congressmen said her question in our chairperson. the midges holed up and make two quick points and then go to macy. if there's any poster children for shame and this is a map of shame, i know that pastor freddie haynes adjoining state of texas is certainly exciting for the prize in florida is right in the mix.

the map of shame, somebody wanted to call at another stage of the voter i.d., which is what a lot of the discussion was. if you will note, more than 75% of america is trying to do voter i.d. i called this the 21st century coal tax. when you touch your congregation, even though that sounds like we're talking baby boomer, young people understand that as well. i just want to say these points. point is he just had. having policy discussions about getting rid of this is not lobbying. having it outside the realm of the church, having it somewhere where you're where your zdnet is okay. and if there ever is a 21st century civil rights movement, it is voter i.d. for it does nothing other than say you're trying to show up as this pastor ray here. and i would say this, we do have a place for twitter and e-mail,

but we have a place where prayer vigils, marches, standing on the street corners comest an inner chamber of the city hall because children organize 35,000 people in stanford texas, stanford florida. children organize that an immediate difference. i would just encourage you to work with us because if you work with the congressional black caucus, we can do great things together. colin us as we call on you. let's get rid of this massive shame and let us not be fearful of coming together on things that you are comfortable with. prayer vigils, marches and others. i bet you we can turn this country partly around. thank you. [applause] >> i'm going to ask each one of my panel is to, just do the same minute. hopefully someone will ask the questions i've been asked. i'm going to turn it over to reverend cleveland if we would

start? >> surges to wrap a, i was just encourage if we think about take back some late here and go into our state, and our congregation that we think about the 2012 election and start to think strategically about what we can do individually about one, educating people and folks around the changes that these laws. that is the most important thing we need to do. and our everyday walks and although we do, we need to start now, not two months from now. we need to start now, educating people in our community are the changes, the laws and practice of the laws and getting them ready to vote in november. the other thing i would encourage. we talked a lot about, people should know there are groups out there that are now encouraging our recruiting challengers this november to challenge our folks in being communities of color,

to challenge people. what we need to do and put a dishonest encouraging our coaxing congregations to also be poll workers, acted out on election day. so i will leave you with two things to say. educate folks in the community about these changes some laws and how they need to get ready. the other thing is to engage in activity folks to be active anyway they can on election day. >> thank you very much. john. >> i won't be redundant and whatever he said, but how many of you on a place in your community that makes the best fried chicken you've ever had? that's not a rhetorical question. i'm serious. how many will know a place in your credo makes the best fried chicken? you know that's not the best-selling business in that community. what is the difference between them and kfc? kic markets better. the challenge that i am seeing

is that the religious right has marketed christian to better then you. and if you want to do with how do you stop the christian right from being able to bamboozled the folks around you is by being aggressive with your message and what you believe how much you want. they're not afraid to say what they believe in what they want and that they're wrong. you preach bible, but they say they are the bible. so if are going to be serious about not allowing the religious right to define the narrative about what it means to be christian, then you've got to be more aggressive about outside of your church is, talking about what that looks like in the policy that accompanies that, not the other way around. the church did not chase the policy. the church through its moral compass should push to be up to set the policy that is a reflection of what it is that you preach.

but if you were a punk outside of the four walls of the church, then it doesn't work. we find ourselves being rhetorically gangster and the pool day and punks in the street. and so, if we want to be able to control the mass edge, then control the message. and don't let your people be controlled by a religious right simply because they are more aggressive. hijack a message from them the way the -- they hijacked it from us. [applause] >> i think jack johnson talked about what we do now and what we do as a plan for the future. right now we've got the problem of exciting people that we only got another five, six months of november. the primaries going on all over the country.

and so, know your state law. and i want to tell you, your ministers focus on the gospel, but she's got a lot of young people and professionals and others in the church. give them an assignment. give them lawyers and assignment of the church. give the young mbas and assign it. have them come back with the information, some of which you have been introduced here today, this week and know what your state laws to which you can and can't do. and so, when you know what your state last hour, then you can use your employees in ways that will be very helpful to the community and still won't get you in any travel. we don't want you to give up on policies that she say i may violate my five o. one c. three. if your state laws don't allow you to do voter registration in the church, do it in the restaurant down the street.

