>> mr. chairman, as i listened to those comments, it struck me what a wonderful thing free speech is. >> that was the hearing where donald rumsfeld was making the justifications for attacking iraq. finish and what you didn't hear in the clip were questions that we got a chance to ask him which is how much money isally burton going to make from this war, how many u.s. soldiers will be killed in this war, how many

iraqi civilians will die from this adventure? and i'd like those questions answered now by somebody like donald results fed. >> more with medea benjamin sunday night at 8 on c-span's "q&a." >> and a live puckture there from the -- picture there from the national press club where a civil rights lawyer is going to be honored for her achievements. this event hosted by trice edney communications, the discussion on voting rights and civil rights, also featuring speakers from the naacp. trice edney is the former editor in the chief. our live coverage gets underway now on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] knox "money rocks". [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. if i could just have everybody to be seated, please. we're getting started. thank you very much.

good afternoon. my name is hazel trice edney. i'm president and ceo of trice edney communications, llc, and editor-in-chief of the trice edney news wire. i welcome you to our third annual states women for justice luncheon, honing the vision: the next 50 years. let's give yourselves a hand for being here. [applause] i want to make it clear that when we say states women, we're not just talking about the ladies, although these are top ladies of distinction here at the head table. we're not just talking about them, we're talking about you. because each one of you come from a walk of life in which you are pouring into others, in which you are fighting for others and in which you are standing for justice. and so that makes you a stateswoman in your own right. the reason that we gather here today is severalfold. we gather here to celebrate

women, because this is women's history month. but we gather here for more than just that. these women here who are going to lead us if a conversation today -- in a conversation today are leaders across the nation. they are people who deal with issues that affect racial disparities, that affect gender disparities, etc., across the nation, and too often we see just men sitting in those seats, don't we? and we rarely see them all on one podium together not because they're women with, but because they are powerful and because they are leaders. we are here today because 50 years ago hundreds of thousands of people gathered and marched across this country at an

occasion called the march on washington. for jobs and freedom. we're also here because 50 years ago president john f. kennedy saw the necessity to establish the lawyers' committee for civil rights under the law. [applause] yes. we are here because 186 years ago this month on march 16th the black press was founded under the headlines saying we must plead our own cause. for too long have others spoken for us. i believe in the principle of looking back while moving forward. and so today's conversation will not just be about looking back, it will be about looking

forward, honing the vision: the next 50 years. we have some very special guests, super special guests over at that table. lady, i'm going to ask you to stand. they are from the maya angelou charter, public charter school. [applause] you know, i think about them now. they could, you know, you could be somewhere else, you know? so i thank you for being here, and i just wanted to point out the fact that you are here, and i want to say something to you. you can be seated. this is also another 50th anniversary, and that 50th anniversary is the anniversary of those four little girls in that birmingham church who were bombed. we rarely say their names, but let's say their names today. addy may collins, 11 years old. carol robertson, 14. cynthia wesley, 14, and denise mcnair, 14. so often we have the innocent

among us who get caught up, and even today we're seeing it every day in our children being killed in the streets of chicago and across this nation. we must honor each other, or we must also bring up young ladies such as these and young men such as these and set examples for them to continue to fight the struggle for freedom, justice and equality for the next 50 years. so we are about to eat before we delve into this powerful conversation, and before we eat we're going to bring our ip vocation -- invocation that invocations is going to be brought to us the year by lady nicole johnson, a word for a woman ministries, baltimore, maryland. [applause] >> thank you so much.

it's such ap honor to be here -- an honor to be here. let us pray. father god, lord, we just come to you, first and foremost, to give you thanks, god. lord, i thank you for this joyous occasion where we're honoring women, powerful, strong women, lord god, that you have empowered with such gift and talents for social justice, lord. lord, i thank you for the young women, god, who are in attendance, lord jesus. bless us all today, god. bless even -- each and every speaker that is going to come forth, god, and bring a word. lord, i pray that we will all leave empowered, inspired on today. let us be an example for those that are coming up behind us, father god. lord, i ask that you just give us your blessing and bless each and every one of us. lord, for the next 50 years that

come ahead, god. you are the same god that brought us through the last 50, and you're the same god that's going to be with us for the next 50 years, god. let us, lord, lay the groundwork for that on today. lord, bless all the hands that have prepared the food that we're about to receive for the nourishment and fillings of our bodies, god. bless those that are still on their way, god, who still have not made it here yet. so, lord, we turn this part of this service and this program over to you and the mighty and the matchless -- in the mighty and the matchless name of jesus christ, i pray. amen. >> amen. >> amen. thank you, lady nicole. enjoy your meals. we're going to come back in a few minutes with a very, very special honor, another reason that we're here today that i have not stated yet. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] finish [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> so while we wait for this event to get under way and folks here at the press club have their lunch, let's show you some of this morning's panel from the 12th annual aviation summit, a discussion about drones. [applause] >> thank you, carol. and, as usual, this summit is a gathering of the most

influential thought leaders in aviation. soen i can't tell you how exciting -- so i can't tell you how exciting it is from my standpoint and our panel to be here with you this morning, because we are in an area of high energy when it comes to uas. lively debate, i think that's what we'll have this morning. we're looking forward to questions from you. and i thought the way we might kick this off is just for a moment let's take a look at the diversity of uas and their applications. so i'm going to ask that we roll a quick one-minute view of this. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> well, that gives you some idea of the amazing range of technology and the exciting developments that are going on in the field. i thought it was very interesting that "time" magazine labeled unmanned aircraft systems as one of the

transformative technologies. in fact, only one of three along with smartphones and the 3-d printing arena is where you've had true transformation in the last decade. but as transformative as they are, they also really aren't new. go back to 1915 and see nicola tesla predicting that they would be very influential in warfare. you can look back as far as world war ii, and, in fact, the aircraft that john kennedy's brother jack went down was a partially up manned aircraft way -- unmanned aircraft way back then. and, of course, they really had a significant role in vietnam. but that said, i think when we look at when they came into the modern age, you got to look at the first stage 12 years ago at the conflict in afghanistan, and frank pace says this as well, when the first predator was use inside that conflict, it really did kick off the ground war in

afghanistan, and uas came of age. now, the next step, of course, as far as all of us are concerned is the integration of uas into the nas. and what will that mean from the standpoint of faa's ability to complete a very ambitious rulemaking new test site all in the realm of 2015. i think that is critical for all of us because we understand that this has tremendous economic benefits for our country. we're talking about something that really will be a game changer from the standpoint of exports and transform the way our society works in many ways. the teal group has suggested that uavs, that pending is going to double -- spending is going to double in the next decade from 6.6 billion to 11.4. at the same time, i think it's fair to say that society is often very slow to accept rapid

technological change and investments. and, you know, i have to say i think part of it is the public's deep-seeded unease with robots. i mean, this goes back to the hal -- [inaudible] and a few other things we remember from our childhood. and, of course, political theater it was, but senator rand paul's filibuster really, i think, did to some degree muddy public understanding of the domestic uses of uas. so we don't do ourselves any favors either from an industry standpoint when we keep changing the names. i could go around this room, and i bet everyone here could come up with a different one. uas, uav, rpv. and now, get this, the latest one? uninhabited aerial vehicles? oh, come on. sexism? give me a break. [laughter] i think our speakers will shed light, though, on some of the more important of uas concern. i'm so delighted that from

california frank pace was willing and able to come in, the president and ceo of general b atomics. and, of course, the developer of the predator, among other very leading aircraft in this area. what i really think about it, and i think this is backed up by the air and space museum's assessment, the predator was ranked as one of the ten aircraft that changed the world from their vantage point. so we look to you to talk about the growth of uas and the development there technologically. wells bennett. wells is the visiting fellow in national security law at brookings institution. wells has written some very interesting pieces, i have to recommend them to you all, about privacy and safety issues and the faa's regulatory process. he also get into the interplay between state and local laws and federal law. and finally, we're very honored to have with us ellen tauscher,

former congresswoman from the state of california and, most recently, undersecretary of state responsible for the regulation of uas when we're talking about export and the move from our own shores into other uses. she's really an expert on export control challenges in general, and she's keenly aware of the debate on capitol hill and what the ramifications may be for this technology. so with that, i'd like to turn first to frank and ask you to describe if you can crystal ball it for a moment, what do you think in five to ten years we're likely to see in terms of the national air space and uas? >> well, i think the key thing would be to separate uass out into different groups. as you saw from that video, they

really have a wide range from 30,000-pound airplanes right now down to airplanes that weigh approximately one pound. and i think in the media they've bunched all those together. but more recently, working with the faa we've been able to separate out, and they have a small class and then a, they call them male class or medium altitude long endurance type class, high altitude. so what i see as progress on the two extremes and in the middle i think there's going to be problems and not much progress. so the two extremes, i believe the small airplanes that really are not much of a threat to general aviation and are almost like regular rsd planes that some of us flew as kids, i think those will be allowed to fly pretty much unencumbered maybe below 300 feet, maybe below a

thousand feet, something like that, and i i think their big issue will be privacy. and then on the large side, um, the large uavs like a predator, the global hawk, these airplanes can carry all the equipment needed to do really whatever the faa might demand of them in terms of sense and avoid and things like that, and we'll be getting to this later. so i think that the area in the middle like, say, a shadow uav, something like that that's very, very effective in the theater for the army for a war environment is too small an airplane to carry all the equipment that might be required by the faa and is too big of an airplane to really be thought of as a small thing that could just be kind of ignored below 300 or a thousand feet. so i think those airplanes, i still see those as being only in restricted air space and that the small ones and the large ones will be -- i don't think

they'll be filing and flying and just going fir they want, but i think there'll be routine operations for those. >> and, wells, when we think about the fact that for general atomics or for the large ones, you know, whatever level we're talking about, faa still has a significant regulatory challenge in front of it. so what do you think about the way that's going on the both safety and privacy, now that that's in the mix at the faa? >> well, they have a lot of work in front of them, and they don't have a lot of time to do it in. there's a 2012 law that says the bulk of the work has to be done by 2015, at the tail end of 2015. and there's just tons of issues that are already under the faa's traditional jurisdiction, and now you're moving into privacy. so, um, i'm most interested in the recent test site designation process. as everybody knows here, the faa's asked for candidates where they're going to do test sites

to gather the data with which to make certain safety calls as we reach the 2015 deadline. the privacy community said we really want you to get involved with this, sort of the faa initially seemed to balk at that not being a traditional privacy agency but then turned around and said, well, we actually have to take this into account, and it's turned around and asked the public to sort of inform what kind of privacy policies test site operators ought to use. in that regard, the faa seems to have latched onto the privacy issue at least in the short run. it's open to interpretation whether they want to be in that game for a while, but having, having taken it on, i think it might be difficult for them not to be involved with privacy say after the test site process as you approach simple integration deadline or when certification standards for public uas come around. but, yeah, that adds another thing to their plate on top of, you know, frank mentioned sense and avoid, lost link, what you

do with the bulk of air traffic control. so it's a ton of stuff. [laughter] to put it, to put it gently. >> it is. and in the piddle of sequestration -- middle of sequestration and, you know, furloughs, make it easier. and i think it's fair to say that a great deal of the longer-term success on this, and even medium term, does go to the fact that the united states has an enormous technological edge in this area, and it has great export potential. and so, mad cam secretary -- madam secretary, let me turn to you for a moment to hear what you think about what our chances are. and i know this audience probably has a lot of understanding, but mtcr is not a household word, so you might want to explain what that is. >> well, thank you, marion. i've been out of government for a year. i left as undersecretary, became special envoy during the transition of the russian election and our election and left in the fall, so i'm not

speaking for the government, which is a nice thing. um, but, you know, as a recovering politician and someone that has been involved in public policy for 16 or 17 years, um, i would say that coming from california many of you have operations in california, you know, we are the cradle of the new economy and technology. we have a tremendous amount of opportunity. in the administration, very early in the administration, the president after hearing from secretary gates at a cabinet retreat when the president looked up and said does anybody have any questions, there was this political vacuum. hard to imagine with all those dynamic people in the room. and bob gates allegedly stood up and said let me tell you, mr. president, we've got to do manager about export controls. something about export controls. i was on a panel when i was out of government with frank

scowcroft called fortress america, and he went on for five or seven minutes. the rest of the cabinet was pretty fixated on it. the president said, okay, you go ahead and do that. and i was coming to the government at the time, and it was one of the best things in the world for us because to talk about export controls and to talk about how we get a better system, how we deal with itar and the state department and ear and all of the different silos and how we move things out, how we stop protecting things that are as old as i am that you can buy on the internet and make sure that we, as bob gates said, protect the hell out of a small number of items without crushing our ability to innovate and export. and so that report, fortress america, became part of what the obama administration moved out on. i'm happy to announce that just a couple weeks ago, march 7th and 8th, a lot of the effort that we put together, we put

aircraft, gas turbines and related parts first in this big export control exercise the president had the administration, spent many hours, i think that there are tens of thousands of man hours both in state, a little in doj and a lot in commerce and certainly within the administration to kind of deal with these lists. and you have these munition control lists that are part of itar that are, you know, a treaty that we have 34 countries saying that we're not going to have anything that can go 300 kilometers that weighs 500 kilograms that could be part of a bomb or some kind of chemical weapon -- >> we're going to break away from this recorded portion of an event that took place this morning, and we're going to take you back live to the national press club in just a moment here. there you are. live at the national press club. this event a discussion about racial justice, voting rights and civil rights. we understand it's getting back underway very shortly. >> invited her to the white

house, she chose to be here. [applause] she has actually been on our stateswomen's panel in the past. also a sponsor is valerie richardson jackson. you may know her name. she is the former first lady of atlanta, maynard jackson's wife or widow. she is a partner, board chair of tgi friday's, and she is with jack -- i'm sorry, i don't have my glasses on, but she was with jack mont incorporation also in atlanta. and my company, trice edney news wire, is also a sponsor this yearment. [applause] [laughter] i thank you for your support as well. well, as you continue to enjoy your meal, it's time to move to another part of our program that really is extra special and one of the key reasons that we are here. and that is to give honor where honor is due as dean dates at

howard university, even, let's give her a hand as she comes in. [applause] we're going to give honor where honor is due today. someone who has been carrying the torch, someone who has been carrying the banner for freedom, justice and equality. she has been a part of this luncheon as a stateswoman from day one, and you see her picture right up front as she is in action. her name is barbara arnwein. [applause] yes. you know herment -- her. i'm going to say a little bit more about her, but first i'm just going to go ahead and introduce her by her bio. barbara arnwein, president and executive director of the national lawyers' committee for civil rights under law since 1989, is internationally renowned for contributions on critical justice issues

including the passage of the landmark civil rights act of 1991. before becoming the national leader of the lawyers' committee, she was director of the boston lawyers' committee for about six years, making this her 30th year of leadership with this great civil rights organization that's celebrating its 50th anniversary. [applause] a graduate of scripps college and duke university school of law, she continues to champion civil rights issues nationally and internationally in the areas of housing, fair lending, community development, employment, voting, education, environmental justice, gender equality and more. a prominent leader in the civil rights community, ms. arnwein also continues to fight for the preservation of affirmative action and diversity programs. in addition to ms. arnwein's instrumental work leading to the

passage of the 1991 civil rights act, she has served in numerous other prestigious positions including international civil human and women's rights matters. ms. arnwein is a prominent leader of election protection, the nation's largest nonpartisan voter protection coalition launched in 2004 to assist historically-disenfranchised persons to exercise the fundamental right to vote. today the coalition con suggestions of more than -- consists of more than 100 organizations and thousands of attorney volunteers. the 2012 elections marks the third presidential election that election protection played a vital role if supporting and protecting voters. the election protection hotline, the centerpieces of the program, received more than 200,000 calls in the 2012 election cycle. additionally, the election

protection and lawyers' committee web site and social media received millions of visits in 2012. election protection hosted 38 call centers across the country on election day with more than 5,300 trained legal volunteers and 2,300 grass roots volunteers in 22 states and over 80 voting jurisdictions. i'm going to stop right there. you see her bio, it's, um, extremely long. [applause] and you can read the rest of it on the program if you want to. but this is where i'm going to take it from here, okay? this is why she's getting honored today. be you look to my left -- if you look to my left and if you look to my right, you will see a picture of her on each side. that happened right here last year in march when, at this luncheon, when she unveiled the map of shame.