there's a lot of different places you can do it, but what you have is your congregation. yes, do some of what everybody talked about in terms of reminding people of how far we have come, the sacrifices that were made, the voting rights act, all of that. but also mobilize. mobilize to use your absentee ballot laws, to make sure that people have the absentee ballot forms then they can gather like they gather at meetings in people's homes or other places in how people with those absentee ballots. the other thing some of you to already we can do better is to get people to the polls on election day by picking him up, but organize it and get a lot of those young people in the church to do this work. so we have to do that for the immediate. but as a plan, get with the black caucus and elected officials as they plan for the future to talk about how the

people in our communities know the difference between what we say and what we do. that is extremely important. so i still believe and i'll just wrap this up, that the church has power. i think again as i said when i first started talking, unutilized power. and so, which you find in our communities now, whether it is in our schools are in our businesses, we are the same power. we are losing power and influence because nobody is taking a leadership. and so, the ministers and elected officials working together can have some sessions where we absolutely plan what we're going to do. if we are going to do with the banks and the living institutions in our community, the elected officials have to get with you and we've got to call and the local branch managers. we've got to review the cia plan. what are you investing?

and not simply funny mortgages, but in businesses. businesses are most nonexistent in many fireplaces. but anyhow, we can do this work for the future. let's do what they can for now. >> someone asked a question, how do with the democratic party accountable? the answer is simple. form and support your own institutions. again, form and support your own institutions. when there is no one speaking to the issue for black and brown voters and voter i.d. of us, we formed protecting our ports safer pack. and we have a history of doing that. like churches formed hbcus. i'm an mega man and i see gold sitting out on the table. i'm standing next to my delta sister. you must be an alpha.

[laughter] do we have a history of doing this. this is not new to us. but somehow, we have forgotten. we have forgotten how to take our political power and turn it into economic power that turns it into more economic power. we forgot how to support her institutions. but you know who hasn't? you know we haven't learned from? and they do this all the time. the pro-israel community. they are much smaller than us, but they have a much greater footprint. farm and support your institutions. that is how you hold people accountable. power concedes nothing without demand. we demand nothing, we get nothing. [applause] >> we cannot control the conversation unless we understand the issues.

we cannot become politically sophisticated and less we know and understand the issues. we cannot set an agenda and not leverage our power unless they know and understand the issues. education is the most important piece in all of this. we have to be educated on issues in order to be actors. they've come up with very short six action items you can take home and start to do with the congregations around the voter education issue and other policy issues. they are all three steps action plans. the first one is to set up a voting tax for us when congressmen commerce among waters talked about the different skill sets that the numbers hold, this is something you can do. it's very real, practical the second is providing voter education and training materials and a announcement.

do simple things to make sure your congregation. the third is sponsoring organize voter registration event. the fourth, host a public policy issue for him. if it does coordinate and early voting program and the last is coordinate a lesson day program. those are six simple things that you can do. these are real things you can take back with you. organizations like say things that are not five o. one c. threes that have more flexibility to be able to help you can assist you in doing that. >> thank you so much. last but not least,. >> this is not the hardest time a black churches ever seen. the black churches strategize, mobilize and muss of segregation mr. jim crow and amidst the reagan and the bushes. this is not the hardest thing to have to mobilize our communities. we cannot get to a place in the

truth got a black man or black women, black grandmother to the children of black type in the white house and not act like we've lost our mojo. amen, somebody. he veterans are who you are and whose you are in your member, teachers swagger back. used to be beautiful. i mean, really. it's time to reclaim who you are and what you do and say no, we know how to do this. we've done it before and worse times than us and we can do it again but scott underside. do you have got to stop putting the excuses on the table and remember who you are. >> thank you. let's give all of our panelists a big round of applause. [applause] >> i want to close a session by saying what thing. in our community, and the black community we have always elevated our pastors, always from the beginning of time. we have elevated you here today. i remember that you still have a charge to keep.

remember that you are here to serve this present age and who knows that you may be in this place today just for such a time as this. god bless you. [applause] >> i want to mention today -- we want to thank congresswoman marcia fudge for being not the session. [applause] and to remind you to buses will depart for the national ecumenical service at 6:30 and will be at the metropolitan african-american -- african methodist episcopal church. the service will be -- will begin at 7:30. the preaching will come from the ship thomas l. brown senior and the congressional black caucus is like to express appreciation to the cnbc whose chairs,

dr. seiyu franklin richardson and the president burden we appreciate the partnership that we have. [applause] and it is important for me to say that the idea and the push to get this partnership developed and have members of their group come to washington so we can present them with information and comes from congressmen rangel, and four -- [applause] -- for a period i did even hide from them hand even on the floor because he was going to say how recovered with the conference? is everything on target?

we in the congressional caucus believes that charles b. rangel as the consulate congressman and we are all pleased and fortunate to just have the opportunity to sit at his feet and learn from them. almost 41 years ago, 13 members who were african american came together and formed a congressional black caucus. and among those 13 was the gentleman to my last, charles rangel. and for over 40 years now, charlie rangel has been one of the leading forces of reason and one of the reading forces for justice and peace in the house of representatives. and you know, i think he is an historical figure that we all need to talk about. you know, be a virtue of is the

hebrew pronunciation for the word joshua. and he made sure that he told all the priests to be able to define what some stones meant that he plays in a roadway called ebenezer. and we all need to be a lot to tell people what stones of development have meant to us. there is a stone cold martin in there. a so-called freighter douglas and they still called sir turner -- sojourner truth. they stone called charlie rangel. i want to say today that i intend every chance i get to tell people what this stone has meant. this stone has meant that we as somebody who has cerebrospinal or, the intellect and the political know how to get this

done to get 30 or 40 years ago nobody even dreamt of. ladies and gentlemen, i am pleased and proud to present the man who we'd all believe to be one of the greatest members of the house of representatives to ever walk the halls, congressman charles b. rangel from new york. [applause] >> i guess there won't be anything left for the funeral. i think you said it all. but i cannot tell you how very, very good i feel today. just as we have waited to get a president of color, we need a minister, legislator and a leader like aldredge cleaver to help us lead out being critical

of eyes to find a pathway that provides rates for those that follow us. bringing this together with the energy of staff and having all of the members get excited about this. i am telling you that it is the moving thing arise. someone said that this is the beginning of a partnership. now, we can't afford to have this as the beginning of anything. this is it. this is the big one. this is the time and we have to pledge to each other. i'll let you in on a couple of secrets and were going to leave here is one. first of all, i got a lot of metals and korea. some other people that survive with me, and track medals, but what the. i'm here.

but when i thought that these tens of thousands of chinese just about had done everything to my colleagues. 90% casualties, i took a shot of the dark of the jesus, i know it's all over. i was 20 years old. i mean, there's no way with her moaning and groaning and crying and buglers and gunshot and see people being captured, i knew it was a nightmare. but i just sat that if you could see a clear, just see a clear, somehow if you spare me, i promise you never, ever in my view have a problem with charlie rangel. and i wrote about. the whole book is that since that day i haven't hunted that defense, not a bad day cents. and i am convinced that we look

over our past, that we've gone through through the rough days and never realized how right they were. and so, what i have done was to encourage what we are facing today the destruction of human rights as we know it, women's rights, decency, fairness. if that is being destroyed, someone has got to ask, what were you doing? when i walked 54 miles i'd got feet and i was at enqueued about marching dealed southern roads i did know much about. but when they told me dr. king was going to take some pictures with us, i got dressed up and went down there. and i had a round-trip ticket to get back to laguardia. it started raining and instead of going back into the churches,

people started putting on plastic around the worn-out shoes. i florsheim shoes on come a cashmere coat and it didn't appear to me that this is my setting. i came down for pictures than i thought this would be the appropriate time for me to get a cab and to see how the pictures turned out. but as they started moving, i don't know how many of you do 60 years ago, but as they started moving, i found myself without any sidewalk. i was actually in words with a bunch of maine national guard's people spitting tobacco, protecting me as we marched, saying we should overcome into the woods. no pads, no photographers, no way to get back for 54 miles, my

bad feet and i said what the heck are we doing in these words marching like this? i have no clue that history was being made. i thought it was just another bad day for me. i did not know it meant the voting rights act. i did not know it meant the civil rights act. i did not know how many people had marched and marched and marched like john lewis and andy young who understood each and every risk they were taking and took a. and even though the story is told vegetal way to my grandkids today [laughter] i wondered how many times you and i and others have realized that as they meet today, as we adjourn today, as they've been

able to bring together the black churches, not just the history, but this demo, just people all over the world knowing that you've not, even maxine doesn't know when i was chairman of the caucus, the best thing was rejection of us at least meet and have no agenda and oppressive deicide and we would tell her what we meant every day that mix it with me because we had a meeting. and they said here we were, ready to blow up the world trade but the fact is if they think were together, that we act like we're together, to relieve your together. if we had no bad word for each other, i mean publicly, we do we have to do privately. but if we find out that the solidarity that we have, someone mentioned the jewish run. i sat next to a guy in law school.