but, and she passed it out to some of you who are also here. she announced at the beginning of 2012 what most of us did not know. but by the end of 2012, and she can correct me on my numbers if i'm wrong, at least 14 states had permanently changed to some voting lawing. and the appearance was that it was a disenfranchised african-american people in other racial minorities -- and other racial minorities. that was the appearance. it could have effectively disenfranchised at least five million eligible voters. however, because of of the lawyers' committee, because of those who work alongside her for this cause of justice at

election protection and the other voting programs that they work on in order to protect our vote, it didn't happen. it worked out. [applause] she is being honored today because of her, her stellar leadership, because of her visionary leadership in that regard. over not just the past year, but over the past 30 years -- now, that is worth the honor. and 50 years of the lawyers' committee for civil rights under law. my goodness, 50 years ago. was it, i guess it was just after the march on washington. john f. kennedy, i'll let her tell it. but it's so important that we bring her up now as we continue to honor her. i'm going to be joined in speaking about ms. barbara

arnwein, and this is just how important she is, i'm going to be joined on the stage by ms. tonya robinson. tonya is a special assistant to president barack obama for justice and regulatory policy. tonya and barbara. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, hazel. i was asked to keep it brief, but i have to say it is such a pleasure to be a part of today's event, and i'm especially looking forward to the issues forum. but i have to tell you that i am most enthused by the opportunity here to honor one of the titans of the civil rights community and the organization that she

shepherds. the chance to do that this morning is made more sweet by the fact that so much of my own legal career and passion for the important role that lawyers in particular but all of us play in advancing the cause of civil and human rights, so much of that in my own life is informed by my early exposure to barbara and the lawyers' committee for civil rights under law. before joining the white house team, i was a litigation partner at one of the large law firms in town, wilmer hale, which before a merger around nine years ago was known as wilmer, cutler and pickering. it was there where i began my career and also where i learned the most about the important role the lawyers' committee historically has played in framing the national conversation around racial justice and civil rights. wilmer's relationship with the

national lawyers' committee for civil rights under law was and is longstanding. some of you know the story. in 1963 president john f. kennedy called one of the team's founders, the firm's founders, lloyd cutler, to the white house to help form the committee. which, if one believes the firm's folklore at least -- [laughter] would focus on how lawyers might address issues raised by the civil rights movement out of the south. lloyd served as a member of the organization's executive committee until 1987 in addition to serving two american presidents as white house counsel, and through that service really effectively seared into the firm's conscious and into the hearts of its attorneys a deep and abiding appreciation for the lawyers' committee's work and the profound circumstances that led to its founding. that awareness and the ongoing

partnership with the lawyers' committee really shaped the firm's culture and made possible several key firm representations including the work on the university of michigan affirmative action cases led by john payton, another titan in the civil rights community. [applause] >> fantastic. >> who before his passing served as the leader of the naacp legal defense and education fund. and a case also led by john pickering, a graduate of the university of michigan, and another one of the firm's founders. i had the good fortune to be a part of that litigation team, and because of john's goodwill, it also led to other discreet civil rights assignments and opportunities to engage stakeholders outside of the firm. including a small but meaningful round table on affirmative action spearheaded by barbara and her team. barbara won't remember this, but

at john's urging i joined that meeting as a relatively junior attorney knowing much about barbara, the fearless civil rights leader, barbara the pioneer. but many that interaction -- in that interaction way too many years ago to reveal now, i also glimpsed barbara, the mentor. barbara, the sister friend looking out for younger sister friends. and for a moment i had some sense of what it must be like to be an attorney working with her in the trenches day-to-day at the lawyers' committee. we junior folks at the meeting were inclined to hover around the edges of the room, kind of clinging to the chairs that were, of course, farthest away from the adult table. [laughter] but barbara insisted that there was room at the table for all of us. no matter our youth or our

relative inexperience in the law or in the movement, our voices counted. we were expected not only to show up, but to bring our best severals and to en-- selves and to engage. again, barbara, i'm sure, has done hundreds, maybe thousands of those round tables over the course of her 30 years at the lawyers' committee. and so she won't remember that day, but for me it was unforgettable. and she conveyed an important message about the power of my own voice. a message that i also have not forgotten. and it, frankly, should be a lesson for all of us about the small, everyday ways that we influence the women and girls around us. a part of the charge hazel and her team have set for us today is thinking about the next 50 years, and if nothing else a

part of that visionary exercise has to be about harnessing the power of a multigenerational coalition that focuses its interests, its energies on issues that matter. and if my early experience with barbara is any indication, she has gotten that right for years. and without question, we should borrow a page from her, from her playbook. so i left that round table many moons ago fired up, very committed to finding a way to contribute to social causes from my then-little perch in private practice. barbara, you did that for me, but not just for me. i know you have done that for so, so many others. and for that we thank you and we honor you. [applause] >> okay. before barbara comes to the mic,

there is one other person who has a very, very short bio who is in the room, and she's going to be coming to join us, and she's going to be speaking about barbara. her name is miss vera arnwein. [laughter] [applause] and her bio says, "mom." [laughter] the mother of barbara arnwein. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. you want me to talk? okay. i just -- oh, good evening, everyone. [laughter]

i would just like to have just a little short tribute to barbara. where are you? [laughter] okay. i'm so honored, barbara, today to pay tribute to you. there is nothing in my life that could have prepared me for the divine plans that god has for your life. i always knew you had great potential, but you have far exceeded what i could ever imagine. i'm extremely grateful that god has allowed me to live long enough to not only see the great works that you have done in your life, but i have been extended the privilege of being able to share it with you. i feel as though -- [applause]

i feel as though i'm drinking from the saucer that overflows from your cup, for surely your cup runneth over. i keep remembering you as a little girl, barbara -- [laughter] few first daughter -- my first daughter and how much you meant to me. i was so proud to be your mother back then, and as i stand here today, i'm even more proud to be your mother knowing that awesome woman that you have become. today on your birthday -- [applause] amen. today on your birthday i reflect back on the day you was born. barbara, you was born during those days that things was still

segregated. she was born in california, long beach, california. that was segregated. so the hospital i went for barbara to be born was a whites-only hospital. i had it would my husband and friends that barbara, my baby, was going to be born in seaside hospital. they all looked at me like i was losing my mind. [laughter] so when i got to labor, in labor and went to the the -- i had the cab to take me to the hospital, and i got in labor, the doctor told me at the time that i was supposed to leave home early enough to go to the county hospital. but i waited. [laughter] i waited until the pain got like five minutes apart. [laughter]

before i even called for the cab. then i had the cab to take me to the hospital. when we got to the hospital and the doctor looked at me and he said, no, you have to go to the other hospital, you have to get in this ambulance and go to the hospital, you can't have your baby here. he tried to examine me, and when he did examine me, because i had just started hurting and i was in a lots of pain, ten he decided that -- then he decided that he would examine me. and the nurse came in, and she tried taking a towel to hold the baby back. [laughter] and so she said, doctor, what -- she's dielating, what are we going to do? the doctor said, we're going to

deliver a baby. and so he said we can't make it. he said we are going to have a baby. he had to take the towel away, and barbara was born there at the seaside hospital. [applause] barbara, you have, you were the first black baby born in seaside hospital. with your famous, with your footprints on your -- [laughter] praise the lord. okay. i knew then that barbara was going to grow up and make a difference in your life. barbara, i wish you continued success in many all the wonderful things that god has to offer. may your life always be filled with abundance of love, peace,

joy and happiness. and never, ever forget that your mother loves you very much. [laughter] [applause] happy birthday and congratulations. >> is that not the best reward of all? [applause] the love of a mother. hey, she came into this world fighting for justice! [applause] >> that is a big surprise. >> and so, barbara arnwein, we hereby present you with this award, stateswoman for justice, 30 years of visionary civil rights leadership, trice edney communications and news wire. thank you. [applause] barbara is going to kick off our conversation.

>> barbara is going to kick off our conversation, and the next voice you hear, because i'm going to get out of your way, is going to be dr. elsie scott, our moderator, to lead off into this powerful conversation, "honing the vision: the next 50 years." dr. elsie scott, ph.d. s the founding direct or of the ronald w. waters leadership and public policy center at howard university, a focal point for leadership development and public policy research and analysis on african-american contributions to the u.s. national and foreign policy and the role of african-americans in u.s. politics. but first, we want to hear from the voice of the hour, barbara arnwein. [applause]

>> oh, my goodness. [laughter] good afternoon, everyone. >> good afternoon. >> what a blessing. and what an honor to be with you this afternoon. i want to start off by saying that, you know, these -- i'm so happy that this is my birthday. you know, god has blessed me to walk this earth and to be part of this world for some 62 years. [applause] and i am so honored. and i, you know, one of the things that made every day of my life so meaningful was knowing that i had a mother who was praying for me. [applause] you know, i never had a doubt about that. and i knew i had a praying mom

that no matter what i did, boy, did i do some things -- [laughter] that she was there reminding me that god had a plan for me and that he had a vision that i needed to listen to. and i thank you, mom. that tribute just, oh, my goodness. thank you. i also, tonya robinson, i always enjoyed you, and i will tell people that when you left wilmer, i was so devastated on one hand and so happy on the other, because i knew you were going to go forth and do great things. and it is just magnificent to see you now, got the president's back! what a wonderful, wonderful accomplishment. [applause] and there's no way on earth that i can thank hazel ed and her --

edney and her team enough. hazel, you are amazing. you are a force of nature. you have changed the face of women in the media and african-american women, and thank you for this incredible forum and this incredible event and this honor. [applause] thank you. .. they otherwise would not vote for. to go before the supreme court

and argue. it's the staff that has made public education such as priority. all of these things. and i want to bring forth and just acknowledge the staff of the committee here today. if you will stand, please. [applause] all of you amazing, wonderful, great people. yes. thank you. that is just a part of our staff. i also, besides my incredible mom as you can see she is the mother of 12 children by the way [applause] i am one of 12. i was the third girl, broke her heart, born bald-headed. she would take a read into my head. [laughter]

but they would say he is so cute. [laughter] so my mom had two girls and was a prize after three boys and in fact i grew up thinking my name was bobby. it took me a long time to learn that my name was barbara. i am also happy that other members of my family are here. somewhere in the room -- their he is. there is my baby, justin now, my first child. also my brother, marvin. [applause] one of my three oldest brothers. they didn't want to be settled with that girl.

and also, my nephew, marvin's son, curtis, who is also here. curtis is very special to me. [applause] but i am also very honored that in the audience also is sidney, my mentee and she lives in chicago and came to be with me this week. [applause] i am so honored. i am so honored that she is here. you see, it is that peculiar and beautiful genius of women, especially of african women, that african genius that helps to transform this nation. and the black press against so many odds continues to persevere in providing the african-americans perspectives and making sure that all voices,

our words, our vision is heard by this nation. that's the value of the black press. that's the beauty of it. i am honored to join my great colleagues. we have been in trenches of fights and my goodness all that we've had to deal with. the bar in the 2004 and the 2008 elections. then when she went to the naacp to become the first woman general counsel i was just so delighted. [applause] and dr. elsie space brilliantly leading off in our political understanding and just having

departed as the chair and departing as the executive director of the congressional black caucus foundation. and now heading up the new wonderful walter senator at harvard university. but an honor, dr. scott. [applause] ronald walters was amazing and we miss him every day. sometimes during the 2012i said what are we going to do without dr. walters here to help us. thank god there is a elsie space. we all know what this year is, the criticality of the 50 years later. think of it, all as we sit here and the beauty whom god has blessed us to be present just remember we are here because of so many sacrificing.

50 years ago, evers was born. 50 years ago, so many people were seen on television as bald water hoses as other threats compounded their fight for freedom and justice. you see, people were jailed for that fight. we know that it took courage. and when you think if i stood on the bridge just a couple weeks ago and realized john lewis said when we came to the top of this bridge we looked down and we saw the state troopers with their batons drawn, but we kept on marching. we kept moving forward, and yes they attacked and they beat up

and in the injured us and they sent most of us to jail. the 300 that were on that bridge by the way, people think about it now and you think it was thousands those 300 brave souls. when the next day dr. king and everybody else arrived, and when they got to the governor's to reverse and make sure the federal government made sure to bring in their own troops that they gave protection then it was 2000. but it takes that occurred courageous few that walk and who said my freedom means more to me. my freedom means more to me than any momentary sanctuary of personhood. that sacrificial vision is what has built us as a people and as

a nation. and when i think about it, i just had to think about it because many people in this audience may have seen some of those visions. many people have read about it or see it on tv and it does not have the same impact when you walk in their shoes. and it was against this backdrop that the lawyers committee created. we want just a nice spot somebody had on their head of what it be nice to have lawyers helping in the civil-rights struggle clacks that is not how we were forced. we were forced a and struggles from the battlefields of the fight of this country for civil rights. and it was in that call from that president john f. kennedy called to get these lawyers and forced in the new organizations. the lawyers committee for civil rights.

and it was there that attorney general john -- i mean attorney general kennedy and lyndon johnson and all the people gathered and so many others that they created this incredible organization that was the first meeting within the office. it was this that led us where we are. but, you see, as frederick douglass said, you know, change yields only to the demand, right? and it only yields to people coming forth and seeing that if things have to change it was that we had to fight for equal aspects to public authority, job opportunity, voting rights and other fundamental rights. we have to put into place the

civil rights act and put into place the 1965 voting rights act and put into place all will that we take for granted now because it didn't exist back in those days and the lawyers committee had to be part of that struggle with the legal defense fund and the aclu and so many of your arguments but as a result of that meeting that i can stand before you to talk about what we do now. we see the volunteers in mississippi and the volunteers really literally risked their lives. if you talk to some of those lawyers that went to mississippi to be part of the lawyers committee in the olden days, they will tell you they have to run and hide as people walk around with rifles looking. they will tell you about being driven off the road.

they will tell you about being locked up in the jails. yes, they went through so much what they went through nothing compared to what frannie lou hamer went through in her fight. a woman who was beaten and savage. a woman against her own knowledge. this is what we have had to go through as people if and we need to remember after thousands of cases and public policy advocacies bigger advance in the racial equality for millions of clients. we continue to work with a more volunteers to fight for the raise equity and justice in the area of employment educating and community development immigration reform and criminal-justice disparities in in the name of a few but i want there to be no doubt even in the

context that we live in with a black president in the white house, even though the fight is more than has ever been and even though the fight is more multi-cultural, even though there is fox news and so much else it is still powerful the urgent that we continue this quest because we cannot ever withdraw from the battlefield that our parents could stand. succumb if we talk about the right to vote and about what happened with the map of shame and all of these suppressive efforts, but you know what i would love thinking about, about that fight that we just came through, the fight that we won because we took it to all of the forms that had to be fought, we fought in the court and in the

state legislatures. we fought in the media. but you know where we also fought? in the streets. we use every tool that we had available. we went on tv and we told people, we educated people we descended the voting rights act and a broad section five cases and we overturned voter i.t. loss in south carolina and florida and texas - we are able to overturn the one in texas and able to modify the one significantly insult carolina didn't have the teeth they thought was going to have and in florida we saw the early voting and the aclu a startles in pennsylvania and wisconsin but

that isn't when the fight was one. because we are also able to have a backup through the hot line where people can call and get help in the system for the legal volunteers and the millions of people that visited, but remember they felt the only way they could win was that the average person wouldn't know what was going on. it's a thought that they could win because people would not have the knowledge to know what the real state of the law was in their own state. they thought that if they could win but what they forgot about, they forgot about one thing, one critical thing and that is they forgot about us. they forgot about our determination of our reality, and they forgot about the black

press because say didn't know michael, tom joyner, joe madison they didn't know that we would be bringing it. they had no idea that melissa harris would create this. they didn't know that mean that turner from ohio would be our president. they had no idea how much we were able to penetrate for the people were so outraged. people were so determined that on the early voting and election de the people would make their voices heard. they stood in line for freedom forum five, six, seven come eight, nine, ten hours. the jobless workers when they

improperly asked them for remondi that wasn't required. they went through the polls even though they said you can vote for the phone. they walked past billboards that tried to intimidate them. they did so much determination, so much walking in that tradition of the people on the bridge, so much with all of the mortars and eddie lee jackson and all of them they did it so much as we have the highest turnout in history in 2012. [applause] but you see, those of us that are driven by the inclusion and diversity and love are equally driven by the vision based on

superiority and other thoughts. just as we have won a major battle, we have another battle right on our heels we are now dealing with the supreme court in the shelby case, the nbra, the itc and that lawyers argued the nbra case and they argued the case in the shelby case coming and we know that those decisions are coming. they will be out before june, be out sometime, you know, by june, and we know that we are going to have to be very creative in our response to them. you see, we are as i conclude -- we have to be very clear that they have a vision, too. they are so determined that not

only do they not want us to vote, that is people of color, not only because we are in 2013 already the state of arkansas has passed a voting on the law of the evil voter i.d. law and the governor vetoed it think god but they are going to seek an override. not only that right across the river in virginia the governor of mcdonald's this week signed another of the voter i.d. law that he had vetoed so you see the fight continues in the court and in the state legislature and we have to stay vigilant. as i walk away from this, but not from this battlefield all i want to say to all of you is

let's unite and stay vigilant. let's remember that we never prevail by sitting back and thinking that all creativity, it's our own innovation come it's our own determination. it's our own drive and sacrifice that will always make the difference. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you so much barbara and the few people in here maybe some of the high school students that did not know her, now you know who barbara is and you've been introduced by her mother, and now by her.

barbara and i go way back to the way, way back to north carolina back when she had just graduated from this law school and we put together the north carolina black women's coalition. [applause] okay. let me first before i introduce the panel thank you for putting together this great point for providing the of the for you all to come here and enjoy not just the food, but also the dialogue. thank you very much. [applause] >> i am honored to have been asked to serve as your moderator today as we celebrate the anniversary of the march on washington i reflect back on my parents engagement in the voting rights struggle. it was not until 19621 year

before the voting rights act that my father in louisiana that they should intervene so that people could get registered to vote. along the way she got shot but he lived. the state of louisiana held lot of the naacp of which he was a local president, and my mother was a secretary. but what did they do? they took the organization underground and they kept on fighting. so civil rights is in my dna. [applause] and we have a panel with us today a panel fighter. these are five women and. the civil rights and racial justice causes especially from the legal perspective.

with a focus on race. years ago, women didn't have a prominent role in the march on washington. and so i am so happy that during the women's history month in 2013 that we have a panel today showcasing the women of the civil rights movement. [applause] 50 years ago the big six, as the organizers of the march on washington were known, a philip randolph, martin luther king jr. and john lewis not to take anything away from them, but the women primarily had a role if you look at the program they added a tribute to the negro women and they invited and they

chose to honor dianesh, rosa parks, gloria richardson whose husband had been murdered down the mississippi and he and each has been allocated each minute without knowing very hard for them to do when it thin beef on their top priorities in the area of equal rights and racial justice. and folks who know confronting these problems over the next 50 years as we move past the commemoration of the march on washington. i will introduce them as they will come out in the audience that i have introduced to them. tama is the council of the

naacp, the youngest person person to be selected. prior to coming to the naacp, she was the principal in the firm here in d.c. for her practice on the medical malpractice litigation mediation and arbitration. prior year to that she served in the litigation practices for the monona small firms. she has recently been honored as the washington, d.c. super lawyer and was recognized as a top lawyer by the washingtonian in may of 2007 the women's bar association lawyer of the year. she's a former president of the national bar association. [applause] the next speaker will be lester

of the naacp legal defense and education fund. the position that she has held since 1998. she oversees the policies work in d.c. and coordinate and implement the strategy for the federal and civil rights legislation. she monitors the executive branch of federal judicial nominations. she also supervises the response to the federal agency action involving civil rights. prior to joining ldf she was a civil rights lawyer in birmingham alabama. [applause] >> thank you,. laura murphy is the best that works in the legal field that i know. [laughter] most people think that florida holds a degree because she's

always operated in that area. i would say why don't we just give her an honorary license and cut her out there and put her in the courthouse. [applause] laura is in her second year as stricter of the washington legislative office of the american civil union aclu. a position that she originally held from 1993 to 2005. she is best known for her legislative advocacy of human rights and civil liberties issues. she's maintained a high profile legislative and communications campaign on criminal-justice, first amendment equal the and national security issues. recently, she played a leadership role in the passage of the fair act of 2010. this is bill all but reduced the disparity is between crack and powder cocaine. prior to her return she directed her own firm.

activism and service runs in her family if they founded the african-american newspaper her on call was an associate at paul robeson. they ran for political office in several times and her father was the second african-american judge elected in baltimore. laura murphy. [applause] >> you met tonya robinson earlier but let me say more about her background. she currently serves as the special assistant to the president for justice and regulatory policy. a position that she has held since february of 2012. she manages a team within the white house domestic policy council that focuses on among other things a broad range of civil and criminal justice policy matters.

she also convince the president's national equal pay task force. prior, she was a partner where her practice focused primarily on complex commercial litigation and investigation including congressional investigation as well as this great civil-rights matters. she's also served as the council joseph biden when he was in the senate with the senate judiciary subcommittee. and i think that we have a duke team going on because she was the first african-american woman to be elected student body president at duke university. [applause] >> thank you, sonya. and then the final panel is barbara arnwine, we've already met and i don't need to introduce her again. we will start in the order they were introduced.

kim keenan. [applause] >> all right. fortunately i have my ipad, so why should know what three minutes looks like or something close to it. i do want to start by adding my congratulations to barbara. she is a warrior, and the way you know that is because they have action pictures of barbara treen you normally get a picture of just people with a head shot. but with barbara you always have her in action because that's what she is. she is civil rights in action, she is advocacy in action and i want to know that every time line with her i feel like i am in master class. i can't feel like a friend and colleague because i feel like i am in master class because you should be taking notes because she is just that bad. you just want to be like that when you grow up. so proud of her. and you know what, she sets that are highly because whether i'm sitting with her and plodding on

what we will do next or trying to figure out how we figure out how to undo what was done last she sets that are high. so we have to run faster and jump higher so we can keep that part as high as she has said it. so that just takes the right to what we have done at the naacp for the last 104 years. we have dedicated ourselves to the social, political, educational and economic opportunities for all people. a lot of people like to forget that. because we were founded by all different kinds of people. yes, we focus on black people because uzi has so much and think it's just black people. but the focus on that for all people. and i pledge to barbara this voting rights fight is not over and we will be partners on the ground and everywhere we have to be partners with her. those that find it interesting that all of these 50 years of

anniversaries are coming together in a single moment in time. so whether it is w.e.b. du bois' death or the assassination of evers or the march on washington for jobs and justice. notice that, jobs and justice. and you know what, here it is here we are 50 years later and guess what we need to march for? jobs and justice. i don't know if the order is right, but i know that the priority is good. we need to be marching for jobs and justice. and so i believe that most of those things are founded in our voting rights. so we don't have time to go through our whole top 53 ortiz but i'm going to hit you with the voting rights because that work is not done. you know, people think that because you have a black president of the work is done. no, the work isn't based on the color of the president. the work is not based on other people's misperception that our voting rights are racial entitlement. i thought it was a constitutional. suppose to be the justices who

care so much about the wording of the constitution. but yet somehow when it's a black person or a brown person voting all of a sudden it's become a racial entitlement? we need to look around and see what the entitlements are. because i tell you today it is not an entitlement to be an american and have the free e and unfettered right to vote. i swear i'm sitting a march on washington and saying has he been out in america recently? does he not know they move the polling places in places like shelby and move across the street and you vote in the wrong place your vote doesn't count? thus t-note just because they don't know what they did when they were walking across doesn't mean that those things still don't exist but under another rubric? we have to step up. i will just say one last thing. i was interviewed in houston and this reporter kept saying to me what about the voter fraud? i said there is no voter fraud. you know, when my grandmother

rocks at the polling place in mobile alabama, nobody is trying to pretend to be ruby lee jones. [laughter] nobody is stupid enough to be pretending to be ruby lee jones. and so i said that to him and he waited. he waited for three minutes and then he comes back and he says but what about the voting? you are a reporter. you should be able to prove it to me because you are a reporter and it is your job to know if there is voter fraud but there isn't any voter fraud. it is a statistically totally a number that you cannot even calculate. the voting fraud that is, that is what we don't need. anybody in this room can find every one of you effortlessly and perfectly. during sandy people can vote by facts and they can vote over the internet and they can vote every which way in every poll and people can figure out who they were we can get this right.

how dare we go round the world and tell people that we are about democracy when we are preventing this. [applause] so, i just want you all to know today that the fight is not over and yes, he says to me after that you are taking this awfully personal. i said yes, my parents grew up with segregation. yes, it is very personal to me today and it's very personal to all i know and i want to make sure that for the young people here that the phenomenal woman, maya angelo will walk the walk as torchbearers because we have been chosen. we have been chosen to carry on this legacy. and until this work is done -- and i submit to you that it is never done because when it is done we have to make sure it is not undone. so it is never done. you don't have to worry. we need jobs. we need jobs coming hard and strong with the biggest and baddest everything you can bring because this fight will go on and we will not give up.

thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. i am with the naacp legal defense fund, and first let me say thank you. she provides a unique contribution to the civil rights cause, and i appreciate being included on the panel today. as the legal defense fund, our civil rights litigators we were founded by for thurgood marshall in 1940 and in 1963, we have worked side-by-side in the courts come in the streets with the lawyers committee for civil rights. and you know, you can all tell what you want to barbara arnwine on your side. okay? whether it is showing a map of shame to everybody that will look or whether it is trying to get an african-american woman considered to be the next

supreme court justice. [applause] she is a formidable ally and we appreciate having her leadership. i wanted to talk to you in my two and a half minutes left about the future of the judiciary. and i think that the comment really teed up the brief discussion. and that is that we saw with the voting rights case that the supreme court heard a couple of weeks ago you know, the civil rights laws are only as strong as the judges that enforce them and so has a legal defense fund because of our litigation experience, we get very much who is on the court is very important. and for years, for decades we have been involved in trying to monitor the judicial appointment, making sure that

judicial appointments are diverse and that there are nominees that respect the progress that we have made in civil rights. of one of the things that we talk about is, you know, we encourage public participation in the electoral process to elect a president and members of congress. there should be public participation in the judicial selection process which is part of our space fabric -- space fabric. [applause] i would you to know what is going on right now because we really need your help. president obama, and i want to say this tonya has done a superb job of trying to get diverse nominees and a great candidates through the senate confirmation process. the president doesn't just apply to judges, denominates judges in the senate and the united states senate has to confirm that and what happens is the senate is

signing president obama's effort and they are blocking every single nomination regardless of whether the nominees are controversial or not they are having a very hard time getting votes and i want to alert you to this so that as we begin next term and have more judges fight on the horizon you pay particular attention to it because it is having a cost. we can't get a diverse bench if people are not being confirmed. and i want to in this particular audience talk about what we are going to be pushing in the next four years, and that really is the diversity of african american candidates, which we always do, but really we need to get some african-american women nominated and confirmed. [applause] you know, the scary thing that is happening is that a lot of the judges appointed by previous

presidents who had impacted diversity on the bench particularly president carter and president clinton they are all free time during now and so it is very important that people come in new people get nominated to take over the mantel. i have some statistics that i want to leave you with because i think that they give you a crime and that is that right now there are 21 african-american judges on the circuit court. the circuit courts are basically what decides most of the law in the country. the supreme court hears only about 75 cases per year. so the circuit courts are really where it's at. 21 african-american judges. you know only seven of them are women? only one-third of them are women. the same in the district court. we have about 75 african-american district court judges right now. and 50 of them are men of. when i look at the statistics i think you know what, we really need to do a better job of

identifying some women and getting them nominated and confirmed. i hope that you will join the legal defense fund in this fight. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. barbara, it is a much deserved honor today, and i have been proud to be working with you for 25 years. the aclu is a 90-year-old organization in some places like in kentucky the aclu chapter is and the naacp chapters were founded in the same basement. and so we are so proud to be working with the lawyers committee. we were the co-counsel in the shall be a case and we participated in the arizona itca

case, the critical important voting rights cases. and we have had a voting rights project for 30 years at the aclu. hazel, i have to say, coming from a black press family you are one of the stars of the black media. [applause] >> maybe i spoke too soon. you are one of the media stars, because you always tried in your reporting and in your editorializing to get to the gist of the matter and find out what was most essential for your reading public to know. so, i am very, very pleased to be here and to be in the company of these great women. i just want to talk about two issues that are in the news today. one is gun violence in the

theater is immigration. most of my career, i tried to get people to understand that the war on drugs is a war on american people. and the war falls disproportionately on african-americans. and from the moment that we enter the criminal justice system, african-americans are treated differently. and it starts with our first interaction with police. there's still rampant racial profiling in the united states and the aclu helped claimed the phrase driving while black but now we talk about violence in the context and vice president biden and others would like to see more school resource officers and that's a problem

there likely to send african-american and latino students into the criminal justice system and i'm not talking about teenagers, i'm talking about first graders and third graders talking back or having tantrums husseini to go home and once the kids get records they are likely not to graduate and they are more than likely to be suspended and they work to make sure in this gun registration that if additional resources are given to schools by the detroit police officers can and cannot do. i am very concerned because this is the first step to the schools to the pipeline.

we are not just talking about people driving our tuck about youngsters encountering police officers and oftentimes the need guidance counselors. they need tutors high and we are spending millions of dollars in the criminal-justice system's it is the largest cost center in the department of justice and we've over criminalize america more than any other nation in the world and that brings me to the immigration system. in the 90's congress made it a crime for the immigrants across the border the largest growth in the criminal-justice system are latinos from the southwest to are arrested merely for crossing

the border. now the department of homeland security spends more money on a border enforcement and the dea, the fbi and the justice department combined. we are talking billions of dollars. so in a time of fiscal austerity, in the time of sequestering i'm not just appealing to people of color, i am appealing to all taxpayers to look at how many people's lives we are ruining because they have to have encounters in the criminal justice system. we worked really hard for 17 years to get the disparity in certain between crack and powder cocaine reduced and signed into law by president obama in 2010. but we have the potential of turning the gun legislation and immigration legislation and to

large feeders in the criminal-justice system. and people don't need punishment, they need help. people should not be languishing in prison because of drug possession. they should be going through health treatment programs to lock people up as a tremendous waste of human resources and then once you are locked up, you have a difficult time voting and in some states you can malveaux it and you have a terrible time finding employment. i will leave you this fault that i got from the professor paul butler that is now at georgetown law school. he says and 1965, african-americans had a far less chance of being caught up in the criminal-justice system than they do now. so despite the enormous progress in the civil rights law, which

are at risk in the supreme court not only in voting and an affirmative action, but notwithstanding our progress in the last 50 years, when we look at how many people cannot get jobs, cannot get pell grants, and cannot get the health care that they need because they are involved in the criminal-justice system, something is wrong in america and we have got to stop this over incarceration binge. thank you so much. [applause] it's great to begin where others have. this is a plodding barbara for her continued great work and also thinking hazel for the invitation and for facilitating

what really is such an important process convening. this luncheon is in its third year and it's an important for the folks that are interested in chronicling our stories and honoring the past but also envisioning a powerful future and asks us to focus our attention. for me it was that intersection and this year's emphasis on the next 50 years that was so compelling. it is what will make today's discussion i think some interesting and so significant. so again, thank you for the opportunity to join the conversation. we only have a couple of minutes. let me begin by telling you about the domestic policy council and my role in the white house and then i would like to

flatter one issue that is an example of the president's forward leaning leadership on justice issues. first the dpc is a component focused exclusively on domestic policy. lead a tiny but mighty team that handles justice and regulatory policy issues, and there are almost a dozen others within the dpc including a team that among other things is especially focused on the implementation of the affordable care act and urban affairs and economic mobility themes, which with others in the white house leads to the president's efforts on a pathway for many americans and education teams and energy teams we have the good fortune to have a tremendous amount of substantive expertise in the net domestic policy on a broad range of domestic policy issues but

has some of you may have discerned, one would really be hard pressed to identify a single team for whom justice issues are not relevant and in many instances central and i can say that without hesitation because justice in so many ways about opening access come open access to the safe neighborhoods, access to decent housing and access to high-quality and affordable health care access to good schools access to good jobs once you graduate from the schools and which really does go on because of those intersections all of dpc is focused on this justice assignment, not just my team. a part of the going forward vision for us and for me in particular because of those intersections is reminding ourselves always had good governance and great

policy-making are significantly about finding opportunities in the matter the particular underlining issue, finding those opportunities to not only widen but also to enable all or at least more americans the chance to access america's treasures and that really is the charge for us within the domestic policy council. that objective has driven to work in several areas of what me mention just one in the time that i have and that is the president's commitment to closing the pay gap and ensuring equal pay for equal work. equal pay is without question at least from my perspective given the current economic climate a pressing issue of today but as we envision the 21st century america as tomorrow it also represents a modern going forward phase of an old civil rights battle and the tools and the strategy that we leverage

will be good not only for that fight but also for this loss of civil rights challenges but let's begin with equal pay. from day one, the administration, the president has been focused on ensuring equal pay for equal work and indeed the very first piece of legislation that he signed upon taking office was a lovely ledbetter act which reopened the courthouse doors for thousands of american workers who otherwise would have been time barred even though they faced discrimination claims so from the start the president has drawn a line in the sand around the issue of equal pay and as we head into the second term has continued to emphasize it as a central and signature issue of the administration. sitting here today we not only on are the lawyers committee is a 50th year but we also have to note that it's been 50 years since president kennedy signed

the equal pay act. in the five decades since the legislation enactment, we have made tremendous progress but women on average still burma 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. 77 cents for every dollar a man terms and perhaps unsurprisingly to this crowd the gap is even more stark for women of color earning 64 cents and latino women earning 56 cents for every dollar. that speegap measured in pennies within matters. in 2010 there were more than 23 million women who like my mom more working mothers and for those women and their families but 23 cents matters. tim i think is right, it is personal.

i grew up in durham north carolina. the only child of a single mother that on more than one occasion in my adolescence worked multiple jobs to make ends meet. that 23 extra sense would have been more gas in the tank to drive to her job in the neighboring town. but have been more money for groceries and it would have been more money for my annual science field trip. it would have mattered. i went to college and the south and wall school in new england and a cambridge massachusetts and on each of those campuses i was surrounded by young women many from the working-class families like my own and holding down five jobs while pursuing their studies and for them to 23 cents battered. before starting at the white house i was a partner in one of the law firms in town and surrounded by women lawyers practicing at the top of their profession and for them partners and associates like the 23 cents mattered. regardless of where you are in

the american economy, the top tier law firm in the corporate board room on the construction site, no matter where you are in terms of the region of the country, a durham, north carolina or cambridge massachusetts, no matter your race or age if you are a working woman in america or if you are the child or one of the families that increasingly is supported by one of those working women, the 23 cents matters. that's why, again, the the president signed the lily white a better act. that's why he created the national equal pay task force and why she continues to advocate for the passage of the paycheck fairness act which would give workers additional tools to fight discrimination and that's why every opportunity he implies that message especially in these times of economic challenge no one should be denied fair pay. for me the fight for fair pay is

worth waging if you consider the children and family that would be catapulted into the middle class by the simple act of paying women their fair share. what you think of the safety net that could be available in retirement for elderly women were they not to lose on average $430,000 over their working lifetime is because of the pay gap so for he is all i know our assignment is to envision the next 50 years. but in truth, we are focused on the white house on the next two to four years and how to make that work, do what it shut and us do what we can in that limited time frame to ensure it really is over the next half century. i should end of their but it's a conversation that we are eager to have and it certainly from

our perspective on the untold story because there is a compelling economic case that especially in pact women of color and african-american women around the need to finally close the pay gap. thank you. [applause] >> we are about out of time. we have time to give -- okay we will do one round with the panel after this one question since barbara didn't get a chance to get back up here. maybe we will have time for one question or two questions from the audience. but i think what we have heard today is a central theme, jobs and justice, voting rights, african-americans, women and appointments especially on the court. a black woman on the supreme court helped the senate

confirmation of the judges that have been nominated by the president, gun violence, immigration come over criminalization in the u.s. and closing the pay gap. these are central themes that came through the talk. as we try to wrap this up why don't i just throw one question now to the panel and if you could talk to the audience in terms of looking at the themes that he's thrown out, how can the be engaged in making this agenda have been treated if you could pull the microphone up to you as you speak. >> i would say become active in your community. i am making the pitch for the naacp because our effort for voting is much more metric driven than it used to be so we registered 463,000 plus people in the last cycle to vote but then we got out 1.2 million

voters and in the old days everybody would get at the podium and say we got everyone deals but not anymore because not everybody believes unless you can prove it so we have a system we can tell you name by name and person by person. as a be a part of that what is the naacp or whether it is other communities like aclu. john, don't stand there and let this happen. know what is happening. educate yourself, tell your friends when it's time to vote to get one of them to come with you. get a van and put people in it. there are so many things you can just pick one. i tell people what you want to keep black men and children out of jail, send them to college because that is the number one thing that is a game changer. send them to college and make sure they finished and you can change the game over night. [applause] i have to agree.

of course i want you to join the aclu. but more important than that is to get on our e-mail list and make sure it doesn't go to your stambaugh folder because what we allow you to do on our list is right to your member of congress and if you don't know who your member of congress is, we will help you find that person. and so, we have a huge racial justice dhaka in voting and housing and education and criminal justice and we work side-by-side with the naacp and the legal defense fund to try to change the laws for the better. ..

everybody sees them and so if you can be part of a group, a church group, fraternal group ,-com,-com ma any group that makes this to capitol hill, we cannot see your faces up there often enough. [applause] >> let me out go that. i think the message i want to leave you is never underestimate the power of one call or one

letter or one visit into a congressional office. we are always trying to mobilize folks on the ground wherever you are. there is always something you can be weighing in on. you know now with the internet there's really no excuse for not knowing what's going on. you can look at our web site, all of us have web sites at naacp educational defense fund fund -- go legal defense fund and you can see the issue of the day. a lot of times we talk about what's pending in congress right now today. talking about the paycheck fairness act that we are trying to strengthen, the equal pay act that was passed. that is going on right now. at any given time we will -- judicial nomination and you are weighing in on the ground is the most important thing. right now congress is in recess and there is nothing like having a member get a visit from a constituent over recess in terms of wow you know, this is what my

votes are about these issues. a trillion port and peered if you call the congressional office in washington but i say call your local office. they think the folks on the ground are really paying attention. [applause] >> a couple of things. three quick points to remember. racial progress is not linear. for every advance we make, there is a backlash and a pushback and a retrogression and the reality is that we can be making forward progress like having an african-american present in the white house but at the same time trying to take her voting rights. we have to be very conscious that racial progress is not linear. it goes forward ,-com,-com ma

backlashes and goes forward again. sometimes you are stronger but always expect the best. the only way we fight it is with constant vision. but i what i want to make sure is everyone in here here's these messages that we have got to be focused on a multigenerational approach to our victories. it's important that we are mentoring young people but also remember that every young person in this room has something to teach us. 25-year-old justin was the one who said mom you need a map. and he said you could take it viral and put it on the internet. he came up with that. [applause] so i just want to be very clear that we have got to have that intergenerational connection and

it's also very important, i remember last year when i was here that after we all talked and had their presentations and the panel and the number six came up to me and said i'm going on my facebook, my twitter and i'm going to make sure my network is constantly fed disinformation about what's going on. i want to tell you that is critical in this fight. it's where we have to make sure that we are using social media, that we are following all the groups that are here and also following these individuals. i am barbara 73 on twitter and i'm very active on facebook and constantly dropping knowledge as they say. so it's very critical that we do this because one thing i want to be clear about is the reason why

we were able to make progress in 2012 is because people got active. there is a reason why this year we were able to just last week repeal the death penalty here. because people in this room got out and people in these groups, were they just voted yesterday in delaware to repeal the death penalty. and now we go to the next chamber. you see we make these fights to do the work. the incarcerate movement is the movement that -- we have got to be about that. because this whole incarceration of african-americans and latinos to make money and keep up the workforce, destroyed the backs

of our communities. we have to be at the forefront of those movements and there are movements to be created. there are organizations to be founded. there are things to be done and i'm so proud of people like liz warren who is litigating talks in floyd versus new york city case because they have stopped and frisked 5 million african-african- americans and latinos. guess what? that's more african-american and latinos that live in the totality of the state. to harass them. you see we have to be very clear that change comes because we get creative, we get innovative, that these babies from maya angelou ,-com,-com ma and they are saying no that's not right.

people here like maya angelou who will also be part of this fight because the one thing we forget, and i was reminded of this very poignantly in alabama three weeks ago was that some of the most powerful marches were done by young people. they were done by children who left middle school, who left high school in march. we have to be clear that it's a multigenerational fight and you have to be part of that and also never forget alliances are key. women, women, women are reproductive rights. it's not just a race thing. it's a woman thing and we have to be very honest and women of caller make sure they are protected and also make sure

that we take some serious responsibility in the educational arena and that is a whole different speech so i'm not going to do it but let's just make sure we do that. thank you. [applause] >> i will very quickly reiterate what she said which is critically important to mobilize outside of washington d.c. in ring that fight to congress. the administration has waged a handful of very very high-profile battles in this and the state some of which are ongoing right now and two campaign what has made the most difference, in some cases the only differencdifferenc e has been the american people have gotten extremely animated around these causes outside of washington and let their voice be known. an issue that we have had this morning for the most part much of that require some sort of legislative improvement. a real commitment out of the administration to do what we can administratively.

it's going to require the house and the senate to act and that only happens when folks are motivated and inspired an organized. [applause] >> what we have heard here is that it's not enough to just come here and listen and wait for them to litigate. they need an action team behind them as they go into the courthouse. so as you go back to your organizations, we encourage you to be engaged, to go on their web site and to learn more about the things that they are doing and let me just mention to several people who mentioned the prison pipeline. tomorrow, good friday and about 40 organizations are coming together for a silent march in downtown d.c. from the metropolitan ame church down to freedom plaza.

right after the good friday service at 12:00 so those of you who are here that would like to do something get involved, that's something you can do tomorrow. i think a lot of people have to go. we were supposed to end at 2:00 so if you have questions you have the panelists up here. you can grab them before they run out or go to their web site. get their business card. one thing you will find about all the women on this panel, they are very interested in allies and they are very interested in action, so thank you for being a part of this and thank you for being a great audience. [applause] and thank you dr. elsie scott for being such an excellent moderator. let's give her a hand. [applause] >> such great work at howard university.

i just want to acknowledacknowled ge a few people. my team as they were referred to quite often francis out there is our event planner. you have met him before. e-fund rivers over their. she is our advertising person. i am a reporter. you know i'm a journalist but i also own the business. she is trying to train me to let you know that yes we do have services. so as you leave, pick up a copy of what is called trice edney communications so you will see what some of our services are. we thank you our sponsors. thank you the aarp and wells fargo. you all are awesome. you have been with us from day one. i encourage you, drop the knowledge. did i say that right? dropped the knowledge. take it back with you. you have heard powerful

information today from our esteemed panelists. they did not come here and -- insane and neither did you. let's join the march and lead the marches and let's hone that vision for the next 50 years. thank you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> join us later today for live programming with a look at public perception and climate change issues that is being put on by an environmental and energy study institute.

spain now portion of this morning's washingtwashingt on journal looking at what nurses can do to help out during the doctor shortage. >> host: joining us on the "washington journal" is josh krosnick the politics of their for politics journal. thanks for joining us. how has the political conversation on same-sex marriage changed in the last months or year, two weeks?

>> guest: the political evolution has been dramatic and politicians are normally very cautious. even those who advocate for change are normally very cautious. they look at the polls in the political winds and see how much movement we have seen in the past month alone where we have over a half dozen democratic senators switch their positions in support of same-sex marriage. we saw kay hagan of north carolina a southern state which just last year had an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman with a 60% support for that amendment and kay hagan up for re-election in 2014 comes out in support of same-sex marriage. mccaskill a democrat from missouri a culturally democratic state decided to support same-sex marriage so when you see democrats from some of the more conservative parts of the country it shows what we are seeing in these national polls

which is there has been this rapid speed in which the public has evolved from having a majority opposing same-sex marriage to 58% supporting it in the latest poll. >> host: what about the conversation with republican party? >> guest: the republican party evolution has been a little more subtle. instead of hearing republican candidates campaign against same-sex marriage by making it a major part of their campaign in the 2012 election and you are seeing more republicans just not focus on that as a central issue. social issues which used to be one of the key wedge issues were the central part of rallying the thiessen president bush's second term in the 2004 presidential election. now they put the issue of and marriage on the back earner in most cases. rob portman coming out this past month after coming out in support of marriage after his son came out to him.

it was a very important signal and they think if you talk to a lot of republicans especially those from battlegrounds democratic leaning states you will see even though they are not openly supporting gay marriage they are not talking about social issues and they don't have that same level of opposition that you would see a decade ago. >> host: with what is kay hagan's approval rating in north carolina? >> guest: kay hagan is up for re-election. she is not well defined in her home state. she was a state senator before being elected to the u.s. senate and she now has finished in a big way. she risks the prospect of social conservatives in a midterm election rallying to the polls to vote against her that she is someone who is going to be spending a lot of money campaigning very hard and is going to be one of the marquee races of 2014. >> host: you mentioned the

senators changing their position here is a list of them. rob portman republican of ohio marc baig h. democrat of alaska marc warner democrat of virginia jail rockefeller and john tester democrat of montana. john tester just reelected and claire mc haskell just reelected and jay rockefeller -- >> guest: there are two big takeaways from that list. it's striking that the senator from west virginia which is one of the most culturallculturall y conservative states in the country is switching his view. that said jay rockefeller is retiring after this term. he is not running for re-election. the big political takeaways are those like marc warner in virginia and particularly marc begich in alaska. both of them up for re-election in 2014. alaska is very republican state is very pickup opportunity% republicans so this could be a very significant issue in alaska senate race.

>> host: let's look at the nine democratic senators who are not in favor of same-sex marriage. marc pryorprior, tom carper of delaware, joe donnelly in kansah north dakota mary landrieu of louisiana joe manchin west virginia and bill nelson of florida. >> guest: you will see that all of those senators especially tom carper are from solidly republican states. prior and landrieu are the most vulnerable senators out in 2014 and pryor was one of the few senators to respond to "washington post" request for where he stood on gay marriage and he was one of the few that defended the defense of marriage act. a lot of democrats in these red states have declined comment or been much more hesitant to opine

on the subject. you are seeing this evolution. in the deep south a look at the the -- in the polls on gay marriage and one of the few holdouts. we have random numbers of evangelical and socially conservative electorate so you are not seeing the south moved with the same speed as other parts of the country. >> host: and mary landrieu up for re-election next year. >> guest: mary landrieu one of the top republican -- >> host: do you think we will see an announcemannouncem ent by mary landrieu in the next year or so? >> guest: i would not expect it. one of the challenges for southern democrats is that the electorate in a midterm here is more conservative and more republican than we see in a presidential election so we are in a presidential election and you see higher turnouts of college students and minorities that may be more supportive of overturning fees gary mc -- gay marriage bans.

so it's unlikely if we are not seeing democratic senators involved in the next few weeks i doubt you will see any in 2014. >> host: josh kraushaar identifies himself as a liberal socialist on his twitter page. we'll evangelical voices heard republicrepublic an election chances that if they don't reverse their social positions? >> guest: if it's a real challenge for the republican party and we are hearing two issues that are in the national debate. immigration and gay marriage that have dominated republican journalism. immigration is a lot easier for republicans to move to the middle to have some kind of compromise because it's not a value-based issue. it's an issue where there's more room for compromise and more room to find middle ground. gay marriage when evangelicals and conservatives religious voters are going to oppose gay marriage no matter what there is

no move to the middle with a lot of the republican party. if the republican senators and officeholders move to the center they could lose intensity and the support of the social conservative which is a key part of the party. so they really are in a tough situation. they see the movement a young -- among younger voters when it comes to gay marriage but they don't want to risk moving from older more religious voters. >> host: the washingtwashingt on times this morning ashley judd will not run for senate. >> guest: it was not that surprising after all the opposition research by both mitch mcconnell's campaign and outside groups but you have got to wonder her name was out there for several months but democrats are going to be putting a lot of money to get a good candidate and in the senate race against

mitch mcconnell. they realize that ashley judd would have made a very interesting race and a lot of good coverage for political reporters that ashley judd had so much baggage whether it was for positions on coal which would alienate eastern kentucky voters those who depend on coal for their economic livelihood. ashley judd was a candidate who has had so much baggage and when democrats look at the polling showing mcconnell vulnerable potentially with the right candidate they realized she might not be the right candidate and i'm sure there were a lot of back channel conversations taking place with democrats perhaps with the senatorial campaign committee and it looks much more less likely that the secretary of state will run who is was a 34-year-old up-and-coming state-wide official and is more likely to run in that seat. >> host: what are her chances in kentucky? >> guest: it's a very

conservative state and a tough race against a very seasoned savvy campaigner like mitch mcconnell. o'connell has already gone out with his first television ad in march of 2013 over a year before the election so mcconnell is taking his re-election seriously. his job approval rating in kentucky is not in great shape. he is definitely vulnerable against the right kind of democrat but the right kind of democrat is a more socially conservative democrat in the governors rather than someone like ashley judd said the key is to raise enough money against mcconnell and can the democrats basically get a candidate who fits the electorate more effectively? >> host: was sequestration a political victory for the republicans? >> guest: a short-term political victory. the white house does not expect to lose even in the short-term. they thought like with mccain

in the 90s with the battle between clinton and the house republicans, they thought that they could portray the republicans is not being willing to compromise. they looked at house republicans approval ratings which works jane lowen thought that they could win the fight out right. then we are seeing a lot more nuanced support for balancing the budget and for spending cuts. there is a lot of mistrust of washington in general and a lot of voters were reacting to the budgetary fight, the sequestration fight with the notion that both parties are to blame. and that is not good for the white house. when both parties are to blame you end up, the president entered his re-election had strong approval ratings. he took a hit and lost seven or eight points in the re-election in most national polls. you see a lot of these big protracted budget because the white house knows issues more favorable to them perhaps immigration it's a legislative

priority that they want to fight for. >> host: you call it a short-term political victory but at the same time he said it benefited the republicans. >> host: it has. >> host: will it continue to? >> guest: it could if they play their cards right and don't fight every little battle and they don't brand them as the party that wants to cut spending at the expense of getting the economy back on track. the risk to republicans is that they are so focused on a scaredy and focused on cutting every line in the budget that they don't see the forest for the tree, the notion of making sure the economy is in good shape and with every poll showing voters concerned about the long-term state of the economy and there's a lot of anxiety among americans. the key message on both sides is that those sides are eager to get back on track and coming up with a plan that they can convince americans that the

economy will keep growing. >> host: joseph tweets in mr. mr. kraushaar will america ever forget newtown? >> guest: well it's a remarkable but it's only been a few months and we are already seeing that prospect of small measures when it comes to gun control. background checks remain a possibility but it's hard to get any republicans on board with even what is considered a small measure of background checks. you see mayor bloomberg tried to persuade democrats and republicans and persuadabpersuadab le members of congress to get on board with background checks and support. even he is now accepting what we have seen is a small measure enforcing background checks, he has seen it as something that would be more significant.

it's now an open question whether the back round check can even pass in the house which is much more conservative. >> host: josh kraushaar is the politics editor for the national editor and he is or guest for the next 30 minutes. we begin with this call from dayton ohio on our democrat line. hi. please go ahead. >> caller: yeah on the gay marriage debate, i am a democrat and we are supposed to be liberal but at the same time i'm kind of disappointed that it has become a political issue more so than a social standard issue. it's becoming a popular issue and you guys discussed already republicans changed their minds and campaigned against it and democrats seeing that it's a popular issue amongst voters and the gentleman said the generational gap that is becoming a political game

instead of a social standard and where americans are actually going to stand. my question would be, where is america going to go after this? after the supreme court does uphold, not uphold but repeal the ban and open the floodgates? are we going to be a country that allows every lifestyle choice, every lifestyle choice to be an issue of okay well that is your lifestyle so heroin addicts, that's a lifestyle so now we are allowing -- to do you see what i'm saying? >> host: we got the point. let's get an answer from our guest mr. kraushaar. >> guest: the supreme court seemed to be content to leave it up to public opinion and we have seen such a significant evolution in public opinion nationally that i don't think

you are going to see the supreme court reaches sweeping role in the defense of marriage act. i think it will be left up to congress and left up to the individual states to decide in the long-term how to deal with gay marriage and differentiating it from controversial issues approach by the caller. the political, the public support is ultimately what is going to allow this. that is what gay marriage the law of the land is in over half a dozen states. that will provide the momentum for marriage so that public opinion will ultimately drive the policy on this issue. >> host: josh kraushaar -- self identifies as a democrat. will he change his vote? will he vote republican? we should probably ask him that question. >> guest: that's an interesting question and even in some of the more democratic states in the 2012 election in

for liberal states where gay marriage is the law of the state and they all passed but very narrow margins in maryland by a four or five-point margin and about the same in other states like oregon and elsewhere. that suggests that the polls might show movement and majority support but it's still a divided issue and not every democrat is on board with gay marriage and he is an example of that that is an issue that divides democrats much less so than 10 years ago. there is still socially conservative democrats. african-americans are not as supportive of marriages liberal democratic voters. there is a divide in the party in the way. >> host: connie and peek in illinois. republicans, morning. >> caller: good morning c-span. i have five granddaughters and one has decided she wants to be a.

i should say i am very happy for that granddaughter but i am not and they do not want the sin of homosexuality placed upon me and that is what god says you do when you condone a sin. in the bible, it says god destroys sodom and gomorrah because there was great sin there. there is only one sin mentioned and that was man has turned to his own kind and woman to her own kind. god destroyed the two cities. man, woman and child. >> host: connie, -- politics? cocoa are you going to stand up for god's words or are you going to go along with a few people that this country was dedicated to jesus christ? that is by the grace of god on america.

>> host: connie would you consider yourself when it comes to voting a social conservative? >> caller: . >> host: anti-gay marriage? are those important issues to you? >> caller: very important. it's either stand up. 's word or want a few things given to you or just say well i don't care. but i have to stand up. 's word if i am a born-again christian. >> host: let's hear what our politics editor has to say. >> guest: this is a challenge for republicans and you have a significant base of the party that is socially conservative and our values voters. you heard this sentiment coming from connie and that is what you are hearing from a lot of conservatives and republicrepublic ans whether individual senators members of

congress or the party of no came out with a moderate view on gay marriage it would likely lower the enthusiasm for voters like connie and socially conservative voters on the support of republican candidates. they really want to get to more younger voters who will part passionately against gay marriage younger conservatives but they also need to understand that seniors are more conservative and values-based voters are a big part of the coalition. >> host: hillary clinton plans round of speeches. >> guest: i think it's time we will hear from clinton's 2016 plans and it was striking we are talking about gay marriage and in the midst of this whole marriage debate hillary clinton comes out of nowhere with this video of the human rights campaign talking about how she now is fully supportive of gay marriage and to me that is a

crystal clear sign that she is the very least is seriously thinking about a presidential campaign and she needs to more importantly shows how public opinion has moved on the issue. in 2008 almost every democratic presidential candidate was against gay marriage. hillary clinton was secretary of state and can be position in that role so a month and a half after she steps down she comes out for gay marriage. cleese -- make a clear sign. >> host: she gave the speech april 5 at the new york women of the world summit. she says -- makes c-span will be covering it. >> guest: we hang on every word peter and it's for good reason because we look at the democratic potential for 2016 and there aren't many candidates. obama --

biden may be a serious candidate for president but there are no up-and-coming prospects that fit the void so hillary clinton is poised to fill that vacuum if she wants to. if she runs you are not going to see much opposition. you will see candidates running after her with and she will be a very formidable candidate than she will continue that clinton dynasty carried it's going to be like -- to the press. >> host: what has happened with rand paul ever since his filibuster on the senate? has that taken the national stage? >> guest: rand paul is the republican to watch. rubio and paul are in the category of the young republicans that have a bright future ahead and rand paul says there is this isolationist sentiment within the republican party away from the george w. bush record and issues and gay

marriage and immigration he has positioned himself in the center and branding himself as a libertarian republican he doesn't care about gay marriage and believes liberty first and foremost and on immigration he took a very rubio like position in giving people and illegal immigrants currently in the country away to stay in have jobs and produce. he is looking at national office and he is trying to position himself as someone who is fiscally conservative but on social issues and cultural issues is more in the middle. >> host: marry in wheeling west virginia is on the line. thanks for holding on. you are on washington journal with josh kraushaar. >> caller: thank you for c-span. getting back to the gay marriage issue in people evolving. the first man who called saying that he supports gay marriage and when mr. edwards wrote about

during the vice presidential debate. president obama has evolved to where cheney was. that was my comment. thank you. >> guest: you'd do see on the republican side that prominent republicans like cheney who have evolved and changed their positions on gay marriage have done so because they family member has a personal connection to the issue. that is why we are seeing this big national push because someone may have a family member or no more people that are openly and responsible for the sea change but on their public inside cheney certainly portman and a few others have done so in direct response to a family member coming out of the closet. >> host: brenda bremerton washington, democrat. >> caller: hello. i just want to talk about -- first the gay marriage issue. it's not about religion and it's not about procreation.

i am in a relationship and marriage but so pristine. basically back to doma. i was very interested to see that this all started from i believe it was hawaii that wanted to do something within their state and congress jumped in and said oh no you don't. then it was a national issue. and then on the sequester, i am in a large government area. my husband works for the government and i am just amazed at the 20% cuts and what it's going to do to our community and also i just don't get it. they want to take 20% of the average ordinary hard-working american and yet you can't get

3% from the ultra-wealthy? i just don't get these things about republicans. >> guest: to the sequestration,o someone who is unemployed or underemployed in the midwest the rest belder outside the beltway there's a perception that washington is doing very well in the government is doing very well and what is the harm in trimming salaries or trimming the waste as the republicans would put it. it's not just virginia and maryland and d.c. area that is affected by the sequester but one of the struggles the white house had -- makes white house has that exaggerated the effects of the sequester and certain benefits wouldn't go out and they said the white house would not be offering tours. they took the firemen phrase that the highlighted in their public briefings. it turned out the public didn't

have the same reaction as it did with the other fiscal fight. in the long term it's an open question whether because as people start to feel the pain from the spending cuts whether that will hurt the republican party. republicans have branded themselves as the party trying to balance a budget but there trying to show they can get to grow the economy and get people back to work. that is the bigger challenge that republicans have had. >> host: mike in puyallup washington you were on with josh kraushaar. >> caller: hi, how are you doing? my question is and this is for other people on the line talking about gun control. my thought on gun control is that if we do pass measures to ban guns that the criminals are going to keep the the guns because they're obviously not

going to give them away. i'm not at dig gun guide that i just believe if we want to have one as a law-abiding citizen we should be able to have one and also with the gay marriage issue my concern is that where do we stop? if someone wants to marry their brother or sister, that's another small step, another small step away and those are my two concerns. >> guest: going to the gun issue first. the polling shows overwhelming support for background checks and shows majority support for an assault weapons ban get assault weapons bans we are not going to see action taken by congress in the background checks are up in the air. the reason why there's discrepancies in the polls and what's going on in congress is largely because the intensity is on the side of the opposition. when you look inside the numbers you do see these majorities to support gun control but when you ask the deeper question of how important of an issue is it to them it's not very important and they also don't think it's

really going to have and significant effect. when you talk to the people who own guns and don't want regulation, they are the types of voters that americans will show up at the polls and oppose any member of congress that supports any type of gun regulation. we are seeing this divide between the polling and what's going on in congress that favors the opposition. >> host: sport dog food tweets in, jeb bush sounds like a candidate. will he use his brother to campaign for him? >> guest: if he runs i don't think we will see much of george w. bush who has low ratings overall but what is interesting about jeb bush is the ideas that he has been talking about since governing in florida, education reform, immigration reform, he

has even talked about it in his recent book coming out. these issues are animating a lot of up-and-coming republicans particularly arco rubio a protége of his and my gut is lush won't run. i think there is too much baggage and it's an instinctive desire for voters to move away from the politics. i think they are beyond bush and beyond clinton perhaps john clinton perhaps but i think if rubio runs for president, marco rubio from florida the issues that wishes advocating in his post gubernatorial career will play a prime role in a rubio campaign. >> host: do you think that jeb lush has the same oxygen power that hillary clinton would have? >> guest: he would. bush a bush and a quentin's hard to imagine a bush and clinton running against each other. i think voters are sick of it

and there's a lot of baggage for both candidates and that's a big challenge that they would both have to overcome. they like the clintons and bill clinton is a popular former president but they are looking for fresh blood in the democratic party and for lush, the legacy of his brother still looms large in our politics particularly on foreign policy and even though he has different views and he is his own man so to speak i don't think he will be over two overcome some of the baggage if he ran. >> host: stephen -- has an op ed talking about some of the governors in indiana and michigan, kansas and wisconsin. is there somebody out there in the governors mansion now that's could appear on the screen? >> guest: walker from wisconsin is a sleeper to the republican party and we have talked about him over the last couple of years but he seems open to a run for national office and he has the credentials as a budget

balancing reformist minded governor in a blue state. he could get reelected for essentially the third time with three state-wide elections if he wins in 2014 and would be quite a formidable candidate especially when you combine the down the line conservative views he has with the way to the democratic state. the governor that has that balance but is the conservative such as chris christie and new jersey but talking about rand paul and marco rubio that is the congressional wing of the party. we will hear a lot more about the governors whether from blue states or bike -- from indiana who will be building resumes on their own and were successful. lobby jindal is in that territory if he chooses to run for president. mccain has decided to take

himself out of the political equation by accepting a job as president of purdue university where he is strictly nonpartisan and has divorced himself of politics at least for the time being. he would have been a compelling candidate if he ran in 2012. at a conservative resume and someone who downplays hot-button social issues in favor of the school reform and allen sing the budget in his own state. i wonder if by 2016 he can successfully lean the university position to run for president when there are so many nationally known republican figures. >> host: keith in tampa florida on our independent line. thanks for holding. you are on the washington journal. >> caller: good morning. my question is for josh and in reviewing the transcripts for the hollingsworth case, i noticed that the courts had made several comments regarding the

ballot initiative and prop aid in california. it appears to signal some of the questions that maybe the court would need unwary as to whether or not they want to upend a voter ballot initiative with the same type of process we have in florida. i wanted to asked josh if he thought the court might be signaling that this is a political question and whether or not this matter should be left to the state more than establishing a federal right? justice scalia pointed out yesterday in the windsor case that he really didn't want those types of cases coming towards the court. >> host: keith before we let you go and have josh answer that would be think about two potential floridians running for president in 2016, marco rubio and jeb bush? >> caller: i think marco rubio would be an excellent candidate for president of the united states.

he seems to bridge the gap between an older electorate and a younger electorate here in florida and i think he could do that nationwide. >> host: thanks for calling in. >> guest: as far as the supreme court question on prop 8 i think based on the questioning that there is going to be and it's less likely a chance there'll be some affirmation of marriage is a constitutional right and it's ironic that with the public movement on the issue has made it more possible for the justices to say it's an issue and hold another referendum that can overturn the law within their states. there was a lot of conservative conservative -- in the questioning over whether the courts should grant a ruling that would guarantee gay marriage is a constitutional right. >> host: kevin in hyattsville maryland, democrat. you are in the washington

journal with josh kraushaar politics editor for the "national journal". >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i just wanted to comment on an earlier call that brought in the spiritual aspect of the debate and the young lady talked about sodom and gomorrah. it's a question in response to her, what does that have to do with politics essentially? i thought it was interesting when you go back to the time of quotes that really defined america such as god bless america and in god we trust, b.c. there is some understanding that the country is based on a christian spiritual aspect in this country. of course we understand sin, in this case man against man and

it's pretty serious and it becomes a political problem would the country stands with the representation of supposedly being blessed by god, there's kind of a contradiction there so from a spiritual aspect bears some thought that this would create condemnation with things like slavery and other things that the country has created. >> host: kevin we got your point. mr. kraushaar. >> guest: it goes to show wins you deal with a deeply held religious belief no matter what the political winds are it's going to be an issue that causes a lot of challenges for both democrats and republican officeholders and i do think you are seeing the momentum clearly on the side of gay marriage supporters. but the intensity on the side of the opposition has a lot of propensity among supporters but among the opposition as we heard from the callers today. if you're a democrat and a

conservative state that is something that's got to be on your mind, where do you think about positioning yourself? >> host: sasha tweets in i wonder if we could have a -- segment without the 2016 horse race mentioned. just one day? mary on the republican line. >> caller: i just want to say that i don't hate. i would pray for an opportunity to tell them what jesus says about their situation. repentance and abandoning the pratt this so there are is no eternal sin acus god will forgive us. i guess we won't know until jesus returns. and i also would like to say that i was thinking and i

believe that it's possible that people come into this through the temptation and trying it and liking it and becoming addicted to it, just the same as alcohol and drugs are a being. i just feel that a lot of people have been misled and this is where i think our president got his last election was because he enticed these people that he would do these things for them so in a way he is responsible for some of the stuff that is happening now. >> host: mary thank you for calling in. mr. kraushaar? >> guest: it is remarkable when we talk about the evolution among democrats on gay marriage and it was president clinton who supported the defense of marriage act in 1996 and it was president obama who had it is part of his campaign platform

opposed marriage in 2008 and vice president biden said during his 2012 campaign and obama to gradually come around to this position of supporting gay marriage. the speed in which public opinion has changed, it's remarkable how much public opinion has changed but you you are seeing, you do see this level of opposition even among democrats and certainly among conservatives that remains with us. >> host: mr. kraushaar it's been a month or so since reince priebus gave the new direction of the republican party. what is your reaction? >> guest: the most notable thing of his speech was he said it was about policy. it was about structure but he highlighted immigration is the big issue in which he chose to make the case that the party needs to moderate in reform. the biggest take away though was the fact that he wants the

primary process both to be shortened and to have shorter debates and fewer opportunity for candidates to stumble and it's interesting they are learning from what happened in 2012 in an open presidential field. we have both presidential primaries with no incumbent in 2016. it might be beneficial for a party to have. you have a lot of talented candidates and a lot of names we are mentioning with up-and-coming candidates. by doing so they may have been short-sighted in this approach to compress the primary and have the establishment and the front runner to have the advantage. it could be that having a more republican voices -- and it might be a benefit for the party especially the democrats don't have as young and vibrant of the field. republicans are always trying to fix what is broken and the perennial habit of the party after losing an election. it's interesting now on immigration in the primary

process, those are the two areas they're focusing on. >> host: day on dan in washington, independent line. dave, you are on. >> caller: hi, how are you doing today? my question is trying to basically from what i know and i'm not too sharp on all the legal politics, is basically religion should be part of the judicial system and apologetical system and all that. that is separate. it's your own faith, not the government's faith. government should deal with government issues. and one other thing, i believe that the people that are fighting for, it's just that they want to be equal. if they love each other doesn't matter if it's a boy and a boy

or a girl and a girl. it's two people that love each other they just want to have the same rights that other people have in the same medical benefits and i don't see that being a problem. so do you believe that god could punish them? if they believe god will punish them they -- god will punish them and if they don't believe god will punish the them he will punish them. i just wondered what your thoughts were on that. ..

senators that we know of at this point. saxby chambliss, republican, tom harkin, democrat of iowa. mike johanns, republican of nebraska. tim johnson. frank lautenberg, carl levin, michigan democrat, and jay rockefeller who we've already discussed of west virginia. only two republicans on this list. for other seven are from states that mitt romney won in 2012. given the discussion we've had for the last 25 minutes, how does all this fit into 2014 at this point? >> guest: democrats have the political momentum nationally. when you look at the 2014 senate math it's been contested in republican friendly states. of the seven seats that are up held by democratic senators, six of them, more than seven. they are seven democratic seats

up that romney won in states that mitt romney to fix it to the states that mitt romney carried by double digits. the very conservative landscape. when democrats are positioning themselves, not on ability of the national polls but a look at these state polls in these conservative states. that's what makes these debates over immigration and gun rights complicated because they're democrats like mark pryor in arkansas, mary landed in louisiana that are wanting to position themselves to the middle or the center-right as they run for reelection. as far as retirements go, south dakota and west virginia, south dakota republican state. west virginia is known to the right very quickly. these are states republicans used to take up opportunities. and west virginia, jay rockefeller retarding. -- retiring. considered a very skilled container, it are adept fundraiser. she starts out as the favored the democrats are still trying

to land a recruit and are still some question who that nominee will be. south dakota, tim johnson retired it this way. south dakota a state that republicans have held, the republicans have one in the presidential campaign for quite some time. democrats have some pretty talented candidates waiting in the wings who have tim johnson son, u.s. attorney brandon johnson. he has former congresswoman stephanie persons who lost in the 20 midterm election. republicans have former governor mike rounds, very well liked former governor. this is a race that would be competitive. democrats won north dakota senate seat with heidi heitkamp. republican start it with those two seats. they think have a good shot at taking them appear alaska with mark begich. democrats need to hold a six seat. they can't lose six seats when you look at the whole senate

picture. big, big undertaking for republicans but given what these races are being contested, they think it is doable. >> host: what about the house? >> guest: house is much safer republicans. struggle because there is a lack of battleground districts after the 2011, 2012 gerrymandering process. 2011-twist of redistricting process which intent a lot of gerrymandering, there are only about a dozen seats that democrats hold where mitt romney won the popular vote. and only the 16 seats that republicans hold where president obama won the districtwide vote. that just leaves, republicans into hold on -- 17 c. majority. they can't allow democrats to net more than 17 seats so that looks safe. >> host: we been talking on the "washington journal" to transform, politics editor of the "national journal." thanks for being with us.

>> and live picture on your screen now from environmental and energy study institute in washington where just a minute from now or so stanford professor jon krosnick will talk about public opinion on global climate change. he will present highlights of a 20 year study on the issue. the professor's remarks also should include a state-by-state breakdown of public opinion and analysis of the impact of global warming on the vote in 2012, as well as the impact of superstorm sandy. live coverage on c-span2. >> we are excited to cooperate with eesi and professor krosnick on this briefing today. and i think as we sort out this brief for two weeks and maybe are scheduled are less frenzy because think more deeply and a little more time about the challenges ahead of us in terms of climate change. out in colorado over the last couple of years we've had to really severe natural resource challenges. one is a fine and bark beetle infestation, and also the severe

wildfires. so that's brought to the forefront the day-to-day challenges that climate change is exacerbating. so just thanks so much to professor krosnick. and without further ado, back to you. >> thanks so much, eleanor. it has been really interesting as we have watched over the course of the last few years and in particular his last year as we've seen such an incredible uptake in the number of extreme weather events such as created such hardships across so much of our country. and has really put climate change on the map in so much more immediate -- media coverage, so many more conversations and discussions here on capitol hill. this afternoon, we are very, very privileged to hear from professor jon krosnick who was the frederic o. glover professor

inhumanities and social sciences at stanford university. he is also a senior fellow with the stanford institute for environment. this afternoon, he's going to talk through a lot of his work and analysis that comes out of a very rich history and experience that he brings. he will be highlighting results of meta-analysis, public opinion polls on climate change that have been conducted over the last 20 years. he will be looking at results of new surveys, documenting change over time in public perception, and the causes of the trends he is seeing. e. will also be providing us information on state-by-state breakdowns of public opinion, as was looking at analysis of global warming on voting in the 2012 election, and he is also going to talk a little bit about

public support about government action aimed at both mitigating, and also in terms of new work that he is just completed with regard to adapting to climate change. how do we become a more resilient, what a people to use on this, what are we seeing. dr. krosnick has been studying american political attitudes for 30 years. he recognized expert, and we've been privileged to have worked with him a few other times in terms of his speaking and bringing information about really, really important issues to a policy audience. john. >> thank you very much, kendall. i think overcoming. it's a privilege to be back in this building. i want to thank eesi for the invitation to present and to thank you for taking time out of your afternoon to hear a new story about whether americans are into thinking about climate

change. you can see her on the screen, if you can make out the screen, the cosponsors of research over the years include my universities concluding stanford university, news media organizations, federal government agencies, and the work that i will tell you draws on funding from all those various sources. today is a smorgasbord or a buffett or something like that where you're going to get little case -- case of discussion a variety of issues. in particular six of them. we will begin by talking about how americans core beliefs about climate change have been changing in recent years, and deskilled mentioned i will talk about a very large meta-analysis a look at many, many polls to put it into some context. they will talk about state-by-state breakdowns of opinion. we will talk about americans perceptions of what americans think to see how well we understand our opinions on this issue. we look at voting in the 2012

election and the impact of superstorm sandy on all of these things. so let's begin here with the fundamentals. do americans think the planet has been warming? do they think warming has been caused by humans? do they think it is a threat? so going to show you our time period over many years using this question. you may have heard about the idea that the world temperature may been going up slowly over the past 100 years. what you is your personal opinion on this. you think this probably has been happening or do you think it probably has not been happening? if you think just a moment about your impression of american public opinion, what numbers would you expect to these things probably happening? these are the results. starting in 1997, we saw 79% saying so. assembly up to a peak in 2007 of 84%. down, up, down and very recently it is back up again.

these are huge numbers of course, and as you can see they contradict any claim that americans have turned away from this issue in large numbers. they still believe warming has been happening. this finding is not unique to us. i want to talk for a moment about the report put out by the strategy team which is a group of psychologists in columbus, ohio. this book called assessing survey evidence regarding american public opinion data about climate change. i want to show you a small excerpt of this. what they did was a meta-analysis of 150 different survey questions asked by every organization they could find doing scientific representative national sample of americans over a long period. they got the original data from as many of the service as they could. to compute the own statistics from the and i'm just going to show you one little piece of the result showing you the measurements of beliefs about the existence of warming, has the planet been warming. and here it is.

each dot is a survey number. got across the bottom are the years going from 1986 to 2012. this is the percent of americans measure to be indicating that they thought the planet had been warming. you can see first of all there's tremendous distribution of these dots across a large range. so if you want to find a survey that reported 45% believe in thithis you can put it on to fia survey that is reporting 90%, you can. so you might look at those numbers and say geez, how could surveys be reliable? how could they be believable if they produce such a wide range of results? that's the wrong conclusion to reach. the important thing to show you is that our number at about 75% right now is kind of in the middle of this pack. we are not unusually high and were not unusually low. now why is it would be that? the reason is because survey

question wording matters because and survey organizations ask differently phrased questions, and they get different results. now what i would issue another table from the strategy team report. this one connects the dots that were produced by the same question. even if you were asked by different organizations. if you look care what you can see here for example, is lined up at the top of question asked by the gallup organization, and when we connect these dots you can see that they are quite consistent over time. is another question asked at the bottom by nbc news and "the wall street journal." these numbers also fairly consistent over time. you can see all of them show a small decline in this time region and then time region and in a sortable are disrupted in the last couple of years, some going up, some going down. the important point i wanted to make your issue simply when you look carefully at these data, you see two things. one is that our numbers are not unusual.

they are in about range with others. secondly, there has been no dramatic falloff in the public believe in this issue. not like the public has turned away. let me go back for a quick second if you look at our numbers. you will see this increase of 75 to 83 but then drops to 73 and increased back up to 78. he might think that is what we called random measurement error that will be some looseness, but, in fact, it's not that. let me show you what's going on. that this graph divided american public into part. the blue line at the top is people who report high trust and climate scientists. these people show remarkable stability of their views over time, and it's because the methods they get from natural scientists hasn't changed much. this line, the red line, is the belief of people who are low in trust a natural scientist. you can see they're the folks who show a sharp drop in 2009,

an increase, then a drop again. what i wanted to illustrate for you is that this red line correlates in its movement almost perfectly with this green line. what the green line is, as you can see on the right hand side, is its average world temperature the year before the survey number. so what's happening? those low trust people said i can't figure that the planet is warming by listening to scientists, i've got it figured out some of the way. the way they figure it out is by looking at newspaper headlines, television, radio and so on when, as you know, there's time in his publicity for the fact that, for example, 2010 was the warmest year on record in history, 2008 was high for the coolest year in the 10 year period, and so when. so there's no surprise here that this number drops a lot among the low trust people because they are where the prior year's temperature for the world as a whole was unusually low. a natural scientist would say to

you, this is the last thing you should do that you should not be attention to last year's temperature and/or to him for warming or cooling over and 100 year period. but, in fact, that's what these folks feel they have no choice but to do. what we can predict is as world temperature goes up and down as we know well from year-to-year, their opinions will vacillate as well but to see a decline like this and even a sizable one, doesn't mean we're running off a cliff. let me show you a few other pieces of evidence to indicate that there is no cliff running. this is a question about human action but if the questions as if the temperature has been warming gradually over the last 100 years, do you think it's cause mostly by things people have done, both by natural processes or equally by both which you can see that number start at 80% in 2006. it remains at 77% today. no huge drop off by any means. when we put these two together, the planet has been warming and

it's been caused by humans, this number, the joint number start off at 70%. it's at 62% today. it's been relatively stable in recent years. some people define climate change as conjunction and acacia a sense of that. we did ask people, do you think of the earth temperature increases by five degrees fahrenheit over the next 75 years, would this be good, bad or neither? you can see that number holds steady as will start at 60%, and today it is at 53%. no dramatic change. these are the police people expressed. social psychologist are particularly sensitive to the fact that you might express a belief but not hold that belief with a great deal of certainty. if you think about books like merchants of doubt that have been proposing the possibility that there been campaigns to convince americans that we don't know about these things, to reduce their certainty, then you might imagine we would see a drop in confidence in these

opinions over time. we do not see that. women as an usher re: whether the plant -- plan is welcome the percent, action or pressure has actually if anything increased slightly after being quite steady over this time period. there's a evidence that people are less confident in their views. and i which is show you here the percent of the nation are extremely or very short at the plant has not been warming. these are the passionate skeptics. they start off at 5% in 2006, and in her latest measurement they are 5%. asking people to think the federal government should do more than it's doing now, let us, or about what it's doing out on this issue, you can see that in the late 90s about half of the country that the government should do more starting in 2006 those numbers were higher. during the obama years they have been holding steady at about

60%. that brings us to the end of part one. here's what i hope you got from the. first of all, large and in some cases huge majorities endorsing the existing, causes and threat of climate change, and no real significant movement either in our surveys or in anybody else's, ours are not outliers. ours are in the middle of the pack. what matters is question wording, different organizations get different results depend on boarding, but the method i think is -- the message i think it's clear. part to. went into the hill in the past and should results of our surveys with representatives in the house and senate, one of the messages i get over and over was, these national surveys you have been doing are lovely but they don't help me because i need to know about my state or my district. for me, that was i will admit a horrifying revelation because i thought i was in the business of helping the government. i realized that i and my colleagues were kind of making is that we were not really providing the information that legislators need.

after a series of the conversations i was in the -- going to the airport and i realized what he meant, i can actually address this. because i've been many surveys as a telling you over a period of 15 years, each one with a sample of at least 1000 respondents. if i stack up all of the surveys, i have many thousands of people that i can then slice up in the states where they come. you can see is been no movement iin the opinions over that time somebody put them together and generate a portrait of the country. i'm now going to show you a series of maps that put together all of our percentages with each of the states and look at the answers that we can do to each of these questions actually so for. let's start with a person. has the planet been warming gradually over the last 100 years? the first thing i want to point out is these great states appear, not the we don't love them to me turns out putting together all of the data did not give us enough respondents in those states to give us

confidence in predicting a measurement. you will need to adore those but if you look over your at the legend, you will see that as the state gets darker green, larger and larger majority believing in the existence of climate change, and josie and the legend the smallest number is 65%. what that means is we cannot find a single state in which a majority of the residents are skeptical about long-term warming. if you look closely you will see that some of these numbers are on the low in in the '60s come at some of them are on the higher end. i want to point out one particular, whatever this is writer, oklahoma. the number is 85% believing in the existence of warming. that's one of the largest numbers in this table. also new york at 81% is another high number as well. the lower numbers -- texas is at 80, but the range is, in the

'70s any other states. so that's the first one. here's the second one. has human action been causing warming? darker states are greener in the sense of it to be more responsibility to human action, and the important thing to see her in the legend is the lowest number is 66%. again, there is not a single state in the country where a majority of people believe that warming is purely natural. i'll let you digest it for a second but we can't go too long because i want to shoot the next one. this is the conjunction of the tube, it's human action responsible? so the smallest number here is 54. the largest up in the '80s. again, no state majority on the skeptical side. here is whether five-degree warming over 75 years would be

bad. and i've circled the two states here in this graph, only two, where he majority say it would not be bad. either they say it would be neither good nor bad or they say would be good. those two states, utah and nevada, as you can see are just barely under 50%. the restaurant the other side. -- the rest are on the other side. would global warming be a highly cities problem? the smallest number is 52%. the largest number in the low '80s. noticed for example, colorado at 87. so i'm showing you a lot but in the sense it's a simple take on for each one. should the federal government do more to deal with climate change, less or about what it is doing a? i circled only utah here were just a bare majority not support majority action. majorities in all the rest of the states do support majority.

should the federal government limit greenhouse gas emissions by businesses? this question -- we haven't asked this question as many surveys we are more limited. again a very large number in colorado, 84% of men the maximum. the lowest number is 70%. this is quite remarkable statement because you can't get 70% favoring government restricting business missions without a lot of republicans favoring it in addition to independents and democrats, which is the case. favoring cap-and-trade. again a question we haven't asked hi end of surveys to covea lot of states, but this movement from 52% at a low up to 70%, again not a single state on the skeptical side. increase in federal taxes on gasoline, let me tell you how the question is would do you think the federal government should increase taxes on

gasoline in order to cause people to use less of it? so many economists have recommended this is good policy, if you want people to use less jacjacked up the price. but imagine if somebody said to you, would you mind if i reach and you want, take a modicum of not going to do what i would do with it, and the purpose is simply to manipulate your behavior. doesn't sound so great. we couldn't find a single state where a majority favored. this is very unpopular. we asked a series of questions about federal policy, either requiring with mandates are providing tax breaks to companies to for example, you chose to produce more electricity with water, wind, and solar power. the most mature we see it is 67%. not a single state where an majority is opposed to the. again, interest o i colorado wih a big number. texas as well. requiring or offering tax breaks to car companies to build all

electric cars. below is 55% in favor. the height is 81%. required or offering tax breaks for power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. the smallest majority 55, up to anyone. you get the idea. i'm not going to go to oldies but this is i think perhaps one of the most interesting ones. this is the% of the people say the issue of climate change is the important for the person. this is the group of people who we refer to as the climate change issue public. the people are passionate, wake up everyone and they say today is another opportunity to influence government on climate change. these are the people who vote based on the issue. so you can see in what state the largest concentrations are. the maximum is 24%. some of the darker states are new mexico, california, nevada, kentucky. but there is a presence in every

state of people voting based on this issue. okay, that's the end of that carpet take home a message, the green i should in part one is remarkably evenly distributed across the country. there is very nation but there no state where there is a pocket of skepticism that outweighs the majority on the green side. so maybe that is news to you. i would think it might be because i love any other source of data that would tell you what the states individual think about this issue. of for people working in this building, this would be useful information, to think about your constituents. legislators are in touch with her constituents already. there's no news here but it occurred to me that there might not be that connection between legislators and their constituents because of the conversations i had which led me to ask this question, how will do americans understand what americans think on this issue?

so much on what our nation's has suggested. if we were to ask people what do you think america thinks, what would we get? i'll tell you the results of a telephone survey we did last summer with random digit dial the to land lines and cell phones. the country is represented here and we asked people this abbreviated version of our existing question of what your personal opinion? do you think the damage has been going up slowly or not? then we said that would like to ask about other americans opinions on the issue of global warming. first, about what% of american annals would you guess believe that the world temperature has been going up slowly over the past 100 years? you can add with a number between zero and 100%. so we are seeking to find out how close people are to that number, about 75 i showed you earlier. it turns out that there is research in psychology showing when you ask for percentage estimates, a chunk of people who say 50% really do mean half the

country. but another chunk of those people are saying, i don't know. coin flip, it could be either way, i don't know. what we did was to follow up with those people and ask them, did you say 50% is you think about half of american adults, or dj 50% because you're not sure how many american adults believe that? and then among the people who chose the latter up your we asked them if you were to guess how many american adults believe that the world temperature has been going up slowly over the past 100 years, and would make it easier for them by giving them five choices. when we put these numbers altogether, i will should result in a moment but we followed up with exactly the same questions about american adults who called themselves republicans, and american adults who called themselves democrats. we are asking what percent do you think will display. so let me first of all remind you of americans own belief in the breakdown by party. all americans as i showed you,

73% think the planet has been warming. when we split by democrats, independents and republicans, we see this. on the right hand side, a majority of republicans, 507%. i'll call it a 29 percentage points between these two bars. what about americans perception, how close to the, to those numbers? first of all, they don't say 73%. on average they say 56%. in other words, on average people perceive the country to be about evenly split on this issue. we asked them about democrats. that number is only 64%, much mh lower than it should you a moment ago. when he asked about republicans, that number is much lower than i showed you before, only 44%. the partisan gap now only 20 percentage points that i'm going to put these two next weekend for a second i just want you to see that the partisan gap people

perceive is only two-thirds of the size of what actually exists. now what i'm doing is putting all these bars next to each other so you can save how much people are underestimating the greenest of the country as hell, the greatness of democrats and the grayness of republicans. on the one hand people are under as a green's but at the same time they are underestimating arson division. what about perceptions of democrats divided up. so you might imagine that democrats might know the group better than independent republicans would. but that's not to pick it turns out basically everybody gets it about equally wrong. the right edge is what appear but all records are averaging 54 but democrats and those are only slightly more accurate, 50. these numbers are essentially flat. so it's not the case that people know their own group better than the other crew. this same thing is true in perception by republicans.

so i told you already that 44 -- perceptions of republicans, 44% on average americans believe that republicans favor this. and it turns out across these three groups whether you're asking democrats or independents or republicans, they all get it wrong by about the same amount. each group is underestimating. so again no evidence that a party knows its own members better than members of another party. the conclusion to take from this part is the country really doesn't know how green it truly is. is that a barrier for legislators? legislators show that misunderstanding. i don't know if they do. i've never done a survey of legislators or the staff. it is that misperception in the general public issue here, then i might be an explanation for decisions on policy makers. the next chapter is on the 2012

presidential election. we have done a series of studies looking at the 2008 presidential election and the 2010 congressional election using a variety of different methods to assess the impact of climate change opinions on voting. the theory we bring to this parks back to what i said earlier. in political science what we know is, if he did anyone issues like gun control or abortion, the vast majority of americans do not feel strongly about it and they do not use it as a basis for voting even if there's been a ton of news coverage of that that issue recently. people tend to vot focus on the issues they care about. and people care about a friday and different issues, each one at attracting the passions of a relatively small segment of the country. in this case i showed you the size of the republicans embrace states. they are in general and the 10% range these days although some of the largest one and small as

to. the hypothesis we would offer is among those passionate people in 2012, votes might have moved in towards a particular candidate as a result of those individual preferences. on most issues that of long-standing controversy guide them, gun control, abortion, race relations and others, on of those policy issues to issue public, the passionate people typically about evenly split come about as many people favoring strong gun-control laws as opposing strong gun control laws. but climate change is different. we have been amazed to see over time that about 90% of the passionate people on this issue are on the green site. what that says is it for three is right, and a candidate stakes out a green position on climate, the vast majority of those passionate people will be attracted to that candidate. and if instead a candidate expresses skepticism about climate, then that may lead people away from the candidate. you know the during the 2012

campaign, especially at the very end, barack obama was explicit in his belief in the existence of climate change and the need to address it. mitt romney had been are reputed i'm skeptical about it, and opposed government action in some ways. you can imagine that sets up the possibility that issue public members would be attracted to the president as a result. so he asked cases of questions but this is one of the studies were done. i only have time for the one. this was done in june 2012, a random tile of americans called on land lines and cell phones. we asked people first for the own opinion how much do you think the u.s. government should do about global warming? a great deal, quite a bit, some, a little, or nothing? and we asked how much government action does barack obama want on global warming, and how much government action does mitt romney want on global warming?

and lastly how much do you think the u.s. government is doing now to deal with global warming. what we do is we take answers to these questions and would put them into statistical analysis predicting answers to this question. if the presidential election were being held today and the candidates were barack obama and mitt romney, for whom would you vote? these names are inferences because each response is when assigned either to your obama's infers or romney's second. and we allowed people to volunteer that they would vote for someone else or to say that they would not vote at all. the statistical analysis includes as predictors the proximity to the candidate of the voter on what should be done about warming. that is, which candidate are you closer to. are you closer to obama or are you closer to romney, and by how much? we controlled for party.

we estimate this model using a series of different statistical techniques including multinomi multinomial. these are both legitimate techniques it turns out we get the same result easily. we also use a variety of issues for the zeal into this literature. there's just among political scientists but what's the right way to compute these. we did all of them. we get the same story about registered voters from every analysis and it's right here and i don't ask you to actually understand that there i want you to look at the very top row and to see a series of coefficients. measures using one method, the second method, a third method. these negative coefficients right here with asterisks tell you the following story. that the greener the voter was on climate, the more government action he or she wants to do more likely that person was to vote for mr. obama, the less likely that person was to vote for mr. romney.

the less likely the person was to vote for somebody else, and the less likely that person was to not vote at all. so in other words, the idea is by being green it appears mr. obama not point took votes away from other candidates, but he actually inspired people to vote who would not otherwise have voted. in this graph which i also don't expect you to understand, we had for the interaction, in this case between passion and issues can put on climate but if you look across this recent lots of as just as well with negative coefficients. what that means is that the effects ij shoji is concentrated only among the voters who are passionate about the issue. makes sense, right? people who don't care about don't use the voting. this is a bit of evidence. okay, so that's the end of that part. now become to the last part. what's the take with them last

part? candidates, finally the impact of superstorm sandy. you know that the community concern about climate change in recent years has moved towards frequent discussion with extreme weather events. and some organizations there is the presumption that if we illustrate for americans that storms are happening more frequently, more severe, sandy being an example of it. if we have floods and droughts in other locations, more of these extreme weather events. this will have impact on peoples thinking about climate change. so we investigated this and let me tell you how. so when something like sandy happened to him and it looks like there might be the potential for to have impact on public opinion, people like me usually are just frustrated and disappointed and sad.

because it's easy to do the survey afterwards to find out what people think. and you just sit around saying if only i'd done a survey before, then i could compare the before to the after. so amazingly enough, we were involved in a project not inspired by city, begun many months before where we had a long questionnaire about climate change that was being fielded right before and right after sandy hit by six different survey companies. we have thousands of interviews done coincidently to allow us to bracket at this event. these are all internet surveys that i want to be clear, these are non-probability samples. there are many companies in the country that are providing internet data to academics, the businesses, and they are not taking random samples of the country. they put out ads saying would like to do surveys for a little money? sinecure. then these samples, people who sign up on been invited to do surveys.

this is a project evaluating that data method. what we know is the methods were constant across this time period. we can look at these groups to see if there is change the demographics of these groups depart from the country in some way. we get a standard mathematical procedure of waiting, which is just a demographics to look like the country. when standing at the u.s., three surveys firms have been anything for a while. and within days after sandy, a difference began to collect data on anything unfinished it was done before the election. so there were 2070 interviews done before sandy, and 2891 than afterwards. we are usually called -- control for demographics and controlling for differences between the survey companies. let's talk about hypothesis. what impact might sandy have had on how americans think?

one possibility, some people avoid, is that perhaps seem to severe storm would convince skeptics that global warming has been happening. so you can think for a minute, with a be a logical reaction storm? may be a secondly maybe sing a severe storm would convince people that global warming is causing more storms. but what it really? its history. did we see from the storm that global warming caused it? maybe, maybe not. is it possible that sandy caused people to play th that global warming is a more serious problem? well, if they didn't know that there are series of storms like this and then they see how serious it is, maybe that would be news if they link it to climate change. and did it lead people to believe that government should

take more action on the issue ask maybe. let's find out. here are the first results. this is the question of do you think the planet has been warming gradually over the last 100 years? with a severe storm convention if that's true ask well, it turns out it didn't. these bars going downward with negative numbers indicate to you reduction in the percent of people who believe this. here's the country as a whole. there's a nonsignificant 4% drop. so that is not a real change in this number. we divide it up by democrats, republicans, no drop. independence 6% drop which is not significant. that's not really. the only instance in which we fight a significant drop is among people who live in the state where sandy hit. and they're the people of action

experience the damage afterwards were less likely to save the planet has been warming over the last 100 years. you'll notice there's not a single statistically significant upward pointing bar here. sandy did not increase endorsement. interestingly though when we asked people do you think the planet will warm gradually in the future if nothing is done to prevent it? there's again no change for the country as a whole, a negative 2% for the country as a whole. no significant difference across the, except look over here. these are people who said they don't think climate change has been happening in the past. among those people whom you might call the skeptics it is, in fact, a 17 percentage point increase in the percent of them who think that warming will happen in the future if

unchecked. does it matter? guess what. this is a tiny group of people. it's about 20% of the country. this is less than 20% of 20%. that's why this number doesn't even know we go. nonsignificant increases and other groups. the net result of this event for the country as a whole is no change, despite that 70 percentage point increase. is it a fluke? it turns out it shows up and other measures as well though not significant you. so will five-degree fahrenheit of warming in the future be bad? no change at all. it does not for the country at all change the proportion of people who say it would be bad. you can see there are no asterisks here. there is a 12 percentage point increase but nonsignificant among the nonbelievers. i cannot reject hypothesis that that is a zero from this data. but we do see a significant change you.

let me get there. the question here is will global warming to a national serious problem in the future? no net change. significant decrease for democrats. again, we see a 16 percentage points increase among the skeptics access 16% of 20%, coupled with everybody else because nothing happening for the country as a whole. will global warming to a global serious problem? again no net change for the country but that group of skeptics see an increase. but remember, i've got to carry an important think about the wording of these questions. these folks here who have said to us, i don't think it's happening but when we asked them this quick, do you think will be a globally serious problem? we begin by saying assume this is happening, because otherwise we can't ask the question, right? we can't say how serious is

something you don't think. if it is happening, i guess i think it's more serious. i don't think it's happening. there you have it. one more example. is global warming causing more storms? only that group shows a significant increase. 17%, 20%. noted increase of the country as a whole. here's a real striking finding. should the federal government take substantial action to address climate change? look at all of these significant downward red bars. after the storm hit, the country was less supportive of government mitigation efforts. and a drop is the biggest among democrats and independent. there's an increase among republicans. among the people who are in the sandy affected states, the largest decrease of 13

percentage points. so if there is a notable change, it is a sense in which maybe this is new york and new jersey and connecticut problem, not the country's problem. and the last one i want to show you is the size of the issue public, the amount of personal important that people attach to the issue. wow, a seven percentage point drop from before to after. so we have the drop in concert among democrats, among people who are distracted by sandy and among people who believe in climate change. so if anything this would suggest that people would transform from think about this issue in a way that they no longer attached significance to it that would lead them to vote on this basis. so putting all that together, pretty hard to say that those who believe in an event like this will push the country and a green direction, can see support for it. okay, let me summarize. at first glance it seemed sandy led skeptics to endorse the

existence and the threat of global warming. but these people think it's not happen. the survey question begins, assuming it's happening, and so, therefore, that increase is likely to be inconsequential. among people who believe that global warming has been happening, and he did not proceed chasten us and it did not increase their perception of global warming is causing storms the most importantly, cindy inspired desire for less federal action and a reduction in the personal importance of the issue. for those he believed extreme weather is the ticket to americans recognizing the seriousness of this problem, you can't look at this data to see support for the. okay, this brings us to the end of our smorgasbord buffett. let me summarize what i hope you have from the set of updates. one is a healthy of a sense of the country is and remains remarkably green on this issue according to many measures, that the green is very some statistic

state, but we could not find a single state in which a majority is skeptical on this issue. no doubt, however to the extent of legislators want to pay attention to their constituents views, some legislators are getting a stronger green signal than others. it would be interesting to look at these maps as a way to work here, to help your members think about their constituents. i've shown you also events like hurricane sandy do not increase belief are concerned, but i've shown you that the issue was of a significant passion enough for people in 2012 that influence their voting in that election. and i've shown you that the findings i'm sharing with you here are not going to need to our survey group, they are kind of in the middle of the pack of many different organizations questions on this issue. okay, that brings us to the end of a presentation. i think we can turn the lights

on and we can do questions, thank you. >> great it if you could please identify yourself when you ask the question. and that was quite a trip through a lot of material. fascinating to any questions or comments? >> brian from u.s. national -- [inaudible]. survey designers take care this but random digit dialing, respond and how, just because of where -- [inaudible] >> yes, the question was, so even in random digit dialing i would assume that most of the survey responses came from urban areas. so does that affect how you might way the edges?

going back, if you're a staff your working for your boss, they have different -- some constituents who are in urban areas and some constituents who are in rural areas, so what would you predict from, assuming you can predict anything from yesterday, what would you expect the pattern to be based on the kind of response is you're getting? >> does everybody understand why i'm smiling at this question? the this question? the last time i went to the airport i was sad because i can have state level data. now i'm sad because of the congressional district level day. i give you one thing, you need something smaller. i can only do so much for you. [inaudible] spent i'm well aware on the outside. you are raising a really interesting question. is there geographic variability question were up -- maybe urban response are different from rural respondents. that's a reasonable hypothesis. i have to tell you, i cannot answer that question. i do not have data that allow me

to parse out the states into districts to i could certainly -- i could compare people who live in highly urban areas to people who live in more sparse rural area. now that you as income we will do it. next i mic i will tell you the answer to that might be a handle towards moving to look at toward towards understanding perhaps distinction between congressional districts. but i will tell you, i'm a tiny way at step energy. we're planning to do some congressional digit service, not about what we are planning to do so soon and we will start to find whether there are those kind of octets. thank you. >> -- kind of po of pockets. >> [inaudible] mike quick question, why do you think americans were less likely to do climate change for the hurricane? it's understandable why do be less likely for government regulation, but why would less

likely believe in climate change after the hurricane? >> first of all your assuming, right, that there's a hint of the. let's actually look back here. so has global warming been happening? that negative format on the left hand side, that's not a real change for the country as whole bunch of either the people in the sand if it states did draw. when we look at the future there really is no movement downward in the passenger of these groups. your question is quite a reasonable one, why is it that that drop happened? i have no answer to it but i'm willing to speculate in this case as long as you realize it's complete speculation, wild guess. the one possibility is that in situations like that, when you're right in the center of the action, there is nonstop news coverage about this issue. wind is nonstop news coverage, assuming you've got electricity and you can watch it or hear it or read it, the question is how

do you fill 24/7 with a hurricane? one of the ways you fill 24/7 with her can't i suspect is bringing in natural scientist to talk about. one of the messages i predict was probably comment was scientist being asked them was this caused by climate change parks and them saying, i don't know. i can't tell you for any single storm that it was caused by climate change. that these storms happen, we believe will make them more frequent and more severe. but i can't tell you this one is a result of the. if you that message, maybe that creates some degree of skepticism. that's just my guess. one in the back as well. >> actually if you put your hands up then she will know where to take the microphone. >> [inaudible]

>> yes, i love that question, too. in fact, a team of four stanford students took that exact project on. they drew random sample of news coverage, newspaper stories, television stores over e-15 year period of our survey. because you can't read every one of the story but you can draw a representative sample of the stories and read them about each story i think they answered 39 questions about the story. they did statistical analysis to look at the degree to which media coverage changes over time, predicted the kind of changes i showed you earlier. and the answer is for the vast majority, it did not. that movement up and down in the content of media coverage was actually remarkably small. that you may know that there's a stereotype of media coverage a decade ago that it was, striving to be balanced, that there was an attempt at covering the green

side of the scientific point of the as well as the skeptical side. and at some point news reporters realize they didn't need to do that anymore, and they could abandon that desire for balance and just settle on one side. we've done almost no evidence of that, that news coverage was leaning on the green side of the issue about the time treated, but there were small changes in the number of skeptical stories. and those changes were the only ones that we so related to public opinion. so in other words, skeptical news stories were very rare. but when they double in size from 5% to 10%, that was going to dental with a small drop in public opinion. so it looks like one possible hypothesis is that were some agree stories over the years that it was old news to people, that they heard this before. it's kind of the same story over and over again. there's nothing new about that. really?

a skeptical store, and atari skeptical story? dozen usual. that stands out and when it doubles in size it's notable, even if it's a small number. so it did look like those small numbers might of inconsequential. but in very small ways. you saw the numbers are quite stable over time. >> [inaudible] right. so now you're shifting from the content of the stories to the number of stores but you're right that in 2007 there were a colossal number of new stories about that change. it's never been anywhere near that since then. there is a hypothesis in political science that's referred to as the media agenda setting, the idea that is to meet our comedy by an issue, doesn't matter what it is, americans will think it's most important issue facing the country. that did not happen for this issue to even in 2007 with a

colossal number of news stories, nobody in america was saying climate change is the most important problem facing the country today. which is our measure. that's not the only measure of belief in the phenomena or support for federal action, or even priority. because the work of sam larson was, was an undergrad at stanford and is now working in washington, showed that if you asked this question, what would be the most important problem facing the world in the future, global warming is number one. that food is a party for people. it's just not the most important problem facing the country today. >> maybe we should move to the other side. ..

my name is christine i work for a consulting firm. i want to ask your language in

the study when you are talking about this all who say that climate change is a pherae the same way gravity is but when we hear people talk about it we hear the word belief which suggests something that isn't grounded is science as much as a faithful interpretation of the science. so i was wondering if you think the use of the word believe covers people's response and if you could talk about other languages we could use for the kind of language that politicians use when they talk about climate change. >> let me go back. you might be referring to this. can we talk in reverse order at top speed. >> what is your personal opinion on use the word believe myself, but you said it's interesting to

think about that if you think about climate change not as something you can think about a scientifically proven fact. i am a scientist i don't think there is anything has a proven fact. if we use the scientific method to measure and understand the phenomena we study at any given moment we are doing the best we can to understand it, but i have lived through many examples where the literature said x and sometimes the message we were using were misleading. and therefore i believe in science but also the scientific process and changes of understanding. the work revolves around the sun. so i want to tell you science is a proven fact and understand not everybody agrees with that but as a scientist that is my humble view. >> having said that as a

psychologist we would unambiguously say a question like this is measuring a belief. it is the perception of the world that the individual holds. now we could rephrase that and call it their agreement for scientists or agreement with the truth or something of that sort. but for us as psychologists, we tend to say here is a question the planets may have been warming of gradually or not and an individual could say yes or no and we could call that a belief. >> great. thank you. >> my question this do you make a distinction when you're asking these questions between global warming and global climate change or are they used

interchangeably? >> i love that question. we published a couple years ago analyzing data from dozens of countries including the united states looking at whether they assign a different meaning to global warming or global climate change and the two out of the three. we found no notable differences at all in reactions to them and the seriousness to the phenomena. you can imagine the scientific community used to call that global warming and then they shifted over to climate change the goal to be more scientifically accurate to encompass the many changes not just warming but other things. for me personally i tend to think that this has to separate hypotheses. why has that been happening if it is occurring in terms of climate.

therefore the climate change might be different if it is meant to encompass a lot than simple global warming. as a researcher i believe over the years the terms are interchangeable in american thinking now but there could easily be a misunderstanding in the sense that the phrase global warming sounds like the world getting hotter that is the concept we are after to target the element of a we have seen no evidence for it if we were to use climate change and people misunderstand that as meaning the weather change then we are getting way off track from where we need to be pitied so i guess i feel like global warming is a more specific and clear reference to the phenomena of interest and that is why i mean that we but if your question is what difference would it make, as far as i can tell, not much

>> the carbon tax center. i notice you had a question that policy preferences and you asked about cap-and-trade where there was a positive response then you have a gasoline tax. have you pulled on the revenue neutral carbon tax where 100% of the revenue would be returning either through a tax shift or direct distribution of revenue. >> it depends on how you want to define carbon tax. in fact we are working on that right now. i think we will be developing in a question on carbon tax for the upcoming survey work but what i can tell you is the explore exactly the issue that you mentioned under the more complex rebecca cap-and-trade. it's not just a carbon tax but permits and all that other baggage. what we found is the mid 60's% of people favored the cap-and-trade system when it was described either has auctioning

more selling permits to companies for the missions allowing trading and allowing the offset. so, we wanted to explore what might be holding that 65% back in other words why were people not necessarily accepting this statement and this policy. so we tried different ways of describing what would happen to the revenue. so we set auction it off, get money from companies as a result of that. what the money we used to support research to protect the environment. that didn't help. what the money used to help poor people? that didn't help. one of the money were returned equally to all american households? that is starting to sound better to people in fact an increase favoring of the policy by about ten percentage points. so it looks like you can think of it i don't know if it is revenue neutral but it is a

dividend rather than the cap-and-trade only that has been more appealing to americans. so, we will have the answer for you sometime soon when we do the next survey when we will have to think more carbon tax prescription than we have now but we haven't done it yet. >> one here if you can yell really loudly maybe she will come quickly. >> i am a fellow at the conference. for someone to say i appreciate a little more significantly statistic way of going about things. to push a little bit further i can understand why you wouldn't to the state level analysis he would resolve the fiscal significance on the differences between for example the northwest, new england tight bavaria. >> yes, remember bear in mind we

are dealing with one survey for the 2012 election. you could do these effect for the state's and regions and all that will do is make these effects more significant, not less significant. so, that we can do. we can't break it down because we don't have enough cases. but you can certainly look if you had a big enough sample whether that is efficient and gets bigger in the green states in the maps i showed you. that is an interesting question. and we haven't been in the position to do it yet but someday when we have gigantic budgets, we will. >> any other questions? okay. i want to thank everyone for being here and the professor very much for sharing all of this information.

there will be a video up on the web site so that you will be able to get this information to look at it again trying to digest it and i'm sure if you have other follow-up questions please contact us or contact the professor and we will help get you connected. thank you very, very much for being here i think this is very interesting we look forward to the next survey. thank you very much. [applause]

a lot of people in congress were very interesting people and if you can get to that and you might find out there's something interesting but i don't know, seeing in representative play basketball you have a great jump shot to do this every tuesday night it might be interesting for some people. >> they are not doing issues in disguise. do you have an agenda? >> like i said, we are not going to go deeper into whether -- sometimes we do talk about someone's politics. but we are trying to make these personalities, learn something

about the personalities and you might be interested in them and then even the next time that you here on cnn or fox news channel you hear someone say marco rubio, we the second, that is the guy that i saw talking about how she is into hip-hop and for five minutes about how lil wayne isn't going to beat tupac. we had this conversation and at the end of the conversation there is a part of me that felt badly that we didn't delve deeper into his politics and what he is voting on, but that was in the conversation. and ultimately, this would probably be more interesting. what i really wanted to have on the ballot reaching for water in the middle of the response to the state of the union. [laughter] what we actually had a fun conversation and with the

politics are we will start opening up to some people that are going to delve deeper into the politics. i think there is still a huge appetite for the criteria that we do. we can create more of an appetite for people to learn about politics. because right now i think a lot of people have just turned out the politicians because they don't want to hear anything about them so why not try to make them a little more interesting and maybe people will pay attention to what they're voting on or not voting on and what they are scoring at in d.c.. >> what about the conflict? >> it took the president in june of 2000 to develop an answer and the answer was to states for to people, jewish state and a palestinian state was only when the palestinian state would be a decent, stable, peaceful, space,

non-grout government. first that means arafat has to go. >> people continue to be targeted as according to the freedom. commenting on the same-sex marriage cases that were before the supreme court this week. the cato institute hosted an event that also featured former rnc chairman who came out as of gay in 2010. this is about one hour and 15 minutes.

>> welcome to the cato institute. i am walter senior fellow at the cato institute. welcome to those of you that are watching on c-span2 and on cato.org/events where you can watch on line. can you hear me? okay. we are delighted to bring together an all-star panel to talk about the fate of a marriage and the supreme court in the american society. a couple of our panelists are in the second day of the supreme court or large amounts. they have been kind of dramatic i thought yesterday's transcript, you heard the audio, and i realized there were so extremely left-wing and right-wing ideas on the current supreme court and that is just justice kennedy. [laughter] today was equally interesting i

hear. we will be starting with a discussion of how things went this morning and how things went yesterday at the court and then move into a wider discussion of what it means for american politics and culture. we are being joined today by three wonderfully qualified panelists. on my far right is the institute who is with our center for constitutional studies and in particular the amicus program which submitted a wonderful brief to the court. next to me on the other side is kenseth best known probably for being the chairman of the republican national committee and running george w. bush's reelection campaign more recently known as being a very odd spoke in an eloquent advocate of same-sex marriage. he is with the financial firm of new york. and on my far left -- i won't

call you a token democrat. [inaudible] [laughter] the father that has been working on a fertile longtime you can see his work farther advanced than almost anyone would have expectant, so she is the founder and president of freedom to marry. we will do it as a general discussion rather than with the remarks. i will throw some questions out there and i should also mention you've all got your cell phone on you i don't even have to ask. i will mention that he has to leave a little early so he can go on fox news.

so we will respect that and if you are saving up questions there will be tons of questions afterwards and you have a question that you want to ask. let me sit down on the obvious one how did this morning's argument about? >> it's a pretty good panel yesterday was pretty henderson doubled, bad enough that pretty understandable for someone with legal training. today we have these three interesting fascinating issues of what the government is doing first of all because curiously the supreme court took this case at a the behest of the u.s. government which of course agrees with the courts below so it is appealing a decision it agrees with and it is enforcing doma while not defending it in

court. paul climate was there to argue representing the house of representatives bipartisan legal advisory group republicans and democrats on every action on the court so does the house of representatives have standing to defend the law given that the u.s. government is not but there is a lot of discussion. it seems to be the most that is concerning. everyone can go home and read that. but assuming they get past the jurisdictional argument, it seems like section 3 isn't long for this world. before the so-called liberal justices would probably strike it down on equal protection grounds, a lot of discussion about the inappropriate motivation of the congress and passing the law by the justice for example, justice kennedy

uses jurisdictional on what he is going to do but if i had to place a bet on the prediction is worth what you are paying for a she would vote to strike down section 3 on federalism grounds, so in effect we would have 8414 decision and section 3 is gone with no controlling opinion. >> let me start by saying what we always say in front of every big argument you can't judge from the argument, you can't really read the questions and the back-and-forth that are fast and furious both days year and particularly in complex and contradictory, so that is what we all say and then everybody immediately starts to tell you what they think is going to happen. and then i really want to underscore that from both days a mix of questions and issues and constellations and justices and cranking this on the part of

some justices which you can attribute to their feeling compelled to doing so had they are not quite comfortable doing or not wanting to do something that feeling like they should and that is also sort of a guess really makes it hard to say on the basis of these arguments exactly what is going to happen and i think you really need to take every prediction you hear and read and see tweeted and retweeted. the justices are going to go through a mountain in most cases a huge amount of evidence theory to be circulating opinions and that is going to lead to the challenges that some may have that they think they're going to try to write in a limited way or in any direction that we had realized that it isn't just to write the way they are trying to write it with a loan how the five may or may not come together. so why think that it's an important reason for caution in all the predictions including mine that you are going to year. having said that, there are two

things we know very clearly and then i will talk very clearly about the argument. one thing we know is that what the justices are doing their homework and going through the private sector, the best single way we can maximize winning the freedom to marry, and even getting the justices is encouraged to do the right thing as we deliberate now and in the court is to do what we've been doing which is to continue winning more states and to continue winning over more hearts and minds. there are as many as four states that are going to be considering that have already begun considering freedom to mary legislation and could pass those bills into the law before the court hands down rulings of the end of june so the single biggest thing we can do to maximize the chances of winning are to pass those marriage bills and to continue growing the extraordinary who is to of

america in the freedom to marry in the extraordinary amicus brief in front of the accord but also in the public discourse. all of that is what creates the momentum that encourages and emboldens the justices to find the right constitutional and legal free map. the other thing we know is that clearly the freedom to mary has the momentum and has a winning strategy. the strategy that is brought up in the moment of hope is the strategy that will bring us the freedom to marry nationwide whether in ha-joon or in the amount of work leading to going back before the court as soon as possible. one of the questions and exchanges that came up in the court yesterday was to point out the supreme court got interracial marriage wrong before it got it right. there's only a few years before the best case floating versus

virginia and the court and got it wrong. so what if the court does in june, we have the freedom to marry a winning strategy if we keep doing the work. i will very quickly say i thing yesterday all of the commentators would agree with complex lively engaged hard to pay and predict and the immediate reaction today i'm going to disagree a little bit for whatever this is worth fighting to was clear the chances of the court striking down the defense of marriage that are far greater than not striking it down and i actually think the equal protection as well as federal was some concern is very much in play and what's particularly striking yesterday and today is that no one in court offered a reason to justify the denial of the freedom to marry or the

defensive manager at the opponent is don't go fast, don't do that now, take your time absent with any argument continuing this cruel and harsh discrimination against gay couples. >> the one thing clement come talking about is uniformity. never mentioned anything beyond that because of course the federal interest is when to be different than the state interest. yesterday was all about child rearing and social moral development, police power, this is different so what is the federal interest they could have been the uniformity and there was a lot of pushback. >> the reason i say the base eight, you're correct he kept saying it was unable to tether it so without any policy level and legal or constitutional specificity about gay people. >> i would make two points and i

want reiterate what you've heard that he made two points better interesting from my perspective. first his point about why we are where we are today is worth noting. in my judgment it is so galvanized the public is our stories. the story of windsor is an unbelievable compelling unfair story. the fact that someone who did what we all think this the right thing to do which is found a partner of commitment and love and support faced with hundreds of dollars of taxes and then you look at chris and sandy and look at the plaintiffs in the case and again you have folks trying to do the right thing and they are punished so i think those

stories are real stories about people that make a gigantic difference and i think that made a huge difference. second, i think will get the panoply in these cases. it's not just that there is a large number it is the cross-section of society and military leaders and religious leaders and business leaders. it's republicans and conservatives. its leaders of excellent think tanks all making the case from their perspective. big change doesn't happen in a single direction. it doesn't happen from the lineal perspective. people speak out from their perspective and explain why and that is the point i felt was interesting and then point number three, what is interesting to me is often political debate comes down to a debate between what i would describe as substance and process. it doesn't denigrated the important substantive questions were being raised by opponents

of marriage equality and they are important issues we ought to respect and respond to and listen to. that having been said if you listen not only to the lawyers in court but the advocates speaking publicly on television and other places was interesting to me is whereas maybe five or eight or nine years ago, a lot of what i would describe as substantive arguments or on one side today they are overwhelmingly on behalf of marriage equality whether it's about fairness, whether it's about what is good for kids and freedom and when one science says fairness an opponent says process usually the former is a lot more compelling to both judges and the public so those slight additions. you mentioned the case that

preceded. justice ginsburg pulled this one out of the blue. everyone is running to their web browsers because even i believe the lawyer making the argument at that point didn't recognize it. but when she brought that case three years before on the less explosive issue on the interracial cohabitation it seemed to me and maybe i was getting the new wants, for taking off no more than it could chew without rather than saying that it made a mistake buy not reaching out to the more sweeping decision, she was praising and she was written elsewhere about her feelings on the social change and public opinion certainly between that there was a huge movement in the public that made it more acceptable and 67 tannin 64 so was she right if i am interpreting this correctly? >> you are partly right. you're absolutely right about the case that she was

referencing and i would hardly call it that much less explosive than a cohabitation shacking up rather than marriage i think they were a little bit at peace but she was making the point that you are saying that the court in that case ruled on what was before it which was cohabitation rather than going further to address the question of marriage. the case of an referring to is called naim obverses name around the same period but it's on the scene peace. in terms of the larger point however, the important point here is the question on the freedom to marry is presented in the perry case and the question of whether the court rules with regard to the freedom to marry nationwide or california or with regard to broad ways of looking

at the fact, that was kicked around in court yesterday and we are going to see what the court chooses to do. i can leave it there. >> the justice has also pointed out that her comment for 30 years ago, i can't remember now, with regard to roe v wade have been a little bit taken out of context. her point again was as she characterizes it now is that it's not that the court shouldn't rule on what is in front of it is that the court shouldn't necessarily feel compelled to go beyond what is in front of it to try to sell abroad things and how the cases are prevented. >> when will thing was affirmed 64% of the american people were against biracial marriage. when the decision was made when roe v wade was made the believe they're ought to be a restriction when it comes to abortion. that number has not changed

whereas if you look at the data when it comes to support marriage equality to dates in a different place not only do you have a majority in support of it but in fact in those states where marriage was enacted by court, massachusetts, connecticut it's stopping the political issue in the last election for the governor of massachusetts the republican and democratic nominee both supported the right to marry, the freedom to marry and affirmatively supported said the evidence is that in fact some issues the court does kind of preclude further space discussions and make it harder to develop a consensus. we've had essentially 20 years of decisions and ten years of active decisions can't regardless of whether the state was legislatively an act or judicially enacted this supporters would increase. >> i would agree and take it one

step further when the supreme court struck down laughing i don't think it's that you to think down between 1964 and 67 there was a tremendous change. in fact has ken said they showed 64%. some showed 70% of the public oppose interracial marriage. >> was at nine or 16 states prohibited or something like that? >> talking about the public opinion, the supreme court struck down race restrictions in this face of 64 to 67% opposition. i don't think there are that many people would think the court should have taken a vote and upheld the ban on interracial marriage. the whole reason we have a constitution and court is that some things are not pulled and there are safeguards in particular the freedom to marry like many other is a freedom that belongs to the individualism of americans doing happiness and exercising liberty. that is why we have court.

they shouldn't be making all policy decisions but there are certain decisions that are reserved for the individuals and protected by the courts on a constitution. one in which you look at how do you set the stage for the supreme court to do the right thing it's an interplay between the critical mass is. one is the critical mass of public support and momentum and so on but we don't want the court taking the polls because then we would have both come and it is also the critical mass of states what's happening in the state's. and if you look at where we were in a loving we are ahead on the freedom to marry in terms of public opinion than we we were coming and we are not as far ahead as where we were up the time of loving as you pointed out in regard to the states and freedom to marry strategy all along that brought us here and that will win is to continue the interplay of the critical mass is and also have the right

justice. ceramica think you brought up the contingence between the public opinion and the court. almost certainly has to matter and yet we also have to keep it from a battering as a matter of principle. the state's. justice kennedy was very interested in the federal laws on the issue. and number of our adjunct legal scholars and highly prized compatriots arguing that it flunks on federal laws on the and i believe that others that are directly with the project had a different view and i will ask you about that in a minute. but to make it clear what the stakes are on this if the

briefing were followed and there were decided the federal government have to butt out of domestic relations and one consequence is that it had to take it as it found its number of interesting things to happen that libertarians' might like because there would be a new constitutional argument for keeping the federal government out of other areas and indeed there have been one or two panic reactions already from the left wing legal commentators to realize what a threat to the government it would be to have that argument accepted. they're also might be a consequence i would predict in saying that he for federal government couldn't restrict the right to keep a marriage illegal and will get the respect of marriage act. and i eat right in guessing that would you like to win on the federalist ground if that is the only way to win if everyone

could react. >> let's be clear that federalism concerns that there are deeply intertwined in the equal protection dynamics said you can't always just treat each strand separate particularly when ball is this kind of targeting wall that is inflicted by the federal government by the act of congress in 1996. so, i don't -- i think you've already introduced me to refine not going to sign on to a broad mandate to sweep away federal power in the name of federalism. but i think in this particular case, it's clear and i think from some of the questions from where they are going to go on this isn't clear and i am not ready to predict that justice kennedy has settled on federalism versus equal protection so i don't think we know that answer yet. but in this case what happened as several justices pointed out in various ways is that congress

took an unprecedented radical stuff in treating itself into the domain that everybody agrees, wherever you are on the spectrum, is traditionally historical and constitutional law at least mostly left to the states and it did so in a sweeping and unprecedented way toward getting one group of people to impose a particular policy outcome. that is the into alignment of the two and it's easy with you look at the federalism concerns with a strict ingalls of equal protection to say what congress did here doesn't cut its as the justice pointed out partly on the side of the spectrum that you are talking about is that this wasn't just congress saying for tax purposes we are going to look at this or for immigration purposes this was congress and for all 1138 plus federal protections responsibilities and incidence of the freedom of marriage we are going to have two glasses of marriage and was marriage and skim milk marriage.

that's the problem other you look at it with the federalism. >> which raises the issue of the government being brought and affecting so many areas distinguishing by marriage or not come and more come even more fundamentally, the role of the government and marriage at any level. you know, why should week to get a license from the government and the piece of paper, legal recognition of the only reason why we are even in debating this is because the government is involved. our first order as libertarians would be half a regime of common law marriage, hold yourself out as a couple can have whatever, church, synagogue, what's the word. whoever wants to give you a sacrament that's fine but once the government gets involved there are these other issues. more specifically and technically on the federal as an issue i have a debate with john a. friend on the conspiracy on

the magazine website about role of federalism and proposition 8 where i say agreeing most with what evin said the this is an issue was whether the government has overstepped its bounds like the obamacare argument. this is an issue of whether the proposition eight case yesterday a state in having this law or this institution to unlawfully discriminates or treat people differently based on sexual orientation. it's not a slam-dunk case. the issue isn't whether federal courts are to be the ones making the decisions or the executives since the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 if you have a state violation of an individual right here on equal protection on that ground i by that more strongly than i do the substantive positive argument that it's for the courts to decide that issue if the states are not violating anybody, fine.

if they are as i argued it has to make that ruling. on the case that debate has played on the law of conspiracy. nicholas who's an adjunct senior fellow has debated john adler and randy barnett and others by saying this can out of the argument today that of course the federal government has the power to define that term that uses in its statute. but they didn't use the word marriage and what if they used the word domestic couple certified or something like that? did you get down to the basic issue in this isn't about the word marriage it's about the act of discrimination, treating different people differently under a law so that has to collapse. i'm not certain he's going to vote but both kennedy and roberts seem to be attracted to the federal was some argument

and the might split in how they decided to and i don't buy the federalism argument, but i'm not sure. i like the equal protection argument, but rather on legal or provincial ground if the court were kennedy doesn't want to undermine all state marriage falls by the grounds on doma, we could have this sort of station on the way to an eventual political resolution and most of the states in the nation as a whole. >> we always wonder whether the amicus briefs are having an effect, and one of them at least caught justice kennedy's ausley is the conservative falling by the professor and harvey mansfield but the lower court relied on social science and as justice alito pointed out it is done by scholars with some of

the usual feelings of academic social scientists they have plants that they want to make. the research is sometimes not very vigorous and justice kennedy was swayed by this it would seem if you're there and ted olson. >> to me that was my biggest disappointment of the argument yesterday, the missed opportunity. there was the extraordinary one-sided record in part based on the important trial that occurred in which both sides had any opportunity they wanted to bring any witnesses and at the end of the trial with the findings that resulted it was clear the social science data, the witness' testimony in favor of how the parents are fit and loving and doing well, and their

kids are doing well, and there is absolutely nothing to contradict that from any reputable source whatsoever. that was crystal clear through the trial and was amplified again by an extraordinary array friend-of-the-court brief in which every leading public health and child welfare authorities in this country has weighed in on the freedom of the side to marry for love and committed couples so it's important that the justices including justice kennedy to the extent that they are wondering to be reminded and pointed to the brief of the evidence in the record and putting the trial in the case itself, which very much is echoed by the way the trial 14 years earlier in hawaii where the same questions were first but the data than the same findings in favor of gay parents and kids being raised by gay parents and absence of the other side were made. as a, the good news here is that contrary to the drama that we

feel now that argument isn't the most important instance on how the justices ruled. they are going to go back and look at the record -- >> and number of the avatars on facebook that turn to the quality. >> the are going to look at the briefs and the courts are going to digest this and they are going to see that actually these are not on chartered waters and it's not an open question. it's not something people need to worry about. gay parents are doing great, our kids are doing great and it's clear that even if you didn't think that were true, the best way to protect kids is to provide their families to support and ability and the dignity that comes with marriage rather than to punish kids for having the wrong kind of parents by withholding the important protection of marriage. >> any other reactions? >> let me ask a different question. justice roberts was it seems swayed by the other arguments that it's been offered which is

some of these were intended to protect politically powerless minorities who had no way of mustering the majority support for the process and he said if there are such minorities that are not in front of us today because the that the senators changing their positions to endorse. this is in a powerless minority. >> this raises some problems in our jurisprudence more broadly. ever since we started bifurcating our rights with the products, infamous footnote where some are more equal than others, the way the courts have -- the supreme court in the leave of course have distinguished which rights apply and which are protected by applying different levels of scrutiny and different criteria to the suspect class's i don't know the answer to the question of whether gays or people that

support gay rates are powerful or not politically powerful group for legal purposes. i think in but sense of the word they are. the tests change in the the scrutiny rubric often just depends on what the end of of the objective of the justice that implies them means so this is whether we apply the rational basis for the heightened scrutiny. a lot of this is semantic gargasz and we probably want to go into much of that. i hope the court isn't going to that as an ultimate ruling. estimate i look at it a little differently. i don't think the court is doing properly in those analyses is talking about which groups are protected or have the most rights. i think with the court is doing is saying there are certain

classifications the government controls that are more efficient than others. some are very sufficient when the government uses race as a criterion that is suspect and requires a presumption of one constitutionality and a deep examination. the court has identified other such suspicious classifications such as for example sex, religion, alienage come ethnicity, etc., and the argument here is that sexual orientation likewise should be viewed with suspicion and there are factors the court has identified as the courts should look in determining whether there is a suspicious mass to the government classification and those include things like the history of discrimination and in this case the degree of political power. nobody thinks that is an absolute. we have an african-american president and many african-americans in congress and latinos emerging and

political force etc but does that mean the race is not a suspicious classification? most of us would say of course race is suspicious. women are more than half of the public. so they are more than half of the voters if they so choose. does that mean the classification is not suspicious? likewise as the head of the freedom to marry i want to see as have more power and dismantling that history of discrimination and the fact that gay people have been targeted by the measures and they would endure to this day for the determination and 30 plus states and the absence of the protection of the federal level. so yes, we are growing in our ability to enter the political process to engage and persuade but does that mean they are not still disadvantaged in the

political system as the defense of marriage act and freedom to mary vindicate? of course it doesn't and that's why there should be a presumption of unconstitutional body that is the court ought to apply. >> we can get back to the legal issues in the question period but i promised the program would be on politics and culture and so forth so let me switch over. i think one of these fascinated me the other day and purported to show. although there has been a tremendous public movement on this, if you step back and averaged together the polls, you find 1.5% a year. whether ellen degeneres is on the cover of time or not is this

correct? if it is correct what are we all doing talking about this issue in the public seems to be changing at the same pace whether the issue was on the front page or not or is it not true? i think there was an interesting violence on the republican pollster president bush's pollster for senator mcconnell and others and healton all of polls from basically 1993 to '94 when they really began measuring the public attitudes on marriage and what he thought is from 1993 to 2009 it was about a 1% increase a year a lot of which would could be attributed to demographic changes which he believes and i think he is right is attributed to all the stuff people are doing but not -- the truth is in my judgment what's happening here in washington is

important and around the country is important, but the most important thing is i might call it department affected and that is the power of people to recognize not only on the concept, they say it's real. it's being punished and it's not about getting the approval of society but to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars potentially to lose their home or not. it's how to make medical decisions for their children. if one of them is in the hospital the committee decision about their care ought to be. that is a real deal, and so they come to understand these are real issues and injustices and they understand what is happening to their neighbors, their children, their friends, their relatives, and so with the conversation i think as a whole lot of folks have come out and

explained so no longer are you thinking about this in terms of the concept of those people now it is a real thing about my people and when you think about it that way, it has a huge change in pact and that is also a difference. look at a couple of recent data points that interesting to me. "the washington post," abc news came out this week, 64% of evangelical millennials. essentially those under 30 support the freedom of marriage. 81% of the voters support the freedom to marry if you include independently and republican support by the freedom to marry. they ask also the question of how you changed your opinion 14% changed their opinion of the last decade. 12% are in favor of marriage and for every one voter that is changed it can be against the

right to marry, nine voters have changed to be in favor of the right to married. those are big changes but i think this conversation is helping to inform. >> i'm sorry. go ahead. >> real quick, pulling the lever thing to note is that whatever demographics or looking at, whether it is evangelicals, whether it is black, jews, everybody, the younger you go the more support areas, such research and extent, opposition is dying off. unfortunately, the one demographic and this is a bit of a comment, the one demographic is over 65 and the average age of the supreme court is 67.9. >> i completely agree with that point and i just want to underscore a piece of that as a part of the larger whole, which is what also has happened over the past several years as a part of this swelling accelerating momentum and people changing

their heart and mind as more people are talking in broader numbers and the public is that people like ken and ted olson could have a contribution to the cause which is in the case in my view it was his speaking out as a pillar of the conservative establishment and giving permission to others that respect him to think new and open their hearts and minds, and we have seen more and more of that thinks to others across the spectrum and on that right side of the spectrum as well as in the broad general public. and that has been a part of this dynamic that we have seen accelerating over the last few months and years. >> let me ask for all of the different demographic groups that have crossed over, one that is definite and tell me if you agree it's definitely negative is the republican primary voter. when a republican elected official talks about this, how

do you suggest they get from point a to point b on the republican primary? >> i don't necessarily agree with that. i think it depends on the primary and on the jurisdiction that we are talking about. so the congressional district in the state. to me i think the questions are a couple. bonn is what are the voters that you are speaking to on the issue and the second thing is how much do they care about it? so, where is the energy. where is the art with respect to the issue and what's changed also in the last several years is the energy on behalf of advocating for and not executing against some you can be against something and not care that much and that issue then is an issue that a candidate can think about but it's less important that the voters care a lot. they care a lot about this and that is point number two. point number three is how do they feel after you've made conservative arguments on behalf of these issues so one of the things i've tried to do the last

is a polling question. 79% of republicans believe that the same gender couple ought to be able to visit their spouse and the hospital. 57% believe that if one and the other shouldn't lose their property 51% believe the benefits of to be available. more than seven of ten republicans believe in the employment nondiscrimination act and the fact is the republican voter is not where the republican voter is received to be if you in fact look at the data. in the last year and a half we have a group called the project rights.com you can see some of the data that we've polled 16,000 americans 8,000 of which are center or center-right planning. and we found again and again and again strong support for not only these rights associated with marriage, but also when you express in the conservative argument that was with

conservative leaders when you explain to people freedom means freedom for everyone, the level of republican support is overwhelming. when you explain to people that the school bell like the one that chris christie at the governor of maine signed includes gay and lesbian children come overwhelming republican support. so we lot of this really is the context in which we frame it and describe it. the number of republican elected officials in the last year who were voted in the last two years them voted for marriage have doubled. there are too wondered three republicans nationally and statewide that have voted for the coming out to marriage. three of them lost because of it. there's not a single issue i can think of where doing the right thing and 1% loses, that is a pretty amazing record. that certainly isn't true of almost any issue like can think of, and so to me when you look at all the data it says that in fact the republican electorate is not where some people rei