he felt so proud that he was in jewish in terms of religion with this hand damages a novel lassie had broken. but what israel can attack tigre 10 feet tall with solidarity because he had some and left in him than he believed in. and god knows it's not just martin luther king. it's a little bit of martin luther king and all of us. and if we can take the things we have done, franklin richards then, the willingness of people to come together, the fact that the church is the only thing some people have. they can never inspire to get money and wealth for any of those things, but they believe in you. we ask in u.s. congressional black caucus to believe that we all are to do that. we are in your head pocket. we want to be with you. we hope that the end of this

meeting that you think about adopting a half a dozen of us. if we live in your district, that the contract. if you live in a district like franklin richards then, you probably can't dirty, 40 members adopted. the pit crew you want. and i tell you, we will make you feel like we don't move without you because one day we will be coming back and say please act like we were right. we got a vote on the floor. we'll be asking you to collect remember, tell them who you are. how important is this to you? and i assure you that the church's symbol will be better and god knows -- only god knows how much stronger congressional black caucus will be. we started with her team members

and 26 at 932 942. there is no limit with the way what is coming into our country how far we can go. and if they think we are serious and accomplished as we know we can be, if you are part of that went under her wing's, today will be away you will never want to forget it. so i know you've got to take your biases, but just look at the members and see which ones you want, which went to live with. i am as serious as i can be. but we will write you back and tell you the issues that we are dealing with. can you imagine what would happen if our chairman gave you a list of issues, asked rather take a look at what you think is the best for your church in your community and country and then one sunday were all over this country, pick something that everyone liked and say we never thought about that because i

take my seat same i never gave chairman clay very hard time. what i told the chairman was i didn't know much about the bible. all i knew was they were talking one of the incense in my face and listening to the same thing every sunday. but there is one thing that came out. doubtless there is the rich people and they wanted to get into heaven as i remember. and they were waiting for jesus to explain why he was blocking the way for their admission and he explained to ban that he was and he had no clothes, that he was sick and didn't come to

visit him, that he was in jail, they thought he was hungry, thirsty and basically he was in bad shape. and he went to them and they just turn him down. and as i remember this story, they looked at each other and said you've got the wrong people. you never came to anybody. and he said some being like, if you don't understand how you should be treating, people are not me, but the lesser of people like me, then you should go straight down. [laughter] so i think back and forth and stand that is our mission. we saw a television that they think about us as a people.

republicans have named dustin think god to our partners and i feel so proud as i walk out of here. i'd like to say that in three months, this is the verse they tried to do it without a cane. [applause] >> we certainly want to thank the congressman. come on. [applause] >> as you remain standing, and let me say that i want to thank all of you for sharing. we have another full day tomorrow. tomorrow night is our award dinner. we want to ask you please we can honor james clyburn tomorrow night for the honorees tomorrow that we are asking you, please make sure you get your ticket for tomorrow's dinner. the buses leave at 6:00 or 630.

where members were at 6:15 on k street. i want to close out by saying how grateful i am at k street board members at the front door. i want to say how grateful we are to our congressmen. they have made us -- [applause] the truth of the matter is that for most of last, this national display of unity between the parkers in the conference at the national black churches is not a pretense because we live with that every day in the districts of this nation. most of us are churches have had partnerships with our congressmen especially the members of the congress. we want to know we are proud of you and have found great joy in service today. you have made us proud and we never, never once, never once rejected the idea that we

invested in you and you will always love her on our part. this is my congressman. i live in west chester, but he's in harlem and he's been such a great, but i want you, mr. chairman to now. and then its value. this is not just a ceremonial partnership. mostly all of the caucuses for early this morning he saw nothing but congressmen. you must not this is what the legislature was being passed because the congress -- the caucuses here. so on behalf of all the passes of our nine denomination, ama's calmest dnas, church sign of christ, for baptist denominations, all nine of us and independent churches because we have opened up a caucus within the mainline denominations and we are building a movement, we have not gathered for religious or the logical purposes, even though we

have gathered around educational halt, social justice and economic privacy. when the church comes together and put aside that separates us from the service of operation, there is no telling the impact we can have in this country and this election season is an important test of whether we make it. mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership. [applause] >> demi- thank you, mr. chairman and ours as some of the work they put into it as well as the staff at cnbc and now let us prepare to the famous plays and outlets and who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present to you progress before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy to the god our savior, who alone is why the glory and majesty dominion and

power both now and forever more and the people of god say amen. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ..