accomplish it. even though we got a violence against women act reauthorized, that the conversations having ended. we've learned a lot from each other. i think we should look at that as a lesson. and i think also another event not too long ago where some of us were in switzerland. ..

the of the conversation with just not among us. also i applaud president obama for his statement on the martin case when he came out of his 17 minute speech from his heart that talked about that because he was able as president of the united states of america and as a black man to convey to people who do not think they are racist the kind of things that happened to him in terms of locked doors and everything. because no one will come out to you and say i made racist. they don't think they are recessed until you actually call them out on something. we need to have more of a discussion. you also need to help your friends as they do things they do not believe that's racist to kind of pull them aside and say now do you know how that made me feel? do you know when you just did? no, i'm not a racist. but you need to tell them and have a discussion in the silo. race is a very uncomfortable thing to talk about. >> do you want to come in here,

delia? >> this makes me sad because it goes back to the 150 years how long this is going to take when we think of trayvon martin as a policy response we need to help more young boys who are in trouble. trayvon martin was a kid going to restore. he wasn't a high school dropout. he was not someone who had been adjudicated. he wasn't all those things. these are normal everyday kids. and the conversation about race is going to have to complement the legal work we are doing, the voting work we are doing. this is the part that's going to take 150 years and it's the part that makes me the saddest because it is the part about the individuals, and we cannot forget that soft peak when we think about how we change the laws and thinking about how we create policies. it is about human to human to be

a >> i think that one thing we do that the applied research center that has helped in those conversations quite often is we really try to spend more time talking and thinking about impact rather than intention. so that when the person says i'm not a racist to it i didn't intend to offend anybody or oprah's anybody. i have learned to accept that lack of intention. midlife a confident that it wasn't there. maybe i don't. but if the person says i didn't intend to, my usual reaction now, which i had to train myself into is to accept that and accept it on its face because if they said well i did intend to, that would be a different conversation. and i have had that conversation, too. and it's quite different. it's better if you do not intend

to in my view. and if you don't intend to, we can acpt a premise and move on from there and then we can start to deal with the impact of actions and positions and behavior. and i do find that quite often people, if you can reinforce their good intentions, they will actually then begin to have some openness to changing their behavior but if their defense would go up right away and you as a mature experienced racial justice hero of that conversation can't reinforce what's good and a lack of racist intention then that is a person that you might not be -- if you can reinforce, that's good. that's the person you might be able to recruit into the grand project that we have.

>> i heard martin luther king referred say that 50 years ago when his father was delivering his i have a dream speech they came to washington and was about civil rights and it was comparative and he talked about it being about justice and civil rights and jobs. we haven't talked much about jobs and it sometimes hard to fight for the good fight if you don't have a check coming in. >> we have to recognize there is a job gap in the nation and growing inequality which when combined with other racial wealth gap it means that america today has a larger income inequality than any time since the 1920's. we have lost tremendous ground in terms of that. while we have a stronger safety net, no doubt to the and overall standards of living are generally higher.

we have fewer people although there are some people that have to use our house, don't have indoor plumbing. there is the reality of 45 particularly in the rural south and in some places in the city's we dedicated the award at the urban league for 100 plus years to the job and economics and i am proud that we just launched the new initiative called jobs rebuild america. and we had an on president and level of job training programs. some targeted at the incarcerated and those that were juvenile systems that we were going to try to place into jobs. but i have to tell you that from a public policy perspective, the most important step we have to do is help people move towards livable wages. we need an increase in the

minimum wage and index inflation to take the politics out of it. we need to make work pay. in other words it needs to pay and there are a large number of americans who work and are still poor and cannot meet and meat. there is a tendency to think of the poor as being locked out of the economic system. when so many of the working poor are women with children, young women with children and women of color from all communities. so, the john -- job issue is we have been thwarted from a number of years to be what i would call a main street economic program. wall street got its bailout program and the automobile company got their bailout program and the main street didn't. things like the american jobs act the president proposed in the filibuster to the it's not

just about public policy. the public policy is crucial and is the key. that's why yesterday was about jobs and justice. it was about jobs and justice. we are when it comes to the african-american community we have a high your unemployment rate and 13 the and we had in 53. and that stuck in the recession and has indeed made it work. we have the economic policy and those of us that work in the justice community also have to focus on the economic policy where people are economically independent, self sustaining. they have less challenges when it comes to things like health and education. these matters work together and i think most importantly, the work that we do because we are a direct services organization. we made an unprecedented commitment to get what i am looking for is the sum of the work that we are doing to help those that have been

incarcerated when we get success the message is going to be we need to expand this kind of work. but already we face the barriers of people that do get some training not being able to get work because too many private sector firms have barriers on hiring people let me have any blemish on their record. the economics are so crucial to this new civil rights movement. >> i would say in some ways the issue is even larger to the this is a place where if you compare us in 1963 there are some troubling comparisons whereas in 1963 we were in the middle of the rising economy, the growing middle class. inequality is hard to imagine that this decrease in year by year in 1946 and 1973. we were doing better in the great compression. but what has happened now is there have been so many structural changes in the

economy that it isn't simply getting people into a succeeding economy. it begins changing the structure of the economy such that it is more and includes a lot of different things. it is jobs and living wage and the investment what it is early childhood education or college for the devotee. it requires a lot more investment in what he called for. it requires a change in the tax structure that is much more genuinely progressive so that we can start to compress that inequality. it's not only about jobs it is about an economy that works for everybody in the economy everybody has a chance we need a democracy that has an equal say and that is important. one last point, the march and 63 was followed by the tremendous lack of presidential courage in the civil rights act and in the voting rights act shortly

thereafter. within a stroke of his pen he could say with every job that is typically contracted, which is over 2 million jobs, everyone has to be paid a living wage. even privatized services people are getting paid 7.5, $8 as opposed to the economy in 63. that would make a huge change. it doesn't require the obstruction in congress. he should do it. >> sometimes they are watching and listening. >> i hope so. >> we are in the middle of the movement of jobs in the economy. and we saw a fast-food worker strikes in the past month. i know from the perspective it will be involved in a number of minimum wage fights, a living wage fights a local and state level. i think what we need to be clear about is that we cannot get to where we want to get to with a race neutral approach. if we just talk about jobs and

just talk about minimum wage, we will not get to the vision that was laid out 50 years ago and that part of what i think is unique about this conversation is that it's an opportunity to bring that target to the universalism and that if you look at the cross spectrum, almost all americans have been disadvantaged by the economic decisions that we have made over the last 30 years in the wake of the march to its federal policy, the minimum wage law these, how we treat the unions. but the people that have been the most effective had been african-american and latino especially urban, rural communities. we have to be able to talk about that specifically and then built into the policy strategy. both left everyone. we've got to establish living wage jobs and in the devotee for everyone to get full employment. we are often going to be very conscious about who gets access

to the jobs that could create it. we've got to remove the barriers to people that were formally incarcerated to jobs pivotal work and an amazing amount of campaign on the box. state level efforts, sanctions to get ohio past remarkable legislation to nd and remove a whole set of sanctions for people coming out of the prison system. and was passed in part to a coalition of the catholic church formerly incarcerated in citizens and brought the supported the republicans come democrats so this can be a bipartisan effort and have a race consciousness to it and i think that's why this kind of conversation is so valuable because we can bring that to the job site. >> ben? >> one of the reactions is that we have an interest in solving this problem. every person in the country is

an interest getting more people to work and quite frankly replacing this kind of bottom secreting minimum wage less than half of what it would have been if it had been on inflation with something people can actually live on. going back to the myth propagated more than i would ever like to is this notion not only is there a hierarchy of race that is pretty much defined by the shades of color if you will, but the oppression towards those of us that are not white only hurts us. my mom published a book called combined destiny about racism. 15 white people talking about the way in which. in the family you can hurt most of the family and not hurt the whole family is ridiculous on

its face. you really see it in the economy. our country led last century and like most of the world in the last century we were pleased with the hierarchy system if you will. in a sense it has become increasingly flat. the only way we are going to lead it in this century is to become increasingly flat ourselves. but also with this fight on the minimum wage, quite frankly folks at the bottom over consuming we can get away from $7 or $7.25 to $10.25 most of the money will go back to the corporations complaining about the impact. as we have to get to a mind set. i saw jack kemp so emphatically portray one day in self central los angeles she was saying all of our children, clearly talking about the crisis of the young people down the street at a

school in south-central. another next to me said where is he from? i know who she is. where is he from? i said i don't think he's from self central if that's what you're saying. so his kids -- whose kids are talking about? they are all our children because we are all citizens of this great country and they belong to all of us and that is the place we have to go to. >> i do want to hear from you, delia on this topic as >> most of the study said that if all of the retailer's, big box retailers simply raise the lowest wages to the point a family of three would be over the poverty line which is about $12.25 per hour. just doing that it would take

1.5 million americans out of poverty, created 100,000 new jobs and cost 1% of their cost. so the idea that we are in a permanent low opportunity letter economy is the most devastating thing and it hurts a reasonable person. people of color absolutely is the most but the phill level of economic security for the white working-class families it's higher than it's ever been. it's not just about having the economy working for an additional group of people. we have an economy that isn't working for anybody except for the 1%. if that doesn't change, the rest of the century looks bleak but if it does we really can meet the world. >> for the longest time hispanics had a higher rate than african-americans. that's changing. for the longest time hispanics were accused of taking jobs away from other people. i think what we need to do is

stop the alleged that is trying to break up our group and trying to break up the civil rights community because hispanics do work and a lot of low-wage industries. they are the backbone of the fast-food industry in many cases and the service agencies took in the office overnight. but people talk about it -- this weekend the newspaper was filled with whether immigrants were going to take jobs away from white and black americans that would be willing to do those jobs. people talk about this as if people want to be in low-wage jobs. they are taking them away because we want to be in those jobs. what we are forgetting is we are creating -- talked about a permanent underclass. we are creating that permanent underclass when we ask for the job leeward. you are very fortunate to be working in the fast-food industry's and you are very fortunate that you can work to jobs planning office building at night and working construction

during the day. we have fallen back on some of the strategies that we know work like educating our children to the level that they can compete with anyone. like protecting workers' rights and having people understand what their rights are as employers and as human beings to it and the kind of work that they are entitled to. all of these issues can't be solved by groups alone, by individual groups and hispanic groups and african-american groups, by immigrant groups. we have to do this to get there because we are becoming pawns against each other in this big economic battle. that's one of the things as a civil rights community we can come together on and talked about the economy has something that we are going to lead in the future because of the changing demographics. this is in the interest of everyone in the country. >> there is the other set -- i

couldn't agree more that there is another set that is a phenomenon of post recession america and that is the idea that those that achieve a college degree are have any difficulty finding a job in their children still live study. having difficulty finding a job that matches their educational qualifications and finding a job that allows them to pick a student loan. but that does is it puts pressure and competition because they are competing for jobs they may not have been interested in ten years ago. that is one set of economic headwinds and another set of economic headwinds are the large number of what i call mature workers in the 50's and 60's who find themselves being laid off and all of work for the first time in their career who are not

old enough to collect social security, who didn't work in an industry where there was a private retirement system or adequate private retirement system who find themselves in the economy competing. we work with 55 and older americans, low-income americans who are looking for work. and the pressure is on them so now there is this increased competition for jobs that were in fact mainly populated by young workers and less skilled workers. so to some of the comments about the structural issues, those are the things that have gotten away from the discussion and the economic policy. so much of the focus has just been let's get economic growth and the rising tide to lift the boats. but now that we know the rising tide wouldn't necessarily lift

our boats. it won't lift those that don't have a boat or those that are stuck at the bottom. [laughter] >> let me give you an example of that. so the country has the highest systemic unemployment over any other group in usually we are not mentioned because we are the aspect of the data pool. given that, this is a good example where one of the places in the in countries have been left off of the table continually giving it not only from the conversation sometimes within our own group, but mostly in the policy decision makers to win if you talk about structural racism, you look at policies that are supposed to help the economy of other governments. financing, energy tax credits, green jobs, all kind of other labor programs and they all

frigate in the in country. so if you don't add tribes to authorize the language or include policies left off the table and once again, the community that has the largest systemic unemployment gets left out of the proposed solutions. what is important in this conversation is to be able to make sure that we are inclusive and the group but also the recommendation needs to happen. the conversation around education because it isn't only about jobs. it's about education and opportunities come it's about access, rural america. there are a lot of players that need to be in this conversation as we move forward. >> thank you for the comment. turning now to kathleen. >> we've spent a lot of time today looking back at the last 50 years and the question now is how we look forward to the next 50 years and really this question of what has been the comprehensive set of policies

that have structural we shifted our economy and our society that have prevented our communities and our families from getting ahead and from being able to sustain themselves whether it be education, the economy, health, the justice system if we think of them as a complex have been structurally disintegrating in a way that has prevented our families from even maintaining. so how do we think about a racial justice agenda looking forward over the next 50 years that could have a comprehensive agenda that looks at all these things in concert with each other. how do we improve the education system at the same time we are thinking about the system making sure people have a right to health care and housing and all of these things of course under greeted by the justice system that recognizes the needs of everyone in our community.

>> that is a pretty lofty question. you are working with me here because we are going to go there. i want to get some thoughts from everyone. i did promise ralph that you were going to get in here and then i will mabey take the question. >> i want us to make sure that we remember the u.s. unemployment come 18 to 24. we completed a job study on the web site that shows in some cities unemployment is as high as 50% so we need to make sure we focus on those but that's also an issue that we need to focus on. >> so the racial justice agenda. i heard this morning's statistics from a small city that asked the question with the people believed they were still judged by their color 71% of the people said yes, they do. and then they said 54% believe that their children would be.

as we think that that agenda and we move forward, dr. king didn't necessarily put a timetable on it. he just said one day. do we think he meant 100 years? >> i try not to think about the struggle for racial justice as having an end point because i think the gap between the end point and where we are is so intimidating that there is no coming out of that gap. it has no end point and the task is to make as much progress in every generation as we possibly can. no victory is ever permanent. there are always holes and a tax and steps fact. i just figure this is what it's going to be and i try to prepare myself for an endless struggle

and even though it is endless it is also beautiful and there's a lot of humor that comes along with it to the we have a great moments. it is a joyous struggle. i think in the next 50 years we could do some things. we could end of the war on drugs. we could end racial profiling in a number of arenas that is accepted as regular business we can get a handle on the future of the economy and begin to shape some of the big questions we need to make like what are people going to be giving for work? automation and technology make it so that in fact we need fewer human hands in a bunch of arenas where we used to so that means

we have to think about work quite differently and about the society needs for the contribution. and i think that we will have our best chance at getting to some of those changes if we have a really fully multiracial, multi justice movement and that is explicit about race and the way that gordon has mentioned that engages everybody that has a stake in taking their racial order a part. the changing demographics of america present such an opportunity for us. we are coming into a period that we can redefine what it means to be american because for too long that has been a title that has been captured and owned by white

folks. and many of us that have been here for 200, 300 years, since the very beginning since before there were white folks, you know, it really is not feeling like we were american. we were the other. so we are in a moment where we are getting ready to actually calotte back and own what it means to be american and i think from that will come a different dynamic because the power is going to shift and i think it presents an opportunity for the folks on the stage and for the people that do civil rights and racial justice work for the lgbtq community, we have to make sure that we manage the change in the right way because we could miss the opportunity. if we don't publicize our communities and if we don't educate our communities about

the history of the country, if we do not have a progressive idea of where we are going, we could actually really feel in that moment. but i think that because of the work that has been happening together across all of those lines that we are moving in the right direction so when we see that shift, when we see the minority become the majority we are going to be in the right place to make a progress of america -- progressive america. ..

>> to ensure they are informedded in the communities and to be able to become the leaders that they are going to be set up for in the next 30-50 years. >> i have a personal story really building from gail's opening this morning on telling the story. i think of my dad in these situations. in 1963, i was 5 years old. he sat me down the night before i went to kindergarten, and he said to me, you're going to american school tomorrow, and i was born and raised in cleveland, ohio, but he still referred to it as american school because he was an

immigrant himself, and he said, you have to do better than everybody else in school because you're chinese, and everybody will judge you because you are different, and you have to prove that you're smarter and better than everyone just to be treated equally. all right? i know that resinates for a lot of folks. >> i hear the amens in the choir. >> it is, yes, all those things, own leadership, but teaching our children they will face racism, but what is their response? it's a personal response to bring forward their leadership, but it is also a response to say you have a responsibility. you have a responsibility to those beyond your family, to your community, to organize, to teach, to lead, and that that's really the way that we're going to be able to make change. >> jack and then ben and phillip. >> i want to fum on that because my thought is, you know, we all do our work, and i think we're

doing a great job working and collaborating together and work to improve it, but over the next 50 years and i think about this a lot, especially for my community, and i've taken on this challenge almost like succession planning with that same fervor, looking at the next generations, and i realize my big responsibility so teaching the next generation. i can do this as my day job, but my full-time job is planning for the succession of the next generation. they have to understand, why does this matter? they have to understand sovereignty for indian country and understand civil rights movement, human rights movement, need them to feel comfortable in each other's community and understand the history that's not told in our history book to have the next generation more educated, and i spend the majority of my time thinking about that succession plan and how to keep working with that next generation. if we do that more, not just

with the family, but within our families, but with all these groups we can touch, the next generation has a lot more hope than this generation has to complete. >> ben. >> they represented san jose in congress for so long, but went on to treasury secretary for bush, and before that, clinton, told a story coming home from the internment camps and being a young child, an older person in a community standing up saying we could never afford for there to be an antijapanese party again, and so i'm going to pass my hat, and you're going to put money into it, and we're going to sponsor our young people to go to the republican dinner every year and the democratic dinner every year. thank god, i got to go to the democratic dinner, but the point

was, and similar stories told in the black community, men coming home from world world war ii and deciding in communities to join the democratic party to push civil rights agenda. we're on the verge of having an anticivil rights party in the country, having it be a one-party issue. there are still allies in the republican party. there's still governors who are making great strides, sometimes it is on a pet issue like affirmative action, but not voting rights. we have to, as a civil rights community, really think deeply, not just about how we build bonds amongst each other, but how we, frankly, reintroduce civil rights to the republican party, which, for a hundred years, was the party of civil rights, and in many ways, and i believe that if we, in the next 50 years, can get more sophisticate about how we work politics, if we, over the next 50 years can be more aspired,

quite frankly, by our grandparents and lessons that they understood very well, and we can get back to a place where civil rights is a little bit less partisan, then we can move forward than possible. we have opportunities with criminal justice reform, opportunities to do that with the voting rights act, and we need to see those one offs or exceptions, but as toe holds towards getting to the place that those men and women are coming back from entournament camps understood, and black soldiers coming back from world war ii understood. civil rights has to be a universal thing in this country, universal belief, universal set of values, and that moment that we were closest to, that after world war ii, after the intournament, 40s, 50s, 60s, and early 70s, that's where it advanced quickly. quite frankly, the first step has to be with us that we have

the hope to talk to the other side of the ail. right now, things are often -- we, ourselves, ice late the agenda in ways that may be expend in the short term, but detrimental in the long term. >> it's an interaction forum, and i have to introduce my colleague from det, andre, welcome. [applause] i'll make sure you get the comment in. thank you for being patient. >> thank you, we thank the panel on excellent moderator for a thoughtful discussion. [applause] what have we before doing? taking questions, online, social media, and we've come away with lots of interesting questions, and there's been a common theme throughout a lot of them. it's going to bring out the highlights here, and we want to make a brief disclaim mori all

comments are independent of the kellogg foundation and bet. with that, let's get our discussion started. this question is from susan, can you discuss how much voting rights regression we have seen? have we seen that at the local level yet? are we seeing it in the school boards? what tangible effects have we seen yet? >> i'll start. i think since the shelby county case in the supreme court, clearly, we've seen a number of states move very quickly to restrict the right to vote, so you had texas as marc mentioned, literally in the moments after the decision, the attorney general tweeting that they would start to immediately end force voter id. as i mentioned, north carolina actually had that piece of legislation pending and after that decision, then passedded it, but we're seeing it at the very local levels so decisions

like in north carolina, one of the -- one of the counties that was covered by section 5 where a college campus immediately, they closed the polling place, and that was a place that had elected president obama. we are seeing these little places bubble up in little counties where things that are that small as closing a polling place so that communities of color cannot access the voting booth, that is happening, and what we're doing is with the civil rights community and those of us who do voting rights litigation, but also with organizations like the naacp and folks who are on the ground is to monitor that because it is popping up in -- i mean, just in every little hamlet and town across the country that these kinds of small changes are happening. >> has anyone else heard stories on the ground?

mr. jealous? >> yeah, i mean, we work very closely with the advancement project and all part of the small circle of folks, and what we are focused on right now is really agent -- activating 1200 units. we broad p folks from all 38 of the state and multistate conferences. a couple weeks ago, they are doing the training right now with the units, and there's polling places shifting and attorneys general, and everything that we've gone through, but i do think that we need to understand that this is, in many ways, a long fight. we'll restore section 4 of the voting rights act. confident of that, and when we do that, we'll fight, win various battles, and when we do that, we'll still be fighting, and folks have decided to take a very old playbook off the shelf which is using the law to suppress the vote. while we grew up with breaking

the law to suppress the vote, nings like florida 2000. this is back to the founding of the country itself. we talk utah disenfranchised, if you will, somewhat surprisingly, were the privates in the revolutionary army who were told, no, wii not letting the negroes vote or wives vote or letting y'all vote either. you landless, nonproperty owning white men. in the words of john adams, that's mobocracy, and we have to understand that virtually all of us in this country come from somebody categorically denieded the right to vote, whose vote was suppressed whether it was a black person, innative person, or a poor white man, or a woman at the very least, we all descended from women, and what

thigh are doing now, it's a tactic up until shortly after the country becomes majority of people of color in 2042. >> with the next question, comes from the social media world, twitter. @wendythomas, what steps can we take with coworkers to address and acknowledge implicit bias? >> so, there's a few steps we can take with our coworkers. the first or the sequence might vary depending on your particular workplace and what you're dealing with, but some of the options are -- one option is to have a direct conversation with a coworker and if you're going to do that, try to remember, focusing on impact rather than on intention. my colleague, jay smooth, who does a great online videos under

ill doctrine, the name ill doctrine, says focus on what people did rather than who they are. it's about what you did, not who you are. the second thing you can do, though, is try to get your workplace, your employer and management to take a deeper look at the workplace culture and at the kinds of both the written rules, the policies, but also the unwritten rules, the practices, that might be creating exclusion or disparity or inequity in the workplace. you know, i like to think of workplaces as, like, parties. you know, you can invite people to a party, but if they have no ability to change the music and the music doesn't suit them, they will not be at the party long, and we argue about whether we wanted them in the party at the first place.

the way it plays out in a professional setting is that you can be a person of color, get to the meeting, get to the table, but if there's not real equity, no one listens to what you have to say. getting your employer, maybe there's a diversity pram or diversity training or committee to think of that as app equity and inclusion committee rather than just as a diversity committee, that may help to have your whole workplace think about structures you put in place so that everybody in that workplace can actually participate fully. >> it's difficult because of the "r" word, racism, is a door closer. >> yeah. >> what are other techniques you can use to bring up the "r" word? >> i use the "e" word, equity. we do antiracist work meaning i'm against you, the racest, or

whoever is call a racist, thinking about racial equity work, racial inclusion work. it's a very subtle shift, but times it opens space and gets us out of that cycle of accusation and defense that it's pretty hard to find our way out of when we're in it, so focusing on impact, think about structures as a collective, as a collective workplace, and knowing it's going to take real time and energy, and it's not a discussion to have once and move on from so prepare coworkers for an ongoing set of work will help, and then, of course, for yourself, if you're the person making that intervention, just really taking care of yourself, you know, doing the meditation and getting your exercise and get enough sleep. you need internal capacity to

deal with very difficult things, and keep your cool while you do it, so those are all tips, and at colorlines.com, folks can read a lot of stories of people who are making that kind of change happen in their neighborhoods and in their communities, with a lot to learn from their examples as well. >> all right, question that a lot of the local sports fans will definitely want to hear your thoughts on. >> fifty years after the march on washington, will we see a change to the dc football team's name? >> yes, we will. >> wow, i'd love to answer that question. [laughter] i absolutely think so. i'm feeling optimistic because i believe that more and more voices of the people are

stepping up it gets down to the economics of the owner who put his line in the sand, but as the national football league and as other sponsors of the team have started to urge the team to reconsider action, i think there is, and i also want to say one other thing. we always want to create winning opportunities. i'm more than willing to sit down and figure out how we can create a winning opportunity for the fans who should be, you know, excited about their local team to come up with a name that is heroic and honorary and we can all stand behind, and i would love to be a part of the process, and have an open inviation to do so. >> any other thoughts?

>> vote for state, and give them two senators and call them the washington senators -- [applause] celebrate removing dc as a colony, and, you know, it's, look, it's these sorts of things that will happen, it needs to happen, and it's time for it to happen, and, you know, the awareness for rage, and i love football, i'm probably obsessed with it, but when i watch it, and when i watch the teams, it goes through my mind as the time just comes for this image and for this thing to be changed. this is the nation's capital, and its institutions and the football team here is an institution, needs to be standing what's best for the future of the nation. i think it's just that tempo. >> excellent. we move from sports to entertainment. will someone speak to the role of media, music, and entertainment -- someone speak to the role it plays in

formulating our ideas about race. what is the responsibility of music, media, and entertainment? >> well, i started to talk about that a little earlier about the power of entertainment, the media, to really move hearts and mind. i think that's really, really important because art really touches one's soul in a different way than policy analysis or, you know, any of the other kinds of things that stimulates our thinking, and the progress that has to be made in terms of policy and other kinds of articulations of change, but really, touching people's souls and touching their hearts is really the way to open the people up to really engage in the kind of conversations that we are encouraged to have or the conversations that, you know, i encourage people to have with their children and families about how do you become that change? how do you grasp your own leadership, and how do you help contribute to organizing and

strengthening this country? i think it's very, very important. we've also seen the flip side of that, of how harmful media and entertainment can be to our own psyches, our own self-esteem when you don't see yourself in the media represented, certainly in the asian-american community, this is a huge issue that you don't really see asian americans except as foreigners, that whole perpetual myth of being a foreigner so that's harmful to how they view themselves, understanding their place in the world, and their community in the world. it's a very important part. if there's a way to bring together the civil rights community, even more strongly with the industries, that would be a wonderful partnership. >> i was just at a tech conference and talked to someone who works with black girls code and was reminded while we are

talking about -- while grownups talk about the influence of music, rap videos, our kids are in the basement playing video games, and i think it's important that we actually do -- this begun to expand our analysis to include content of the games and pointed out, i believe, that black females are very tiny percentage of who is portrayed. there's not usually the option of being a black female character, and those portrayed in the games are there to be victims, and things like that are powerful, and i think because people here grew up playing video games like pong or space invaders, the game -- [laughter] young people play are so hyperlife-like, and relations with them so intense that we should be paying more attention. >> i wanted to add, i think this

also has the media piece important because, you know, after the acquittal of george zimmerman, there was a discussion of race on tv, and depending on what station you watch determined what that discussion was going to be. was that about african-american males being more violent, or was that -- and saggy pants and all of that, or was the discussion going to be about the system that creates some of the problems that young black men face, and so, you know, and then you have the stations that kind of did a mix where you had a particular person with a rant, an african-american person anchor who had a rant about what started with the discussion about what happened on another channel, and he decided to have a discussion about the baggy pants, ect., but has opened

up -- i won't talk about it, but it was very offensive. i happened to be in the airport watching it screaming at the tv, like, what are you talking about? that conversation about race is not the conversation we should be having in this moment, but it's about why young black men are seen as less than human and are being killed on the streets and stalked and killed, and so i think, you know, media clearly can frame our politics and frame how people engage with our politics in the moment, and that responsibility is very important. >> excellent, back at twitter verse. where is the discussion about monetarily supporting primary education as a necessary step in educating america on race? >> i didn't hear the discussion because i think all of us on the stage believe it's a given that's what we have to do. we are going to go through another wave where people are

recognizing early education. we've been through several waves and never seem to carry it through. this time is our opportunity to make sure not just the federal government, but the states live up to their responsibility to young children because we all know, we all know that it talks about the fact that if you got a good, solid, preschool education, you are less likely to drop out of high school, less likely to be in prison, and much more likely to earn more money than those kids who did not go to preschool, and it's a given. we all have a crisis right now. i mean, black and latino children are more likely to be in schools -- public schools that are being closed. as we see this fiscal crisis playing out in cities across the country, our children are on the short end of that stick, and i think that we have to recognize that this is part and parcel of the dismantling of the public good of public education. if we allow this to happen, what

we will see is more privatization, more charters run by nonprofits and private companies, more testing, more money being made out of education than what we are putting in in terms of really actually teaching our children and giving them really sound basis for becoming citizens, and so we have to keep that -- that is really one of our main crisis is public education and how we save it for our children. >> we see privatization just not in the private schools and charter schools, but the public school system itself, and on, you know, the opportunity structures creating private schools in predominantly white suburban communities, the sociologist calls this a version of opportunity hording, and, you know, i think income inequality and structural racism are

closely tied #. we're not going to achieve the goals we're all seeking here without breaking down structures of privilege, and folks sending kids to those schools are not going to give it up without a fight. there's two separate structures for poor kids of color, and the rest of society right now, and that's most prominent in the school systems, and pouring more money is not going to address the problem ultimately. this is reproduced in higher education. there was a study from georgetown university last week, huge disproportion between white kids graduating from high school, attending elite colleges -- vast majority of new enrollments for black-latino kids in the noncompetitive two and four year schools as open enrollment. there's a huge split going on right now increasing, a racial split, with more whites going to

colleges and black and latino kids getting sent to schools that have lower resources per kid and lower quality outcomes in terms of graduation and employment after graduation. that's one of the things president obama spoke to this week talking about rating colleges, you know, other issues, but folks get benefits of the opportunities are not going to give them up without a fight. >> all right. from the church house to the schoolhouse now. lisa harper, one of the attendees here today says, the march on washington in 1963 was fundamentally led by the church. what is the role of the faith community today? >> i'll say a bit about that. i mean, i think historically one of the ways in which we gotten off course is for the religious

community, the black church specifically, in some ways to have been separated from the movement we are building, and i think reconnecting this and understanding and not forgetting it's fundmently immoral site to define the country we live in and it needs to be led by religious leaders, and we are seeing the most powerful organizing on the ground in response to trayvon, in response to levels of organ gun violence being led by the religious community, multifaith, multiracial, and i think it's academicked as a movement that civil rights movement, a movement for racial and social justice in the country, entertainment, religion, and even sports. we have to connect to people where they are at, and we have to make sure we're not disconnected from things moving people. >> there's a reason why the civil rights leadership was

distinctly administered because they had independent jobs. they didn't owe their jobs to working for a company or institution so they took a position that might be controversial. they couldn't be fired. i mean, there's a practical reason, and that independence, and so sometimes in the community, those who have a degree of economic independence can play a large role, so there's another reason, a philosophical reason, but there's a practical reason. >> they are going to fire me. we are past the time. >> i have to say, also, that -- [laughter] absolutely -- >> ten seconds. >> -- in the look ofupty, look at nonjudeo christian states, since seven, muslim-american haves been profiled and level of hate violence increased significantly, and so whether it be buddhist or muslim or faith based communities, they have to

be incorporated in our sense of justice and our sense of bringing our communities together. >> let's give the pam a hand. welcome back dr. christopher, thank you, it's been a pleasure. [applause] >> i really can't adequately sum up how wonderful and historic and as my godmother used to say, precious, this morning has been with all of you. it is amazing. five years ago, we could not have had this conversation. this conversation today, with this audience, remits progress. we need to take heart right now and realize we're not where we were five years ago. we could not have had this kind of honesty and incollusive representation of the future of our country, and we can have it now, and we must seize momentum as of now as panelists said

eloquently. we wouldn't be having the need for this work if there was not still the residual belief that some people are better than others. when we talk about what will it look like when we have victory, and i started saying "when," not "if," but when racism is eradicated. race is a social construct. it does not exist. every branch of science tells us that we are one how many family. the genome has demonstrated there's less than 1 is% difference in us. what does that mean? we have to teach our children that. they have to open their books and say, you know, there was a time when america believed in racial hierarchy, and this is all the harm we created because of that belief, but we are now a

different america. that's what our children have to learn. the wk kellogg foundation is humbled and privileged to partner with these organizations and remember hundreds and tens of hundreds of more in this country who have the courage and i emphasize courage because it takes courage to do this work. we applaud those who have the courage, but we know, if we took all money that exists in the world of philanthropy in every foundation, we would be putting a drop in the ocean that is required to do this work. i say to you, the public sector must invest in this work. the private sector must invest in this work. the future of our country requires that we get it right, that reeradicate the scourge and its consequences of the absurd

notion that some children have less value than others. when you leave here today, please leave with a sense of determination and commitment knowing that this is our work, the work of the century, and, please, take on that work as a part of your everyday life, not just on the memorial and remembrance of dr. king's wonderful leadership and courage and sacrifice and the hundreds and thousands who sacrificed with him but this is our work, everyday work. ultimately, our health and health of the nation will be greatly enhanced when we've done this work. it's a social determinant of health and well being, and so when we address this, we'll do much more than an affordable care act could ever do. i love the affordable care act.

it has to happen. it has to be fixed where it's not perfect, but it is a wonderful victory, but true health for our country dpentsdz on healing our hearts and our human need to be addressed, the need to be in a relationship, to be loved, and to be connected, and not to be discriminated against as an other. thank you very much for being with us today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> to have the best place for me to end remarks today is by giving him or her some advice, a kind of open letter to my successor. in this letter, i will tell the new secretary that you will confront everything i've discussed today, the evolving threat of terrorism, devastating natural disasters, and the need for strong border security and

immigration enforcement. you'll need to forge strong relationships with all of our partners including congress to make sure dhs has the resources it needs to meet our responsibilities to the american people. you will need to continue our work to move to a risk based, intelligence driven security system as we've done at our airports with programs like t certification a prechecks and global end try, which expedite known travelers through security and customs. you need to support science and technology research, building on the more than 2.2 billion dollars we've invested over the past four and a half years to strengthen raid logical and nuclear security measures. you have to recapitalize the coast guard so it meets its ever-growing mission. you will need to continue to ensure the security of key

leaders and events of national significance, and you'll face new challenges that we have begun to address, but that need further attention. our country will, for example, at some point, face a major cyber event that will have a serious effect on our lives, our economy, and the everyday functioning of our society. while we have built systems, protection, and a frame work to identify attacks and intryings, share information with the private sector, and across the government, and develop plans and capabilities to mitigate the damage, more must be done and must be done quickly. you will also have to prepare for the increase in likelihood of weather-related events of a more severe nature as a result of climate change and continue to build the capacity to respond to potential disasters in far flung regions of the country that could occur at the same time.

you must continue to integrate the department, what i refer to as dhs3.0, and lead it its into the next stage of development and operation. through challenging fiscal times like the ongoing impact of the sequester. you will need a large bottle of advil. [laughter] now, some have said being the secretary of dhs is the most thankless job in washington. that's not true. no doubt there's a big and complex job, literally a 24/7 job, but as my successor learns, it's one of the most rewarding jobs there is. what we do here matters to the lives of people all across the great nation. your decisions affect them in direct, tangible ways. you make sure their families are safe from terrorist threats, that their local first

responders have equipment and training and funding, and that when disaster strikes, people who have lost everything are given food and shelter, and hope, and the thanks for that is not owedded by any single individual or cabinet secretary, but to the 240,000dhs employees, many of whom work in tough conditions around the clock to accomplish our shared and noble mission, and that includes some who have made the ultimate sack figs for -- sacrifice for our country. >> one of the things i looked at in exploring this was i looked at a lot of the county records in which these -- the counties, what the policies are, and when you look at the colonial county records, you ask the name of the president or the name of the professor, and then you list it with the taxable property. will be an enslaved person or two or three.

>> host: did students bring -- >> guest: students -- >> host: students brought slaves to school with them? >> guest: yes. if you think about this, what happens is if you look at the name of the president and three lines over, part of the taxable property is an enslaved person, and what you have, for instance, in the case of princeton or harvard, you'll actually have the president's name, ditto, the college. well, who owns -- when, in the sort of common knowledge of the town, of the local areas, the president and the college are kind of inseparable anyway. >> elite universities and the past intertwined with slavery sunday night at nine part of the three-day holiday weekend on c-span2, and book club returns in september with "this town: two parties, a funeral, and plenty of parking".

>> yesterday, energy secretary said that climate change is not debatable, and that the evidence is overwhelming. in remarks at columbia university in new york, the tech stair said president obama's climate plan is not a war on coal as some critics suggested. this event runs over an hour. >> so, today, i'll say a few words starting out with an area in which, you know, this region, this institution, maybe all of you can help provide some leadership. unfortunately, leadership opportunity that partly has a genesis in the tragedy of hurricane sandy and will come back to the specifics there. the -- we, obviously, saw the devastation of the region's critical infrastructures, energy

infrastructures, the effects on the energy infrastructures were amplified by the interdependencies of the infrastructures such as electricity goes out, turns out, getting fuels was tough, and, frankly, that's an example of something that was not fully appreciated until the experience occurred. in that event, which it's hard to remember. it was less than a year ago. it seems a long time. [inaudible conversations] okay, great, okay. the -- the president, certainly, started a strong response with a kind of no red tape edict that put the full force of the federal government behind the region's response, critical was strong collaboration with the

states, the governors, and other leaders. he put together a multiagency task force working together under the leadership of the hud secretary, shawn donovan, and i think since that time, the administration maintained its strong commitment to respond, and what i want to come back to in the end is that response certainly has a strong focus in terms of helping individual citizens rebuild their homes, their lives, ect., but something that will, again, come back to, very important component, is that we have to help this rebuilding in a smart way, in a way that prepares energy infrastructures, not for the last of them, but for the next storm, for the next possible, major disruptions, and i think that's where there's a real chance for leadership here in

the northeast corridor as one starts that rebuilding from sandy's impacts. of course, these events, this extreme weather event, obviously, are not unique to this part of the country, but if it's hurricane in the gulf, the southeast, knocking out power for 5 million people, mid atlantic, just recent cases in point, and, in fact; in the last ten years, we've been hit by nine of the ten most expensive hurricanes in our history, costing well north of $300 billion, so this ideas of responding to increased resilience, i think, is critical. since these recent events, unfortunately, are likely hair bon jeers of things to come, seems likely to be repeated as carbon emissions from human activity threaten to alter the

global climate consistent with the long standing expectations of the climate science community. clearly, one, we understand, we cannot label a specific event to warming, but statistically, we also know that the pattern is unmistakenbly along the lines of those anticipated for quite some time. today, i'm going to talk about the president's climate action plan, what we're doing to prepare for change in climate, how we are working to try to mitigate its effects, and then after talking a little bit about that, i'll return to the issue of the infrastructure and the resilience that we need in building for a low carbon future, but nevertheless, a low carbon future in which we have to expect we will be suffering some of the consequences of climate change.

my first day as secretary, i was quoted as saying, and i will say the quote was accurate, i'm not here to debate what's not debate able. the evidence is overwhelming. the science is clear, certainly clear for the level that one needs for policymaking in terms of the real and urgent threat of climate change. the science community is inherently conservative in the statements about, you know, near consensus positions, and it is open to questioning drowned in data and analysis, and that's, of course, appropriate, but, still, the overwhelming conclusion, certainly for the policy world, is that prudence demands strong common sense near term policy actions to minimize the risks the global warming, and that's what the president's climate action plan does in the absence of legislative remedies. last week, the -- as we know,

the draft findings of the most recent analysis by the u.n.'s ippc, whether it was officially released or not, talked about, again, major issues coming up, including issues like three feet of sea level rise in this century, and a 95% probability that human activity is a principle driver of the issues, so, again, the empirical evidence clearly continues to mount, and rising temperatures, fires, droughts, more intense storms posing serious threats to our communities, but also to our energy infrastructure with a case in point being the recent california declaration of state of emergency for san fransisco as forest files over a hundred miles away threaten the power lines that provided power to that city. as most of you know, 84% of

carbon emissions are energy related. mother nature is returning the favor, exacting a toll on the health and reliability of our energy infrastructure. in july, d urges e released a report detailing impacts, and here's a short list of the threats of climate to our energy infrastructure. gulf of mexico produces half of u.s. crude and natural gas, contains nearly half the total u.s. refining capacity, rising sea levels, storage serges could cost industries as much as $8 billion a year in 2030. power projection units at risk of partial or full shutdowns. less water, higher temperatures. last summer, a plant in illinois had to get special permission from the nrc to continue operating after the temperature of the water in its cooling pond rose to 102 degrees. unconventional oil and gas production, increasingly

vulnerable to decreasing water availability at the same time that the u.s. is relying more and more heavily on these energy sources. renewable energy is not exempt, hydropower, energy, concentrating solar power, all share vulnerabilities to water. electric grid carries less current operating less efficiently with higher temperatures, fuel transport by fuel, barge, unconventional energy susceptible to interruption from storms and floods, and as we see here in the eastern sea board and gulf of mexico, energy infrastructures along the coasts have a risk of sea level rises, storm surges, and flooding. in effort to mitigate and adapt to the impacts, on june 25th, president obama had a broad plan to cut carbon emissions, clean energy, and double down. the need to agent is urgent. the president's climb action

plan utilizes substantial authorities and resources of the executive branch engaging all agencies in meeting the imperative. the president expressed the continuing desire to work with congress on legislative solutions, but in the meantime, we'll focus on doing all that we can with current administrative authorities. i'm not going to go into detail in terms of all the specifics of the plan, but note that due plays a lead roll role in the number of actions called for and as a member of the interagency team and others, and i'll talk about a few of these. one is the need to improve efficiency, which, to my way of thinking, is an absolutely essential element for any credible response to climate change, risk mitigation to the kinds of lowering of carbon e possessions we need, not just in

this decade, but in the decade ahead. in fact, the first official event i attended after being confirmed as energy secretary two hours after being sworn in was alliance to save energy meeting. i did so to underscore commitment to achieve critical objectives, near term carbon emissions with compounded benefits over time, and reduce the energy bills of american consumers and businesses. this include r included working with expedite range of efficiency rules that were, in many daises, long overdue. this dialogue produced a time rule for standbuy efficiency of microwave ovens, and two weeks ago proposed rule for lamp fixtures. the microwave oven rule was the first to employee carbon

analysis developed by an interagency task force estimating kind of a central value of $36 per ton of c02 well within the spectrum of other analysis and perhaps on the low end. we published a schedule to put out more rules, and this is a new way of approaching between due and omb, and we're on track. we said we'd have two more rules issued this month, august, and we're pretty much on track for commercial freezers and commercial refrigeration, and there's a proposed rule for electric motors in november and will finalize all four rules by may of 2014 as we continue to work through a now defined

schedule for many, many more efficiency rules. the savings for the rule, you know, may sound small given the magnitude of the climate problem. typically, it may be a few billion dollars and ten megatons in carbon die yox ide in 30 years, but the impact is considerable which is why we have to stay on this course of putting through technology grounded rules for a whole range of appliances and the like. in fact, on this appointment, i would raise a 2001 report from the national academy of sciences that examine due's fossil and energy proficiency portfolios in their first 20 years and concluded the 22 programs they analyzed, which cost about $13 billion total between 78 and 2001, yielded economic benefits of about $40 billion.

that's substantial return on investment. an interesting part of the story is the study attributed to three quarters of the benefits, $30 billion, to three efficiency programs that cost $11 million. even reallitively small efficiency programs can, in fact, yield huge results in economic benefits and reductions in carbon emissions. again, we're going to be very, very strongly focused on advancing the energy agenda in multiple domains, and, certainly, with our responsibility for rule making, i assure you we'll maintain strong pressure in the direction. another key provision of the president's climate plan directs epa to issue rules for cutting carbon emissions for new and existing power plants. power sector, single largest source of c02 emissions in the united states, and as such, action is applauded by many as the most significant step the president can take to reduce

carbon emissions dismissive of legislation action. it's also -- the directive's been derided by some to a, quote, war on coal. the former is certainly true, that it is the most significant step the president can take right now with executive action, but the charges of war on coal, i argue, are dhon straiting misunderstanding or misstatement of what is being called the all of the above approach to u.s. energy policy. the reason is that in the view of the administration, how we approach this is we have to reduce emissions. there's a near term target of 17% reduction from 2005 to 2020, and we're halfway there, but the

idea is all of the above means we'll invest in the technology research, development, and demonstration so that all of our energy sources can be enabled as marketplace competitors in a low carbon energy world. that's what we mean by "all of the above," and it doesn't start taking emissions off the table. it starts with co2 reductions on the table and a boundary condition, if you like, for going forward, but then, if you look at what are we doing about in terms of the fossil energy sources, so in the climate action plan, there was a directive to issue a solicitation for up to $8 billion in loan guarantees for follow sis energy projects to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. there could be a bunch of them. one of my -- going back to the technology days, one of my favorites, for example, something like chemical looping, this is a new technology for utilizing coal in a way that, if successful, will dramatically reduce carbon capture costs. that's just one example. we have advanced power, very, very flexible, but saying come forward with good ideas to stretch the technology in fossil-based sources reducing co2 emissions. of course, the big one for coal in a low carbon world has to be carbon capture, sequestering, utilization of the c02, and, again, to be blunt, there was a lot of talking the talk for many, many years because the

reality is to demonstrate at large scale which will be needed for large scale sequestering and deep aquifers, for example, these are not independencive projects, but big projects. this administration is walking the talk, $6 billion in this administration put on the table for demonstrating these technologies at scale, so this is what we mean. we're committed to the low carbon world, but we advance the technology development for all sources to be competitive, obviously, renewables, which, by definition, is low carbon, nuclear power as well, could discuss those later on, but you wanted to take head on this issue that this is not a war on coal, quite the contrary, and it is preparing the way for coal to have, potentially, a place in

the low carbon world we believe is essential as we go forward. .. first is so supporting a large and diverse 34.4 billion port follow you of more than thirty projects including one of the world's largest wind farm and solar generation and thermal

energy storage systems. first new commercial nuclear power plant in three decades and more than a dozen new or retooled auto manufacturing plants across the country. i might mention here being in new york that there are strong new york roots for this program, richard coughman played a key role in advising on the loan program and our real is also coming from new york. let me give an example of the program working the way it's supposed to. utility scale projects. 2009, 100 megawatt plants in this country were not existent. and commercial financing particularly debt financing was simply unavailable. so using recovery act fund the department's loan program office financed the first utility scale pv projects in the united states. since those investments were

made, ten new utility scale projects were funded by the private investor community. so i think, you know, you just have to gate kick start and going. another great example -- you've probably been reading about. the loan to teases will of nearly a billion dollars in june of 2009 this was originated. it was viewed as risky, and that was the low point of the american auto industry. it was the same month gm declared bankruptcy, it was the lowest number of jobs in the auto industry we had in a long time. it was risky, but the portfolio was supposed to take some risk and push it ahead. now, of course, as we all know, teases -- teases will is looking like a great success. they repaid our loan nine years earlier than due.

they provided a prepayment premium for the taxpayer. they have been called by consumer reports the best car they have tested. not the best electricity vehicle they tested. the best car they have tested. it's a little bit pricey. [laughter] for some of the people in this room, but it's a business model that is introducing this new technology. you probably also saw that it was essentially rated the safest vehicle tested recently, and the architecture of it as an electric vehicle was part and parcel of the safety success. and then 2014, 3,000 jobs right now in california, and in 2014 starting a export business. when i was in paris about a month and a half ago the american ambassador said he understood there were 25,000 orders in paris alone for the

car for next year. so, you know, i think this is what this program is about to do. of course not every investment is going succeed, and frankly, i think warn you about the program if everyone did. but the track record is quite remarkable. the current and projected losses of the taxpayer on the project investment, in our view, is a very unlikely to exceed 10% of the loan loss reserve fund that congress voted in. 2% of the overall portfolio and less than 10% of the loan loss reserve fund. i think most wall street performers might be pretty pleased with that perform. so another key part, the department of energy has been very engaged in driving down the cost of low carbon solution.

and the department has been certainly the forefront of the administration's attempt to stimulate the science and technology innovation required in this administration. new approaches to innovation have been put -- energy technology innovation have been put in place, energy problem frontier. we are innovating in how we stimulate innovation. i think these are extremely promising programs. we have seen -- we renewable energy from doubled. and what is important the point i want to make is critical reduction in the price of several energy technology and going take a moment to look at those in a bit more detail. is this -- i can't see the slide.

[inaudible] okay. that's for wind. what you're going to see is four slides, four different areas for technologies showing costs over time the blue bars, and green deployment. and the basic message is dramatic cost reduction and the dramatic deployment decreases inspect is wind since twaig it's nearly tripled and the fastest growing source of capacity last year. 44% of new generating capacity in 2012 was wind. as you can see, going back to some time dramatic reduction to one is talking about levellized cost of 6 cents per kilowatt

hour. again, dramatic reduction. this is only since 2008 deployment increased by a factor of 10 and pv module, they cost about 1% of what theyd thirty five years ago. more important, we can argue whether it's a true cost or this is a chinese cost or whatever, but the fact is the module pv module available for about 80 cents a watt and reminder the long standing holy grail has been about 50 cents a watt. this is tremendous progress. in fact now it's the soft costs that we have to work on more to get those -- down. you see the cost of deployment. i'll pause here just to say that is a what is coming is when

energy incumbent start to seriously re-examine their business model in the face of what is happening. so many of you have seen today, for example, there are some -- shall we call them discussion, that are going on between the solar sphri and utility for example in terms of how our distributed pv systems paid for electricity back to the grid, how our things like distribution system costs shared, et. cetera, et. cetera. it was only a few years ago when nobody cared. the message is in all of these -- i have two more to go through. you know, the future may not always be ten years away as i believe a lot of these technologies are beginning to establish their positions and

certainly with policy actions on climate front will only be helped further. another example led lights. last five years cost of super efficient led fallen more than 85 percent and sales. big surprise are taking off. the today we're up to about 20 million fixtures, and there are many attractions for the led. of course, the problem islet say for the 80 watt lightbulb equivalent we talk now about $20 for that fixture. 25,000 years of life. 25 times that of a regular bulb. other than having this upfront capital costs, the economics are clear.

especially with using only 20% of the power. in fact the estimate is the lifetime savings of that one 60 watt bulb replaced by the equivalent led over the 25,000-hour lifetime are well north of $100 a bulb. so you to make a $20 upfront investment. this is coming. in fact as a side i'll say this does not even count the hidden costs of what you may need to do to replace the bulb twenty five times. particularly if you have a hotel, let's say, lights way up. you have the maintenance person. the ladders, et. cetera, et. cetera -- coming in. the o'sha violations. so, you know, there are also hidden savings which can be very substantial. and finally for welcome vehicles

and batters, again, this shows a factory of reduction in the batters in just a relatively short time. that can go back to our tesla discussion where the cost become much more affordable. but the real message is if we come down another factor of four, we're getting to the range where welcome vehicles of significant range and much more mass appeal become possible. so, you know, this deployment -- the green curve, just to give you a reference point, we may be talking about about 100,000 welcome vehicles this year. more than predicted a short time ago, and this rate of increase in the early stages is substantially greater than that we saw for hybrid vehicles.

these are inherently simpler vehicles, high performance, et. cetera. so that is just kind of a sampling of these kind of four different technology areas where i think there still is often a persistent idea these are somehow decades away. i think a lot of energy incumbent are beginning to think in a different way. how am i doing on time? i probably should -- okay. i'm going switch to -- and then the last topic, that's going back now to how i started when i discuss sandy and climate preparedness. again, the president's climate action plan basically reflected a majority -- i would call step change in recognizinged a -- edadaptation but recognizing we

cannot turn away from adaptation. we are now bringing a south of tog meet the challenge. this morning i was in new jersey, in sea caucus seeing an mou with governor christie. i think it's a perfect model of rebuilding in ways that are going to be resilient to the vehicle. -- future the project which will be designed at the national laboratory. they already designed 25 microgrids for military installations, but now this will be adapting the pools to a civilian environment, a critical infrastructure environment, basically the transit in the northeast cor corridor between trenton and newark at the bigger

scale. we're talking about distributed generations asset within the microgrid clearly exceeding 50 megawatts. the idea is, again, that this will take a key part of the infrastructure, including, by the way, for manhattan. that is an important evacuation corridor for manhattan if there's a major problem. it will address resilience, it will address economic benefits by providing what is in effect a smart grid. these are the -- this is the way that we are also in the president would forward for us to be thinking about resilience. it's not just about building seawalls as important as it may be or elevating structures close to the sea. but it's also about building smart as we readdress the infrastructure and use this as perhaps an opportunity to develop the 21st century

infrastructure. the -- in fact should say in new york my understanding is the sea level in new york harbor is about a foot higher than it was a century ago. we begin to understand the sense iftd to all of these climate actions, and we applaud new york for a number of steps it's taken, including, by the way, establishing a green bank for efficiency and clean energy technologies. i would add that we are also going focus a doe in the coming years on much more work with the states because we believe this is a critical area for testing things out for drawing upon the creativity that states cities have been showing in term of energy and climate policy.

so finally i'll just add that whether it comes to emergency response and this adaptation part of the agenda, the department of energy is -- for our own responsibilities is is head of what is called emergency support function twelve under the fema. basically as the lead department for addressing energy infrastructure issues. we already operate the northeast heating oil reserve. we operate the strategic petroleum reserve on our nuclear weapons activity that david alluded to. we have had long standing operational emergency response for nuclear incidents, for controlling nuclear weapons materials globally. this is a new step out for us in term of a major operational requirement in the civilian sector, if you like, working with all of our energy

companies. and to do partly to do this, have the department of energy had a reorganization looking how our undersecretaries are deployed basically assigning one of our three undersecretaries to focus on management and performance so all of the operational questions we are looking to upgrade our focus on that. i should add that in term of grid, and resilience, of course, extreme weather is one issue. in addition things like cybersecurity are an increasing threat one to which we are also dpe voting -- devoting much more attention. i think given the time, i'm going pretty much end there. the -- i would be happy to take questions on the energy review,

for example. but i think the message is i hope clear. one, we are -- our program in energy and department of energy is clearly directed by the president's climate action plan. that's our focus. to do so, we will upgrade our efficiency work. we will continue to drive to help drive down the cost of low carbon alternatives across the board. all of the above. as we support also the work of other educations like the epa in addressing climate. but at the same time as the president said, we have to acknowledge that we are seeing and will see more, frankly, of the impact of climate. so we must also look how we develop our energy infrastructure for that future and infrastructure that serves

our economic goals but also provide robustness and resilience against extreme weather events. with that i thank you for your attention. and happy to take some questions. [applause] [inaudible] >> we're going come to do that but maybe do it in a right order. about half the cards we just elected to run that question. we will come to it. [inaudible] >> so we have about just under about twenty to twenty five minutes for questions with secretary. we have been -- we've been collecting them with cards about half of them were related to hydraulic fracturing. this is new york. and so if you want to start with one. that's start with that one. there's at love concern here around the country. also here in new york about

shell gas development. what is your view of the role of natural gas plays in a low-carbon economy. what action the government is taking to get there. >> so first of all, it is a fact that in the last years the natural gas revolution, shall we say has been a major contributor to reducing carbon emission. the president has a goal, as i mentioned of 17% by 2020, we're about half way there. and about half of that is because of the institution of natural gas for coal in the power sector. essentially driven by the market forces. in my previous life we did a study on natural gas, if you ask

the question upfront is it part of the problem or solution for climate change? we reached the conclusion, yes. yes. that is certainly in the near term and for potentially for some years out without carbon capture would be a major contributor to reducing carbon emissions. but in the longer term assuming we're cranking down hard on car bob emission then eventually gas itself would have to have carbon ture or it would be too intensive. that's the classic definition of the bridge to the future and we need to work on those -- technologies. now, next question is there's a lot of controversy around

methane emissions, and first of all, again, actually in the president's climate action plan, there was specifically a callout for are trac -- addressing what you might call the non-co2 greenhouse gases. where we are working -- in fact we had an agreement with china to work on that and methane. on methane we currently have an inner agency group formed the president's direction headed by the epa, including department of energy, department of entire your -- inor it your, and department of agricultural. for example, to look at methane e -- emissions. we are close contact with the environmental defense fund of course had a major study of their own on methane. on methane emissions. the we will see what comes out

of that. we're going to remove people from the room if they shout out. >> the data currently look as though the more on the low side of the estimate and methane emissions. we will -- [background yelling] >> will you please let the secretary answer the question. >> he's talking about something else than what i'm talking about. [inaudible] >> the question has been asked and the secretary is answering it. let him answer the question, okay? >> the current data suggests it's an incorrect statement, but we will be exploring it. secondly, we will expand the study from the narrow focus around emissions at the well to emissions and to end including in the transportation infrastructure. the other thing in addition to

methane production at the well, of course, there are technologies that rein creasingly being used to capture the methane, in fact, as an aside, those can also be used beneficially in the environmental context in the sense that, for example, it's a lot better to use natural gas enginings to drive the -- engines to drive the fracking fuel than key key sill engine. there's a third point. i'm trying to remember what it was. [inaudible] the i forgotten the third point. that's where we are. again, there's no issue in determine of co2 emissions. i know, what the third was. and then comes the issue of the safety in term of fracking

itself. and? -- there again each of the issues to be addressed i would argue has clear solutions, but they're being -- but the technologies -- the issues being manageable while we said is not the same as being managed. we have to have consistent applications of best standards through regulatory and other approaches. so i think that's the overall program, and that's what we're doing. >> let me broaden the question. there's question about natural gas and fracking. a lot of them on the cards and fugitive methane. there are some broadly about thoughtful fuel without the all-of the-above. why promote increase fossil fuel production. you spoke pass --

pass nately the administration has also welcomed dramatic increase in oil and gas through unconventional technology here in the country. i think some people view them as having tension or being hard to reconcile. perhaps you talk a little bit how the public should understand hue they should fit together and consistent. the right way to think about being serious about climate and the fact that the u.s. has a potential to significantly increase the oil and gas production. certainly. the first of all, let's start with the ground truth. 80% of our energy today is fossil derived. the transportation sector is

within 10% ethanol. but is largely dependent end upon oil as the transportation fuel. i talked here about hopefully going to a future where we see more electricity vehicles using lo carbon electricity going forward. but the reality is in the energy business, it's extremely lard to see very, very rapid changes in the deployment. so we have to -- we have to be practical. pragmatic, totally committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. doing so as and accelerating that with the extent we can with the current reality. let me go to your specific question about gas and oil. first of all i would say there are different questions.

on the oil side, our production has gone up substantially. in fact, in the last five years, the added capacity in global oil production in the united states has been by far the biggest contributor. bigger than the next three combined. that's mainly from the unconventional type oil. here what we're doing -- what we're seeing here is a institution for imports. this has significant economic benefits. it's not changing the carbon balance specifically. but it is certainly reducing our balance of payment substantially. it wasn't long ago we were spending a billion dollars a day on imported oil. that's now at the lowest level in many years in our production is at the highest level in many years.

the but in the spirit of what i said how i define all of the above we are working assiduously in multiple areas to reduce oil dependence. the president pushed the unprecedented cafe standards. a doubling of fuel efficiency by 2025. that's already having an effect. we are working on next generation biofuel, and as one saw, the especially the battery technology that is key to electric vehicle penetration. but other things for vehicles new material, which, by the way, was part of the tesla safety success as well, i might add. we are producing more oil, we are reducing imports, and we are working to reduce oil dependence at the same time. on natural gas, a little bit different.

maybe i should have said, if you look at the cost of removing the marginal ton of co2-broad terms probably lowest for -- and highest for transportation. so that is the one that is going to be a little bit harder, frankly, in terms of getting this transition. now, natural gas serves three major sectors of the united. almost equally. heating, electricity, and industrial applications. the on the electricity is where we are seeing the large growth. because of the low prices. again this has been beneficial for our carbon e division. it's why we are lead industrialized economy that is actually reducing carbon emissions, but going forward, again, not just sitting on

this. we are pushing solar hard, wind. we are just going to go to the first support for offshore wind, for example, a place where cost reduction is required. nuclear provisional guarantee to see if new nuclear power plants built in the united states come in on budget and reasonable. even as gas takes a more prominent place in the mix. that's our fellow if -- philosophy. we have to keep working on those alternatives that will support a very low carbon economy in the future. >> i'm going take the questions roughly in the order of preponderance. they sort of stack up. shell gas development and fugitive methane was the largest gas. >> like two kilograms worth

there. >> the next largest is on the export of natural gas. i suspect you may not be very specific in answering this question. [laughter] the question along the line of how much and when and how many dais until the next permit. assuming you may not answer that question maybe more broadly is the two -- i'll say the two recent or orders are quite forceful in explaining why the department fought exports were in the public interest. they talk about a need to look at i don't know if hypothetically speaking you talk about the things you are monitoring and look at. what sort of scenario in the future might lead to 2000 a different conclusion whether it's in the public interest. >> that's an excellent question. [laughter] next. [laughter] >> okay. >> no, no. well, look, i think first of all, the audience may not be as

quite as familiar. the department of energy is called upon to license applications for the export of natural gas to nonfree trade agreement countries. for countries with a free trade agreement it's essentially automatic unless there was some clareing issue to make it not of the public interest. that's sort of like mexico in the newscast nafta. most of the market for natural gas are countries that do not have free trade agreement with the united states that includes europe, japan, india. so we have to judge on those. as jason applied. the department has issued three licenses one of them is final. and i should caution just note as statement of fact the last two we issued and the last few months are provisional

licenses. they need to go through the process, for example, which is run out of firk. environmental review is needed to come back for a final license in the first case the first license granted i think that was about a year in between the provisional and the final license. even then the project is not exporting. it's still a couple of years away from exports. these are large capital investments. a billion dollar scale, and one has to arrange customers and suppliers to make the project going. going forward what we have said is this is established before i was secretary that we evaluate the applications case by case rupply speaking in the order submitted. there's a publish order.

and we just work through the next one. there's no secret. the only one on the east coast and now evaluating that application. impact on the economy. the market conditions are an issue. we will monitor that. as you say, it's published that the department will be looking at market conditions in the context of cumulative commitment to export. those are the ground rules. repeated what you have said. but i will note in obvious issue that -- it's going to be something we

have to face at some point down the road in terms of how we evaluate those projects together in term of what it might do with market impact. >> we have ten more minutes. i'm going move as quickly as i can. there are several questions about nuclear energy. you know a little bit about it. what you think should be done to handle the indian -- what is stopping us from establishing more sources of nuclear power? >> well, i'm not going comment on the indian point plan specifically. the first of all, i must say i probably don't know enough about the specific of the indian point plan. the -- if i take the bigger picture, there are several issues. one is as i already alluded to, the department did issue a provisionalled -- dlg 8 billion loan guarantee for

the first two nuclear power plants in georgia. there are two additional ones in south carolina. so there are four next -- kind of next half generation i would say nuclear plants being built. they have some new safety features, et. cetera. i think the big question with those plans is going to be do they get built on budget and, you know, more or less on budget and schedule. if they do, then i think they probably be a relook in some places for new nuclear power plants. if they have very bad budget performance, as did some recently in europe, i think it will seriously cloud any future for such gig watt scale plant. i don't want to imply an issue now. the latest report from georgia and south carolina are

encouraging but still in the early stages of the project. the second issue, of course, is post fukushima, and there are clearly a number of steps they will be taking for licensees and licenses. they clearly there will be probably some increase in operating cost in responding to new regulations, for example, maybe a requirement for periodic seismic review as a posed to a one-time seismic review. how spend fuel is stored. we still don't know the full extend of what will be required. that will do some at least marginal increase of operating cost can which can be have an impact. the third and fourth things. the third thing, i would say is clear lay nuclear waste back end

remains an issue. i was a member of the blue ribbon commission prior to my becoming sector. and i and the administration position and the proposed nate bill are all aligned that we think the blue ribbon commission core recommendations newed to be followed, and those two are principally a consent-based process for nuclear storage facilities and be a dual track of consolidated dry cask storage, presumably under federal control, which eliminates our liability that we are paying utility, and secondly, the agree logical disposal track. the fourth nuclear point i wouldn't make there's some promise i emphasize. promise at this stage about kind of a new generation of reactor call maul module reactor. they are smaller unit.

maybe 200 megawatts maybe even smaller. and if these are economical, they diswrrnl have very attractive safety features, and they could be an important part of a nuclear future. but we won't know until we build some department of energy provided some assistance to move one and soon a second and possibly a third to licensing and the target date would be a first module reactor operating in 2022. >> great. there are a couple of questions about foreign policy and international energy particularly about the change in the north american energy landscape means for america's place in the world. the question one of the questions says in the past the u.s. conducted a defensive tackles countries like russia. protecting interest in the mideast given the revolution in shale oil and gas.

can you talk a little bit about what you see the geostrategic implication of the changing energy picture in the u.s. what the department's international priority are. you have announced a reorganization. what how the work will be managed moving forward. international energy policy will be managed. >> first of all, in term of the current situation with regard to the increasing gas and oil, the first of all, the substantial increase in natural gas production in the united states already had kind of a geopolitical consequence even though we have haven't exported anything. all the l went elsewhere like to europe, for example.

a lot was enthusiastic a few years ago. again there is a potential for dramatically shifting the flows of natural gas globally, and that will play out over the next decade, i would say. with regard to oil, i think the, again, the united states

becoming a large -- more significant producer is certainly plays in here, but i remind you, i think sometimes especially on the oil side or the assumption about geopolitical shift because of that tend to be perhaps overplayed. i would note, for example, that either we get very little of our imported oil from the middle east doesn't change our security posture in that part of the world. that is just a fact. right. there are many reasons we have many more security and security equities than just oil, but to

the extent which our key allies are subject to strong energy security problems. that inevitably influences our freedom of action in national security of foreign affairs. i think it's a much more complicated story bottom line if unconventional ruralses are developed strongly over the world over the next decade there's no doubt global markets will change and shifts will be different. and we'll see how it plays out. >> quickly one last one there. several questions how the administration thinks about incorporates renewable to the u.s. grid. the outlook for grid energy storage application. can you talk a little bit about the step the department is making to make the grid capable of taking more renewable along with the policy to drive that.

several things. first of all, we are looking hard -- refreshing road map in term of utility which can have an enormous impact. right now in term of the grid itself, a number of things, a number of activities. i'll mention one, for example, the using mainly using recovery funds the department has supported the deployment of a substantial number of what are called phasers in the transmission grid. so essentially making detailed phase measurements, and this is a issues there.

that's one example of what a call smart technology that we are trying to help to deploy, actually an example i mentioned in my remarking is this morning's event with governor christie in term of actually trying to move toward building a, i mean, a physical microgrid of nontrivial scale there. it will, by the way, include assuming the project goes forward to full construction. it will include a lot of integration and renewable in the microgrid as well. now, i think the there's a much bigger story in terms of especially remote large-scale renewable wind and solar, and there it's a big infrastructure issue. there i will just advertise the last part of the talk they didn't give. we are starting again it's in the president's climate action plan something called a energy

review. the department of energy will be the executive secretary. that has got resilience to natural event, cyber secure, and integrate large-scale renewable. and larm -- large-scale distributed systems. [inaudible] there are enough cards hopefully you'll spend more time with us again. and as you can see, there's a lot of interest and passion on these issues and we appreciate your taking some time talk with us today about the truly important issues that are at stake for the u.s. energy

outlook. [applause] follow us on twitter. please, remain seated until the energy secretary has left the room for about twenty more seconds. then we can all exit together. thank you again for coming today.

recently joined us to talk about an article he wrote about his time in government. watch that at 7:10 p.m. eastern on c-span2. and join us tonight for booktv. the focus will be on world war ii with author.

i was thinking this stoiment it could be a statesman-like move on the part of president obama in particular since the united states that canceled the senate meeting to request a one on one bilateral with president putin. but i think the chances of that happening are less than 5% slim to none. i think there's a high degree of anger on the part of the obama administration about relations with russia, and i think about mr. obama in particular in his

personal regard for mr. putin. i think that's what that comment about the personal comment about the slouching kid in the back of the room. it seems with that it's harder to imagine that you could see them pivot and kind of walk back and make the decision, well, in fact we would like to meet with you. maybe the situation in syria, which is extremely grave and dangerous could justify that. >> that is just a brief portion of an event from earlier. looking at the upcoming g20 ?ument russia. we'll have the entire program for you at 5:50 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. in our original series "first ladies influence and image" we look at the public and

private lives of the first ladies. we'll feature the first lady in their own words. >> the build of human rights would be one of the foundations built on which we would bit in the world an atmosphere piece could grow. >> i don't think the white house ever can completely belong to one -- it belongs to the people of america. and i think whatever lives it in the first lady should preserve it and enhance it. season two features 22 first ladies from the beginning of the century to the present. live monday night including your call, facebook comment, and tweets starting september 9th at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. illinois congressman representative called a town hall meeting on immigration monday in virginia. the chairman of the immigration task force where the

congressional hispanic caucus is traveling across the country to talk about immigration reform. earlier this summer, the senate passed bipartisan immigration legislation that include a pathway to citizenship. the house is not approved it, but could take up the senate bill or consider the own legislation after the august recess. this event runs about an hour and twenty minutes. [inaudible conversations] [applause]

[applause] [chanting] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] hole -- hola. [cheering and applause] [speaking in spanish] [applause] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [applause] [chanting] welcome to everyone. thank you so much. everybody. there are so many. i have some more formal remarks to make. we'll get to those in a minute. i want to make it absolutely clear that because of what you're doing today, we're going to demonstrate just how broad and how deep the movement is. it doesn't matter if it's in virginia or in mississippi or in illinois or in california. across this country, people are demanding comprehensive immigration reform, and the end

of the deportations of the direction of our families -- destruction of the family. someone in the -- i was in minneapolis-saint paul. the church was full. she bemoaned the fact that more people didn't come. they didn't come. and some were tired and frustrated and they were disillusioned. guess what? virginia is giving the example today no one has a right to be tired. [cheering and applause] nobody has a right to be disillusioned. nobody has a right to give up on this fight. because today 1,200 people will be deported. hundreds of children will be left without a poem -- mom or a dad. without husband or wife. the fear that permeates our community and the underclass that exploited every day has to come to an end. you don't are -- have a right to be tired. you have a responsibility to fight and make it a greater and better nation for us to live. virginia today is giving that

example. thank you so much. [applause] [cheering and applause] [inaudible] [speaking in spanish] immigration reform we have readers like congressman luis. i want to welcome -- [inaudible] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] ..

aptitude. [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [applause] [speaking in spanish] [applause] >> thank you very, very much. thank you so much. and now we are going to a program. please have a seat. [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] >> very, very important event. [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] >> virginia new majority. united. [speaking in spanish] [applause]

>> thank you so much. [speaking in spanish] please, you need to come back. welcome. we are going to have a very critical discussion today. very important. the impact of immigration reform . is so very important. we never speak about how important it is. now is the time. [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[applause] so it is very, very important that we have these conversations in particular, i just want to say one more time thank you to our leaders, are champions. the person to fight every single day and night in capitol hill. congressman luis gutierrez. [speaking in spanish] [applause] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] every single day and night trying to up when together republicans and then to pass immigration reform.

he is with us today. district ten, congressman wall, the republican who really believes that it is very important to my very important that he support immigration reform. now want to welcome all of you and in particular want to welcome lisa who is going to be the leader of the conversation today. thank you very much. add -- also professor of the georgetown university, a immigrant women. [applause] >> i would like to -- hello?

[inaudible conversations] thank you. i would like to take a moment to think our organizers for this opportunity to present to you and thank you all for coming to this important event to recognize the contributions of women and immigrants in this country. and the particular plight of immigrant women in this special issues that they face. this day honors that 19th amendment that forever changed our nation's by empowering millions upon millions of families, millions of women creating cultural, social, economic, educational, and political areas that are based on gender equality. women especially know the importance of coming together. we would not be where we are today without the help and support of the women in our lives to my sisters, our wives,

mothers, daughters, our friends. today we honor and celebrate our unique contributions a protecting families and giving equal opportunities in respect to all. we women know that it is not about what you look like or where you're from or what values have, but it is what you do that defines you in the united states it is not just about your background but also about what you are contributing to this country. and today's discussion will explore the particularly harmful immigration impact on women and children, women and children are often the ones left behind when fathers are deported, which is, of course the margin for the fathers. the women are left behind to hold the family together and support the family. they also suffer other types of

discrimination and suffer disparate impact from our immigration law and any proposed immigration law must address the special needs of women and children. we are joined today by service providers and immigrant women from across virginia's tenth district to are all committed to a positive change in our immigration laws. we are a part of a national network of organizations holding similar events to ensure that the needs of women and girls are front and center in any debate about comprehensive and aggression reform. these events are coordinated by we belong together. a national campaign to engage women and immigration reform and to ensure that the in reforms that are passed are both fair and inclusive to women, not just in words, but the actual implementation of the law. with that i'm like to introduce our panelists.

the managing attorney. advocating for low-income immigrants to direct legal, social, language services and training and our reach in northern virginia. our next panelist is actually the mother in fear of being separated from her children. the immigration reform is the only means of getting her family full access to the american dream. we then have the woman u.s. lived in northern virginia for 23 years. she is a single working mother. and she knows firsthand many single women and similar situations where they're desperate for immigration reform to pass out of congress. and finally we have maria. her family has been directly

impacted by the immigration crisis that has been the result of our broken immigration system. over the past several months she has become of local activists sharing her experience with federal legislatures. thank you all for being here. we're going to start with you. a couple of questions for our panelists. the first question that we would like you to address is if you could please describe the impact that you have seen have the immigration crisis, particularly on women and children. >> hello. thank you for having me. i think the major impact i have seen on women based on our word immigration system is based on the long separation * net many women and men have to spend away from the family members, namely the children. i have a lot of clients to have

been separated from their children for more than ten years. during the time they're separated and in many cases the horrible things have happened to their children. i have had children of my clients abroad to have been threatened by gang members, attacked by gang members, sexually assaulted. in a more volatile situation without a mother or father. so that is something that absolutely needs to be changed. also a lot of visa holders did not grant status for dependents, work permission. so a lot of women who come with their husbands who do have vises are still not granted work permission in the u.s. that is putting them in a very

dependent situation, which is especially problematic if there is in a domestic violence or something of that type. also, we have a lot of clients to our domestic violence victims the long wait times, just the way the system goes in general, sometimes it discourages women from leaving an abusive situation and protecting themselves and their children. i have seen a lot of women do to immigration policies in return to a very dangerous home situations, solely because the immigration system does not allow them to have the flexibility to leave and still be able to provide a roof over their heads for them and their children. thank you. along those lines, another issue that we think, the deportation context which is even if you do qualify for certain kinds of

relief, there are certain standards that have to be mad to prove extreme hardship, and it's very important to our congressional representatives to understand that breaking above family constitutes a extreme hardship. right now that is not really a concern, but it is a hurdle that people face in the deportation context as well as when they're coming back into the united states. of wanted to turn now, if you could share your thoughts with us. [speaking in spanish] happy to. [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[applause] >> thank you. now we will hear from baena. [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [applause]

>> thank you. could you describe for us the impact that you have seen of the immigration crisis, particularly on women and children? >> my experience to my cousin's. for example, by on just recently went through hard time. three kids, the oldest one just turned ten. by herself. a very strong woman. her husband left and disappeared leaving three kids -- leaving three kids and her alone. she's working hard every day with no hope of anybody. we giver support head teller to move forward.

to see her working, she has the right to be here, finished school. yet can go to college. can't even make it to a university or anything. it's really hard. case who wish to have higher education than just a school, a graduate from high school, can't go to universities in pay regular tuition fees there anything else. that's why i'm here supporting

the organization's. [applause] >> thank-you. so the second question that we have for our panelists, what role did you believe that women in particular have to play in advocating? >> in general i think the women have the unique ability to tell their stories and shared a unique situation that they have experienced based on the immigration system of other people. a congratulate the women next to me on the panel for doing so and would encourage the women out there in the audience to do this as well. a formal and informal. tell your story. so much more powerful to hear

your story then to hear me tell your story to someone else. that is to meet the strongest thing u.s. women can do to empower this movement, tell your story to anyone who will listen. people did not know what you go through every day. they need to. it is so important that your voice be heard. [applause] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] >> we are the center. [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] >> right now watching this event

through to the to get out of their enjoy our fight. the only way that we can win. talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors. thank you. [applause] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

>> as a woman i'm asking all women. not only women here. we are fighting for our families, for our kids and for the entire society. [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[inaudible] >> we are here because we are the center of women, the center of society. we have to keep fighting. a very simple. if i am deported who is going to take care of my kids, who is going to take care of my children? we love so much of families. we need to be here. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> now a big part, the voices heard now. there the ones.

also the group of them. they're working. [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] >> i voted already. so now is the time to stand up. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you. i want to give some background to congressman beauty areas, even though we olivary familiar with his excellent advocacy work in pushing legislation. now is a 11th term, congressman gutierrez has established himself as a congressional leader on behalf of his constituents in chicago and nationwide. his championing the causes of latino and the immigrant

communities have given a voice to the millions of undocumented immigrants that, our country come. on a national level there is no elected official more committed to were passionate about protecting and advocating tenant representative kitty areas. congressman gutierrez plays a key role in advocating for the comprehensive immigration reform bill that supports women and children, preserves unity and provides a pathway toward citizenship. the call for the preservation of the family unit the record level of deportation that has been occurring particularly of the last couple of years. his work for children and mothers is torn apart by broken immigration systems. thank you so much for joining us today. ..

>> 93 years ago, we celebrate 93 years ago that finally in this country women obtained the right to vote and that that they are using that right to vote to headache america a better lace for all of us to live in -- place for all of us to live in, to bring more justice and fairness. and we want to focus the conversation this afternoon a little more around women and

immigration. i think not enough has been said about our broken immigration system and how it impacts women. i wanted to share with you that it doesn't matter where i have visited, whether it's a garlic field in salinas, california, or a citrus grove outside of orlando or orchards out in oregon and in washington state. when i sit down and speak with women in the immigrant community, they all tell me the same thing. they share with he the horrible repressive conditions they work on, the sexual assaults and abuse they are submitted to each

and every day. and i just want every one to think if our country cannot protect our country and the armed forces of the united states of america where there have been thousands of cases of assault already documented, i want you just to imagine what happens to women out in the field every day that pick that met discuss, that -- lettuce, that pick the fruit, that pick the vegetables that are the cornerstone, the foundation of our agricultural business. but with it only happens to them there -- but it only happens to them there. i went out to iowa after a huge raid in postville, and i sat down there with the women, women with bracelets put on them as though they were criminals, women who could -- and the government went after them, but they didn't go after the men that had abused them for years. and they told me the same thing. they said to me, luis, if i

complain, if i do not submit, they simply call the police. and we have seen this time and time again. there are -- everybody talks about security, and i'm for security, but i want to tell you something, one of the greatest things that's going to happen with comprehensive immigration reform is that the millions of women will be given a document legalizing them in the united states of america so that they can take that document, and they can pick up a phone, and they can dial 911, and we can bring to justice the men that have exhoyted them for -- exploited them for so many decades. that is something that we must do as a nation. [applause] and so as we look at the most vulnerable of our immigrants, it is the women. we have seen massive deportations. in the next couple of months,

tragically, we will have reached two million deportations in the last five years. two million. 1200 today. 1200 tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day. and we see the burden on the women. i've been out to, we went out one time out to mississippi, and we were there, and then we went out to birmingham, alabama, and we were there, and we heard the same story time and time again. a woman's being abused, the neighbor woman calls up and guess who goes to jail? the man simply turns around and says that woman doesn't have papers. and what does law enforcement do? that's why you have to separate law enforcement from immigration policy. [applause] the police is there to recollect the people, and they have to -- to protect the people, and they have to protect the women in the family. i mean, it's fine and dandy to

talk about safety, but we have to understand just how safety really has a corrosive effect. the police, their cars are important to them to protect us, their guns are important to them to protect us, their communications, tear -- their training is important. but the most important tool, instrument that the police have is the people and the cooperation of the people. and when you pass immigration law that criminalizes immigrants and make them fear the police, you make all of us less safe, and you make us all a nation in which we perpetrate injustice upon people here who are, who have been submitted to crimes and to criminals. so i think it's important that we speak about this issue in terms of how it is we see our families. i want to tell everybody that, um, i didn't come here to congressman wolf's district to

trash talk congressman wolf, so if you came here for that, you're going to be deeply disillusioned. i came here so that we could hear the stories of our immigrant community, so that we could demonstrate to this nation how deeply, how deep and profound this movement is for come prehencive immigration reform -- comprehensive immigration reform. it exists here, and there's this theory that it's only democrats who want it. well, that's not true. you know, paul ryan ran for vice president of the united states of america. i did everything i could so that he would never achieve that goal. he did everything he could so that i would never be in the majority in the house of representatives. yet after the election, he extended a hand of friendship and collaboration and unity. he said to me, luis, you're catholic, i'm catholic, we cannot have a permanent under

class of workers in the united states of america. that does not reflect our values and who we are. and he's working to get it done. and like him, there are dozens of other republicans that are ready to stand up. [applause] there is not a dem -- this is not a democrat or a republican issue. i mean, look at the senate. look at the senate. in the senate what was the first thing? there are 54 democrats in the senate, right? they're the majority. yet when you look at the proposal, billions of dollars was simply confiscated. you work 10 years, you work 15 years, you work 20 years, you pay social security. gone, vanished. you cannot make a claim on any of those dollars. that didn't happen in 1986 under that immigration reform be plan. many that one you could go back and say my name is luis gutierrez, here's a social security number, and your account was adjusted. not in the senate proposal.

i went to the congress of the united states, 54 democrats voted for obamacare. and yet they denied the 11 million percent first ten years -- for the first ten years any access to the subsidies, and without subsidy, there is no health care for low wage workers in this country. they say to them you want to be legalized? no health care. and pay all your taxes, but don't expect ever to get any means-tested program should you need it. be unemployed for more than 60 days, you're out of the program. and wait a minute, if you sponsored your wife and your children, they're out of the ram too. be and if that wasn't enough, they said, oh, wait a minute, we just found clash 17 -- $175 billion. because we allowed them to legalize their status. well, they get no benefits for

those ten years. no right to health care. then they said, oh, in ten years don't even think about trying to bring your brother or your sister to the united states, because we're basically eliminating that category in the senate version of comprehensive immigration reform. and if that wasn't enough, of the $175 billion, they took 50 billion of it so they could put 20,000 more border patrol agents between mexico and the united states, basically creating a militarized zone between mexico and the united states. but you know something? i'd vote for that proposal today. i'd vote for it today even under those harsh conditions. there are because what we need to understand is today someone's going to die in that desert trying to return to their families. women and men are going to die this that desert. someone's going to lose a finger, a hand, an eye, a life today because an unscrupulous employer is going to put them in harm's way.

someone's going to die. there's a woman that's going to be raped in a field somewhere in america today because she has no rights in this country. we need to end that. there are children who are going to cry, and there are marriages that are going to be destroyed because someone is going to be deported today, and there are going to be children that are going to be left orphaned in this country. for all of those reasons, we would accept that. and i explain to you what goes on in the senate, and that's where there were 54 democrats. who says that that's a democratic proposal? that's not a democratic proposal. that is the result of democrats and republicans sitting down at a table to have comprehensive immigration reform. ask we're ready to -- and we're ready to make the same kinds of consensus in the house of representatives. so don't say it's the democrats. we understand we're in the minority. and you, the republicans should understand that you lost the referendum on immigration reform on november 6th.

people like paul ryan and luis gutierrez and others, let's find an american solution. not a republican solution, not a democratic solution, an american solution to our tragedy of our broken immigration system here many this country. [applause] here in this country. [applause] look at the plight, we celebrate 93 years, and we want more people to be able to celebrate in the coming decades their ability to vote, their ability to make our democracy and strengthen our democracy. think about it a moment. "the new york times" and "the wall street journal," the editorial comments are similar, almost identical. conservatives, liberal, the same. seiu, the afl-cio sat down with the u.s. chamber of commerce in an unprecedented agreement on immigration. they fight each other every day. they spend be millions of

dollars -- spend millions of dollars against each other, yet they sat down and said -- [speaking spanish] we saw southern baptists and evangelicals and catholics and lutherans and men and women of different faiths who have fundamental differences, but they put those differences aside for comprehensive immigration reform. we've seen that. the growers, the large growers associations in this country sat down with the united farm workers and reached an agreement. john mccain and dick durbin, rubio who came from florida as a senator said, no, said it was all amnesty sat down with bennett from colorado, republicans and democrats in the senate sat down and put their differences aside to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.

why is it that the only place where people cannot set aside their differences and compromise and find common ground is this the house of representatives? that is what we must achieve. look, i don't have them, but they exist. be -- i know, we talk to them all the time. some of them have already come forward be, like paul ryan. we know that 40, 50 republicans. we know we already have a majority, right? it exists. we've fought for it. but they won't allow us to vote. now they say that a majority of the majority must first headache an agreement -- make an agreement before we can all vote. and i wanted you to understand just what that means and just how particularly undemocratic it

is and how corrupting of the democratic system it is. they're saying there are 234 republicans, and before we can vote on anything, 118 of those 234 have to agree on something. 318 out of -- 118 out of 435 members of congress, right? there are 435. 118, and if 118 republicans agree on something, then the 435 of us can vote on it. that's not what they did in the senate. that's not what the afl-cio and the chamber of commerce did. that's not what "the new york times" and the "wall street journal". that's not what the lutherans and the catholics and the evangelicals did. they didn't say first my side has to be the predominant side. they compromised because they were looking for a solution. all we these is for them to give us a vote and for speaker boehner to allow a vote in the house of representatives, and you will see more than 218 votes, and we can begin to heal this broken immigration system

and our nation. that should be our clamor, for democracy. [speaking spanish] that's all we're asking for. that's all we're asking for. you want to vote against it? vote against it. but allow those of us who want to move forward for justice and for fairness to move forward for justice and for fairness. don't get in the way. don't be an obstacle. there are good men. someone came up to me and said, well, you know, steve kick said these -- steve king said these terrible things about immigrants, and he did. you know what my response was? for every steve king, there are dozens of republicans that are ready to stand up for immigration reform. i have talked to them. i know them. and they know who we are. and the republican leadership should allow them the ability to vote. spanish sir. [speaking spanish]

>> and why is it important that we're here in a republican district? because we have to understand that this isn't a democratic solution. that there are voices all across the country many districts all a-- in districts all across this country. the majority of republican voters want comprehensive immigration reform, and survey after survey has been demonstrated. they want fairness and justice. tear tired of seeing -- they're tires of seeing a system that exploits 11 million people. i want them to become citizens of the united states not as some privilege, i want them to have all the same responsibilities and duties that i have as an american citizen, because i know they will fulfill them in a manner in which will create honor and respect to the great traditions of american immigrants. so i'm ready. [applause] [speaking spanish]

i know we want to move on, but i just wanted to share with you, look, we have to make sure. someone asked me as i walked in, what about our group of seven? i don't know if the group of seven this the house of the representatives -- i've already signed off on the document. i'm ready to go with. i'm ready to make an announcement. i'm ready to have a bipartisan deal. if we don't work with this group of seven, then we'll find another group of eight. but we're going to find a group of something that's going to bring us to a solution in the house of representatives. we retuesday -- refuse to let the people down. we refuse to lose. [applause] we're going to continue to fight. and let me just say, 50,000 latinos turn 18 every month. every month. and, yes, i know some of you are

asking -- [speaking spanish] those are the ones we're talking about. 50,000. so, look, it's a growing community, and the asian community and the american population, we won the referendum. there was a referendum on november 6th, right? one side said self-deportation, go pack your bags and leaf. it's in the platte tomorrow of the republican eart -- platform of the republican party. they said we should take s.b. 1070, the anti-immigrant law of arizona, and replicate it in 49 other states. that was their side. the other side said we should bring about compassionate, comprehensive immigration reform. and the debate was held. for the first time there was truly a broad debate where people understood, and the side for comprehensive immigration reform won. that's why barack obama won.

we had to bring him along the way sometimes with us, didn't we? [speaking spanish] huh? [speaking spanish] [applause] we were together twice. many front of the white house denouncing the policies of breaking up our families with others. that wasn't easy for me to do that to a president who i love and i respect. who i fought so hard to get elected. but you know, we've pushed. he said he couldn't do it. remember, he said, oh, i can't do that, i can't stop the deportation. what he said he couldn't do, we kept saying he could. and in the end there are 500,000 dreamers today many this country -- in this country who have documents, they have driver's licenses. [applause]

he was work permits. [applause] so when i come here today to say it's not a democratic, it's not a republican solution, we have walked that walk before. now, once the president embraced our youth and said he wasn't going to deport any more dreamers, right? then he did those tv commercials in which he said what? he said i did it because i saw in those young people, those undocumented young people the same values that my wife and i had inculcated in our daughter cans. [speaking spanish] well, guess what? it's time to stop deporting the

moms and the dads that inculcated those wonderful values this those children. [applause] so there's a lot. i'm going to thank you profoundly. look, some people said to me, well, luis, it's really good of you. i left my wife this morning -- can. [speaking spanish] laugh. [laughter] [speaking spanish] [applause] i'm going to go back, we're going to -- [inaudible] later on today, we're going to travel out there to congressman good last's district.

there's going to be a rally there. we're going to continue to lift the voices. [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish] [applause]

so to continue, we have much to do. we're going to find ap american solution. -- an american solution. i'm going to continue to work with my republican friends and colleagues. there are many of 'em. they exist. allow us the time to vote, and we can fix this broken immigration system, and we can finally move on. gracias,seiu, everybody, for allowing me to celebrate. because, you know, we can't have real freedom, we can't have real justice, we can't have real equality in this nation if half of the nation is walking two steps behind the other half. men and women must walk together equally. arm in arm withqual

protections and equal rights under the law. and one of the greatest things of this immigration movement is to see the role of women and the roles that they have taken in leadership positions on issue. today we celebrate 93 years -- sir spanish. [speaking spanish] [applause] [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. at this time we're going to take a couple questions from the audience.

does thin have a question -- does anyone have a question that they would like to ask either the congressman or any other panelists? do you want the mic back there? [speaking spanish] >> he wants to know about -- [inaudible] and the safl done community. i think it's an important question, because there are many people who have a status, but it's not permanent. it can fluctuate at any moment. so there are haitians, salvadore

yangs, there are certain sectors. look, there are lie beans who have been in this country for 25 years, and we haven't settled. there are refugees from many parts of the world that are here legally in the united states, and we need to settle once and for all so they know for certainty what their future is. so i know that in the senate there are some wonderful proposals in order to quicken the pathway to green cards for those with temporary protected status. i support that. i would hope that that would be in a bill in the house of representatives. now, let me try to be very, very, very clear. we're going to fight. and the first priority we have to have -- because everywhere i go -- [speaking spanish] they say put me in a safe place. protect me. so that's the first thing i'm going to do. i'm going to make sure that any

bill puts you in a safe place and protects you from deportation. and gives you a road to citizenship. now, it's not going to be the same road for everybody, and it's going to be hard, and it's going to be treacherous. but it's going to exist. my point is this, look, i kind of think of it this way: if you get deported, it's almost like i've allowed you to die. because the onlies of -- the possibilities for me to give you a life in the united states become remote to none after you're deported. [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish] so we have to understand something -- [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish] first of all, the answer is,

yes. i think treasured be considerations -- there should be considerations made to people who have been here illegally for 10, 15, well, we're going on 1, 14 years. [speaking spanish] but i do think that we do need to give them, in all sincerity. let's take one more question, then we'll wrap this up. go ahead. [inaudible conversations] [applause] [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish] [speaking spanish] >> all right. well, i think that is -- the

question is what's going to happen to immigrants and latinos when the exchanges open up, if particular the immigration reform in relationship to obamacare. that's why i wanted to bring up what the senate does. what the senate does is says you can be -- you can go to an exchange, but there will be no subsidy. so basically, a health care plan without a subsidy is $11, $12, $13,000 a year. now, for an immigrant family, that's going to make it impossible for them to really be part of the exchange. and if you can't be in an exchange, then you're going to to rely on it from your employer. it's already been adopted in the senate, and we're in the majority there. this shows you how difficult this is going to be. and so you can't expect where democrats are in the majority, 54 of us, right, and where there was a willingness to get it done

to expect something better out of the house of representatives, okay? just from a purely ideological point of view, it's going to be her difficult. but here's what i say. number one, once you legalize people, they get to get a job, right? where there is health care. we know that the majority of people in america get their health care how? true -- through their employment, 80%. well, they're going to have more opportunities to get employment. their wages are going to increase, which means once their wages increase, their ability to buy better food, to have a saner life, i mean, the stress that must be on those communities of people, the housing that they have to live in. so, look, their socioeconomic standards are going to improve. but they're going to have to rely on emergency care because that's what's been adopted in the senate. even though there's $175 billion, instead of spending $45

billion over the next ten years giving them health care, we spend $45 billion putting 20,000 more board wither patrol agents on the border. but those are the kinds of decisions we're going to make. i think they're difficult ones. but i do believe that they're going to have more access. now, each of the states are going of to have to, what i believe is you're going to see states that are going to be friendlier. illinois may be friendlier than other states. but what i do think is eventually they'll get there. the dreamers will get to citizenship quicker. agricultural workers will get to citizenship quicker. i've seen that in the senate bill, and those are positive things. the host positive thing is, look, they'll be legal iced. right now they don't dare go to a hospital when they're sick because they think they might get deported. and let me just say that outside of clinics, there have been immigration agents doing raids. so this is not something that, this is not a fear that's unfounded. let me say thank you to all of

you. someone asked me when i came in what, what motivates you, right? what informs you? and i want to share with you a little something that-s me about about -- informs me about immigration, about my own life and then we'll kind of, we're going to wrap this up. but i'll toss up to you. i, i'm a son of of of migrants, right? from pert rio. [speaking spanish] but my mom and dad, they came here the same way all of you came here, looking for a better future. right? and what's interesting is that when i was 15 years old -- [speaking spanish] i lived in a bilingual household. maybe some of you have these bilingual households, right? my parents only spoke spanish, and i only spoke english. but we understood each other. [speaking spanish]

but the interesting thing is when we went back to puerto rico, when i got there, i had a lot of difficulties. i remember going to school, and the home room teacher saying, luis, you stand up. and so i stood up. he says -- [speaking spanish] i'm not too sure, every year my name changed, it was gutierrez, gut-rez. [laughter] but be i chose one. i said it was louis gutierrez. i thought that was a good one. [speaking spanish] [laughter] so everybody laughed. and he said, well, i don't know what the minimum requirement back in the united states are, but in puerto rico you have to know your complete name in order to register. and then he asked me a question. [speaking spanish] and that got me a little upset.

he said, don't you have a mother? i thought, what does that have to do with anything? [laughter] well, you know that in latin america your complete name is your father's surname and your mother's maiden name. it's on every document. ty proposal thats, birth certificates, driver's licenses. that's your name. i didn't know that. so i went home, i was crying. i went to my here -- [speaking spanish] [laughter] and so i said, mommy -- [speaking spanish] so i practiced. luis -- [speaking spanish] luis vicente gutierrez omerro. [applause] [speaking spanish]

[laughter] what a wonderful name. the next day i went back to the classroom, and there was a young girl in the corner, and i walked up to her because i had practiced all night, right? and i said,hola. hi. my name is luis vicente gutierrez omerro. he raises up her hand. mister, mister -- that's what they call the teachers in puerto rico. he said, yes, what did you want? [speaking spanish] now, i'm happy you all laughed. [laughter] because that was exactly the reaction of the 30 be other students that were in the classroom with me. they all laughed.

now, i can laugh about it today, but it really informs me about how i live my life and who i am. because while everybody was laughing, i never felt so small, so insignificant, so disconnected from everything around me, so humiliated. it's difficult to describe how alienated i felt from everything around me, how alone i felt. but you know something? when the laughter stopped -- [speaking spanish] we know they exist here in america, right? just like they extended me a warm hand, i want to continue to live my life extending a warm hand to others.

not laugh, not ridicule them, but embrace them as new seem to our wonderful country -- as new people to our wonderful country. thank you so much for having me here. [applause] >> thank you. we would now like to introduce -- [inaudible] the vice president and head of the virginia program of the service employee international union local chapters 32bj. this is a service union with more than 120,000 members. jaime available? [applause] >> all right, okay. so, first of all, congressman, it's always a pleasure -- [inaudible] [speaking spanish] so first of all, i want to say thank you for coming, and i know

you're going to be spending your day in virginia. thank you to the brave panelists and the moderator. [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish] [laughter] [applause] [speaking spanish]

many of us will be at the lincoln memorial commemorating the 50th anniversary of the march on washington by be dr. martin luther king and the civil rights movement. he closed the program on saturday and said something very, very important. he said today we commemorate, tomorrow we agitate. so i want you to repeat after me. today we commemorate international women's day. today we commemorate -- >> today we commemorate. >> tomorrow this virginia we agitate. >> tomorrow in virginia we agitate. [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish] [cheers and applause] [speaking spanish]

[applause] [speaking spanish] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> here's what's coming up on c-span2. next, a preview of the upcoming g20 summit in russia. then health secretary kathleen sebelius talks about how the health care law will affect latino-americans. and then the latest spotlight on magazine series. former u.s. senator jim webb recently joined us to talk about an article he wrote about his time in goth. watch that at 7:10 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. and join us tonight for booktv. the focus will be on world war ii with authors mauerly klein and his book, "a call to arms," kate lineberry with "is secret

rescue." and robert edsel who wrote "saving italy: the race to rescue a nation's treasures from the nazis." booktv prime gets underway at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> in our original series "first ladies: influence and image," we've looked at the fist ladies during the nation's first 112 years. and now as we move into the modern era, we'll feature the first ladies in their own words. >> the building of human rights would be one of foundation stones on which we would build in the world an atmosphere in which peace could grow. >> i don't think the white house ever can completely belong to one person. i belongs to the people of america, and i think whoever lives in it, the first lady, should preserve its traditions and enhance it and leave something of herself there. >> season two features 20 first

ladies from the beginning of the 20th century to the present. live monday nights including your calls, tastebook comments and tweets -- facebook comments and tweets starting september 9th on c-span. >> one of the things i looked at as i was exloan r mothering this was i looked at a lot of the county records, the counties where these colleges are. and when you look at the colonial county records, very often you'll have the name of the president or the name of the professor and then listed with their taxable property. >> all right. >> an enslaved person or two or three. >> did students bring their slaves? >> yes. >> students actually brought their slaves to school with them? >> yes. so if you think about this, if you look at the name of the president and then three lines over, part of his taxable property is an enslaved person, what you'll often have is, for instance, in the case of princeton or harvard, you'll actually have the president's name, ditto the college.

well, who owns the person then? when -- in the sort of common knowledge of the town, of the local area, the president and the college are kind of inseparable anyway. >> craig steven wilder on the connection between elite universities and the past intertined with slavery, sunday night at 9 on "after words." and booktv's book club returns in september with mark leibowitz's "this town." read the book anden gauge on our facebook page and on twitter. >> earlier today panelists at the center for strategic and international studies discussed the priorities for the upcoming g20 summit in st. petersburg, russia. president obama canceled his scheduled meeting with russia ahead of the summit, citing not enough, quote, recent progress in their bilateral agenda.

u.s. relations with germany was discussed as well as the eurozone crisis. this is about an hour. [background sounds] >> good morning. welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. i'm andrew schwartz, and i have the/of presiding over this briefing today with two of my favorite colleagues, soon to be three, one who is stuck in traffic. we're going to be talking about the president's trip to the g20 summit, and we will go through this from a couple different angles. but first i'd like to introduce heather conley, senior fellow and director of the ram at csis.

sheter's served in a variety of positions including deputy assistant secretary of state more europe. and with that i'll let heather take it. >> thank you, andrew. good morning. well, it's hard to believe that matt and i two and a half months ago were sitting before you doing a briefing before the president traveled to ireland and the g8 summit, and we questioned how much syria would overwhelm the g8 summit. here we are two months later, and we're now following the president as he makes his way enroute to st. petersburg for the g20 summit and wondering, of course, how much will syria dominate the corridor conversations. i guess you could summarize the president's unanticipated stop in stockholm as russia's loss and sweden's gain. after president obama canceled his bilateral summit with president putin, a stop needed

to be added to the itinerary, and looking around the flight path certainly the nordic countries came to mind. but, of course, president obama had already been to copenhagen in 2009 for the u.n. climate conference, he had been toes low, norway, to accept his nobel prides. he is welcoming the three presidents of the baltic states on friday in the oval office, oo that canceled them out, so sweden and finland were certainly the most logical choices, and stockholm won that choice. this is, in fact, the first time a president has visited sweden in a bilateral capacity. president bush was the first president to visit sweden, i believe in 2009, for a u.s./e.u. summit, but this is the first time we'll have a president visit the capital. president obama arrives in sweden and will be greeted by prime minister friedrich rhine

fed, he has led a center-right government for the last seven years. he will face elections next year. certainly, sweden has experienced some unsettled times in its own challenges dealing with integration of immigrants. if you'll recall in may, about six days of riots in the suburbs of stockholm dealing with a police shooting. and continues to be a very great topic of conversation with that immigration aspect. so certainly that will be part of the domestic conversation. the prime minister has been very gracious in gathering his four other nordic colleagues to join with president obama in a dinner the evening after he arrives, and i would sense the conversation will be quite robust about the region. and, certainly, i hope and csis has been engaged in a four-year

study on the arctic, i think the president may hear quite a bit about the arctic from his swedish and nordic counterparts. secretary kerry, as you will recall, was just in sweden, northern sweden, in mid may to attend the arctic counsel ministerial where a historic decision was made to welcome several asian countries as permanent observers to the arctic council. we have a chinese cargo ship now passing through, so as the opening happens, the geopolitical dynamics are changing, and i'm sure the president will hear from his colleagues about that. and finally, one word on the bilateral discussion between president obama and the swedish prime minister. sweden has been an extraordinary ally across a range of issues. they have troop personnel in afghanistan, approximately 600, they were on standby for operations in libya, they

contributed over a hundred troops in mali. for a neutral country, this is a robust level of engagement, and i think we have certainly appreciated the that great solidarity. the breadth of the conversation, clearly the prime minister will want to provide president obama with an update on the european debt crisis, although that has certainly faded from the top of the agenda. this is going to be the first time that the president returns to europe after his visit following the g8 and then his visit to berlin. i'm sure he'll hear from his european colleagues about the ramification of the nsa/prism issue as that continues to be a topic of concern in europe. russia will clearly be a topic ask be, of course, syria, egypt, the middle east and the unrest there. so i believe you'll see a very fulsome bilateral conversation within the nordic state, and i think it's an excellent preparation to get the president ready as he travels to st. petersburg to meet with his

g8 -- g20, excuse me, colleagues. and, matt, i'll let you take the baton. >> let me introduce matt really quickly. matt goodman holds our william simon chair in political economy. the sigh hon chair examines current issues this international economic policy with a lahr focus on the asia pacific. but i should also say that matt previously served as the white house coordinator for the east asia summit, for the asia-pacific summit many, but he also served as director on the nsc staff and was responsible for the g20, g8 and other international forums. and with that, i'd like to introduce my colleague, matt goodman. >> thank you, ann i drew. hank, heather. so the president will be participating in the eighth g20 summit on september 5th and 6th at the constantine palace outside st. petersburg. when andy gets here, he can tell us how to actually pronounce that, not to mention st. petersburg. [laughter]

the schedule begins, actually, with sherpa meetings, that is the leaders' senior economic advisers will meet starting september 2nd together with the finance deputies, because the g20 is really built on a finance myster's process. as -- minister's process, as you know. so the sherpas and finance deputies will meet in parallel and then together in the days leading up to the arrival of the leaders on the 5th in order to hammer out the communique and the deliverables as it were, such as they are. incidentally, this will be the first summit attended by the new u.s. sherpa, caroline at atkins, who replaced mike froman. mike has been at all the other obama g20 summits. there will probably be -- well, let me quickly go through what we understand the schedule to be. this hasn't been formally published, but the leader -- the

formal summit plenary sessions will begin after lunch on september 5th and go through dinner that night. the next morning there will be a continuation of discussions but interrupted -- this is a shawl innovation by the russians -- they are going to have an interaction with business leaders during the morning, the so-called b20. there's a proliferation of alphabet groups that have the 20 after their name, and the b20 is the business grouping. and there will be an interaction that morning x. as i understand it, some separate bilateral time as well for leaders. and then the meeting will continue through lunch into the sort of mid to late amp and end -- late afternoon and end with a press conference, on september 6th this is. there will undoubtedly be bilaterals on the side. president obama will be involved, those have not been announced yet. when andy gets here, i think he'll tell you it's unlikely that president obama and president putin will have a

bilateral which is the normal practice that happens at these summits. but, and one can speculate that there will probably be a summit with the chinese president, president xi, and japanese prime minister abe, but one of that, as far as i know, has been made public. in terms of the agenda, the russians have laid out three -- well, one sort of big theme which is sustainable, inclusive and balanced growth and creating jobs and specifically, they have three specific priorities, growth through equality, jobs and investments, growth through trust and transparency and growth through effective regulation. those are all sort of ways of reorganizing and capturing the longstanding g20 agenda which really covers -- and they list the eight areas that have traditionally been covered under summit, so those include strong, sustainable, balanced growth,

jobs, international financial institution reform, strengthening financial regulation, energy sustainability, development, trade and anti-corruption. so all of those things will be on the tomorrowal agenda. not all those things will be talked about by the leaders. and at the end of this, there will be a probably lengthy communique and then attached documents. it would be probably unreasonable to expect that this communique is going to be significantly shorter than the loss cab bose communiques which is the last g20 leaders' statement which ran to 85 paragraphs. i would be surprised if it was significantly shorter than that, because it has to cover all of the topics i mentioned. what the leaders will really talk about probably will revolve around in addition to syria which will not be on the formal agenda, this grouping -- up like the g8 -- really does not have a formal place for discussion of broad geopolitical issues.

.. the u.s. will probably still express concern about the fact that while the u.s. economy is doing better, it cannot be the only engine of growth in the global economy, it will express concern about the risk and the

imbalances which remain in the global economy. emerging markets are probably going talk about the financial market volatility, which they attribute in large part to the concerns about tampering by the u.s. and the u.s. fed and other monetary authorities from this extraordinary period of monetary easing, which they also were uncomfortable with, -- precisely because it created the financial risk. the advanced country will probably push back. those things -- those reactions in the market, first of all, are a natural consequence of strategies by these countries. the u.s. and japan and european countries to keep the economies growing, and inevitably these policies are going have to end. they will also argue a lot of problems in the emerging markets are home grown. the problems in india, brazil,

or other countries are -- as they are say are home grown. this issue is not going to be resolved. i would say unbalanced -- and i would i think it's fair to say, also, that little discussion has just revealed that there is not the same sort of sense of consensus and shared sense of crisis in the group. a lot i think the sense of crisis generally may be starting to pick up again. not everybody agrees on the cause or the solution to those issues are. but overall, i think it will be a largely conversation about those issues. dealing with tax evasion and tax avoidance is the major theme at the g8 summit and certainly the g8 members will be interested in talking about those issues, and

potentially there could be -- there won't be any kind of breakthrough agreement. but there could be a reinforcement of some of the work that was agreed to in the g8. oecd work on tax sharing and information sharing and so forth. then a third area would be -- i think there would be a fairly robust discussion of trade. the g120 has several times now laid down a commitment to the stand still against protectionist measures, which they have most recently extended through 2014 and may likely reup that. the commission has been honored and breached. they will probably make a strong stand. they will also talk about the -- at this point the main focus is on the bali ministerial in december which is the last real chance, i think, potentially save it. but most people i think in the

trade world don't think that's likely to happen. there may be a more focus look at the g20 to push forward specific agreements in bali say on trade facilitation, for example, whether that's going progress or not remains to be seen. there may be some discussion about development issues, security infrastructure and investment. finally, i'll wrap up and let andy talk about the interesting stuff in russia. i would say that the white house certainly still feels the g20 is an important forum. it's the only forum in which the leader -- the group of countries that representative 85% of the global economy can get together and talk about it's an opportunity to broadly set the agenda for the global economy, and finally

to build habits of cooperation among member of the group that have not had the same experience that the g8 countries had in particular of guiding the issues. i think broadly it's a trip that the syrian -- notwithstanding the president looks forward as an opportunity engage on this set of issues. i'll turn it to andy. >> he's the director of our russia and your asia program. >> thank you, andrew. and my apologies for being late. unlike mr. putin last year in deciding not to come to the g8, and unlike him deciding -- mr. barack obama noting meeting putin. i decided to come today.

in russian literature, there's a tradition of -- sup besh flows man. talking about a meeting that isn't going happen. what is the good news? the good news it's not the cuban missile crisis. the good news that this is not even the georgia war of five years ago. which one could have imagined the possibility of u.s. and russian military forces perhaps by action and coming in to conflict with each other in the black sea. but one thing is clear to me that this is the worst personal

relationship between u.s. and russian -- perhaps even russian and soviet leaders in history. one kind of has to think about you know what does mean? what does that hurt in the relationship? i really think these two guys, mr. putin, and mr. obama don't like each other at all. i think there's a deep disagree of disrespect, i think when our president says something like comparing mr. putin to the kid in the back of the classroom kind of slouching not really interested in things, well, you take in the relationship to a personal level. even more so, i think, than the comment he made, which was a mistake, i think, four years ago

had that mr. putin had one foot in the cold war and one foot in the future. mr. putin is not a person that forgets, i think, any personal insults, and certainly not played well in the relationship. it's something to think about, i mean, really i don't think there's been a case even in the soviet period, obviously, mr. lennon didn't meet with any american leaders that i know of. we know about the relationship between uncle joe and fdr. but clearly to me it's the worst personal relationship of the u.s. and russian leader in history. and i think that is obviously not a good thing. let look a little bit more about the recent history. the obama administration made an effort in the spring and early summer to engage russia to put the relationship that was obviously for a number of reasons i think are clear to everyone in the room that was on

the rocks and getting worse. but basically mr. putin was not interested in what the obama administration was trying to sell. i think essentially what the effort to engage mr. putin was principally around the issue of further cuts in offensive nuclear arms, tied to some kind of agreement that missile defense, and that was that was a deal mr. putin was not particularly interested in. i think that is what the effort begun with the trip 77 former national security adviser tom don don lon in the bring was mainly about. that was the effort to bring the two sides together. now it was pretty clear from the g8 meeting -- looking at the body foster.

how much i can actually tell us. there would be now have agree on at the meeting to justify a summit meeting in september. i don't understand i don't know exactly but it looks to have a miscalculation. then of course we have to factor in just how much effect the snowden affair had on a decision to cancel the summit. now the snowden affair, you know, i was not particularly impressed with the way it was handled on our side, to be frank. i think there was far too much so called public diplomacy, if you want to call public demand

diplomacy. i don't think there was adequate behind-the-scenes at the high -- if it were possible in the first place. you know, i think to me i constantly ask myself the question let's imagine edward snowden arrived in dallas airport with the same kind of information about the dmerveg -- domestic and foreign ssat the n federation was using. done haweve x it'smost impossab th makes meworussians wol it in this case. i think -- i don't know this for sure, my sense isht the administration thought y were m progress in the discussions

thfoement chance, but frankly, you know, this was a case where i think if there was an opportunity to resolve this, the only way you could have done it, i think, for mr. obama to pick up the telephone and have some very, you know, frank conversations with mr. putin and try to work it through a personal relationship and try to find some kind of face-saving solution. i won't beat that -- the horse is not quite dead yet. i won't belabor that point any longer. frank willly, we don't know if there was a summit if there hasn't been a snowden affair. in fact it was the decision that there wasn't adequate progress on key issues in the bilateral relationship. we don't know. we're not likely to find out for quite a long time. where do we go from here? gosh, it's pretty tough to find a way in which or find a reason

for which either leadership is going to, you know, want to find our see the incentive for themselves to res recollect the relationship. ic it's likely we could see this relationship -- muddle along at the very, very kind of unpleasant level for the next three years. you know, until we are looking at the new administration in the united states. who knows how long we're going look at the same administration in moscow. so just to cut it short, [laughter] always try find some kind of silver lining in this one. well, okay, here i'll pull one out of the left field. it's not about the u.s.-russia relationship. there are interesting things in the russian-japanese relationship, and, you know, i

thought that one of the reasons why mr. putin and the russians had some incentive to improve their ties with the united states going back four years ago was their concern about growing power of china and they would like to have a more balanced foreign policy. well, it looks like, i think mr. putin is trying to address his concern about the possibility of being overleveraged to china in other ways. i think the russian-japanese relationship is number one on the list. i'm not going make the prediction that the northern territory issue is going to be resolved. i wouldn't say, i think, that the possibility of resolution in the long standing much of 68 years is greater than i've seen in any time in the last twenty five years or so i've been following it. you have two leaderships in both countries that are relatively strong domestically. i don't think is necessary. and i think both have the outside factor of their concern increasing about chinese activities, and we may see this

finally in the next year or so lead to a breakthrough in that relationship. which would frankly be good for the u.s.-russian relationship as women. -- well. with that note in left field trying to bring some optimism in the discussion. let me finish my prepared marks. thanks. >> we're going open to questions in a second. if you could yourself and if you're at the table speak to the microphone. the briefing will be available in transcript form later today. i'll mail it out. toicht assure you we have a board of trustees. as many of you know they are around. we are moving our office in couple of weeks. that's why we have such sort of emptiness here. our new building will be at 1660 rhode island avenue. you can follow us on twitter @csis. it's an exciting moment in the 50-year history of csis.

i think it will be the last press briefing we do in this old building. thank you, again. for being here. with that i would like to open it up for questions. right here. >> data da me [inaudible] a little more on the issue of what is going to happen next in the relationship and it seems that he mentioned probably there will be no bilateral meeting between presidents. [inaudible] [laughter] >> well, i would love to hear that. is there any chance that this summit might be a warming off point or not at all? >> thank you, di m.i.t. ri for the question. it could be a statesmen-like

move on the part of president obama in particular since the united states that canceled the summit meeting to request a one-on-one bilateral meeting with president putin. but i think the chafns -- chance of that. that happening are less than 5%. slim to none. i think there's a high degree of anger on the part of the obama administration about relations with russia, and i think mr. obama in particular in his personal regard for for mr. putin. i think that's what that comment

about the personal comment about the slouching kid in the back of the room. it seems with that it's harder to imagine you can see them pivot and kind of walk back and make the decision of well, in fact we would like to meet with you. you know, maybe the situation in syria, which is extremely grave and danger use could justify that, but -- >> questions? >> roger? >> roger, bloomberg news. what is going to be the -- [inaudible] for any of you. on the stole -- stockholm -- strong bilateral tie as well as the regional engagement for the

president to visit with the colleague as well as see the president in the span of a week speaks to age deeper regional engagement which is welcome. i think it will be an opportunity to for stockholm stop to hear from five european leaders. some within the e.u. some within nato their concerns obviously about syria and the regional issues. i think there will be an extraordinary amount of outreach in the g20 summit with david cameron, with the european colleagues as it gets closer. we saw reports this morning that prime minister cameron has recalled the british parliament in session on thursday to discuss this. this sell items me we're going see an intense dialogue. in some ways the stockholm visit a good preview of the issue. to tap on the first question, certainly it's not just u.s.-russian bilateral that are

undergoing assessment. european-russian as well. there's been challenges both with the liberalization questions, energy issues, and i think the europeans themselves are deeply examining what the health and future state of russian democracy, human rights, civil society and what it means for their relationship. it's an important moment for consultation transatlanticly about russia as well. i would suspect you'll hear with the exception of norway, which is not a member of the e.u. another strong statement for the transatlantic and echo the theme of trade for the g20, i think you'll hear certainly from the sweden -- swedish side how critical it will be for the u.s. transatlantic relationship. >> as i implied but i didn't state explicitly. i wouldn't expect some major headlines out of the g20

summit. i don't think it's han -- been in the pattern in the recent past. if row are looking for large headline numbers or initiative, i wouldn't expect that. but, you know, as they say in 58-plus paragraph there will be at love language about growth and the importance of -- i would say tilt toward growth and austerity. the tilt has been happening in the last few meetings with the g20 folks at the leader finance level. they'll be paragraphs about progress on ambassador -- bays baste l three.

the tax avoid dance issues will be featured, and for the specific, i refer do you go back to the finance minister's communique of july 20th, which is what you'll find the leaders embrace and endorsing. i don't think i would be surprised if there were any dramatic breakthrough on anything. but, you know, again, a lot of this is about the conversation and trying to get people on the same page and moving in the same direction on global, economic, and financial issues. >> no meeting no deliverables. [laughter] i would add -- we have wonder about the likelihood of the u.s. him tear strike on syria as obviously increased very significantly, and imagine the g20 meeting

takes place right after that, perhaps. so the mood of the principle players, the european states, the russian chinese is going very, very sour. i can't think that is going to be of help. the g20 meeting itself. >> questions? >> yes, right here. >> yeah. [inaudible] guardian newspaper. to follow up on that. one, you said it wasn't clear to you the snowden affair -- the bilateral summit would occurred had it not been for the snowden affair. all of the noise you have from the white house in the run up to the snowden affair was that the meeting was not due to take place. it was only after russia agreed

to grant -- the have a safes canceled. what else can account for the cancellation of the bilateral meeting. another question for matthew. could you talk to us a bit more about how corridor conversations about syria may impact the meetings. >> i think the administration faced a data -- problem trying to factor out the snowden affair. the prin. proposal they have been making to the russians not just security issues and principally the nuclear offense reduction strategic stability set of issues. which is sort of the area they want to make progress of. this is the area that mr. obama made the berlin speech, russians, and there was no

response to the proposal. there was no response to other things weapon were proposing including in the area of cooperation and thraid at least rhetorically for the last year or so the two administrations were singing virtually from the same song sheet. do we want to have a brotherhood economic relationship and it will provide some balance for the bilateral relationship and provide more constituencies in each country to support the relationship. any sense that was the administration was getting no response across the ward. so, you know, snowden didn't happen certainly when it made every effort i think to try to carry-on and have the meeting. it's just, you know, you have to -- what is the point?

you continue really need a photoopportunity. iran is very clear the sanction on iran. the area we have the most common interest information. the problem there is we still don't have a bilateral security agreement with the african. we can't really talk to the russians and others about chris brown what we envision to be the future potential for cooperation and multilateral context. so you to walk and chew gum at the same time. so you to cover a wide range of issues, and thing this case, in a formal sense, as i said, the g20 is not about geopolitical issues. and so syria won't be on the formal agenda. i see possible that very unlikely that the russians would introduce to the agenda the

formal meeting or some member say i want to raise their hand and say i want to talk about sir yap. all of that said, all much that said, of course, is going to be it's going have a huge impact what is being talked about in the corridor which i expect it would be the dominant topic there. as andy said ting will effect the mood. i don't think thereby a sense of great comrade i are and get stuff done together. on the global economy not even on the other issues. i think it will have a in effect. in a formal sense it won't be part of the g20 deliberation. >> i'm reminded at the g20 in september of '09 in pittsburgh that it was use as backdrop for gourden browne, nicholas scar so sincerity. so it can be used, obviously with the media watching a

platform toed a van. i'm wondering for we'll see perhaps some press conferences. i don't think it will be in the communicate. some is a hold of your nose for a lot of participates. [laughter] the time death march. questions? scott. [inaudible] you mean that was a mistake to say it out loud?

actually, i disagree with the assessment as well. i think the larger mistake was to say it publicly. i think that maybe a cavalier assumption that mr. putin was not as significant of a pots maker as he actually was and/or the possibility mr. putin will return as a future defect leader of the federation. on my view on putin with it's not so much he has a foot in the cold war. i think that he has been more what he's seen with u.s. behavior after the cold war and in the 1990 he reflects a broad consensus in russia that the united states in particular the west more broadly was taking advantage of russia through a

period of historical weakness, and lot of the sort of development particularly in the international security system, sort of nato expansion being a big one, and the experience of the war in particular. with the u.s. and the russian view operating outside of international law had a deep impact on putin. subsequently, i think maybe a deeper impact was, you know, after 9/11, when the russians worked closely with us and others to take out the taliban in afghanistan, there was a sense that this was a high point in the u.s.-russia relations in the last twenty years. even talk of possible alliance and the such. i think mr. putin felt that the bush administration subsequently didn't really acknowledge russia on a series of issues. particularly walking away from the treaty and missile defense.

again nato expansion and other things. it's -- that sense of even builds up are more significant than the impact of the cold war. questions? [inaudible] intentions on the -- [inaudible] i think you will certainly hear concerns expressed in the conversations bilotly as well as the dinner with the nordic head of government. clearly i think the to call point within europe is germany. this has had significant

ramifications both prior to the german elections, national election on september 22nd. but also i think it goes much deeper. and i think initially as the documents will were released there was a sense of the administration being dismissive about it, you know, everyone engages in this practice, you know, the emotionalism history tiara that was coming needed to be down played. actually it's now taken deeper route and impacting the transatlantic relationship particularly again the transatlantic t tip. you have statements being forcefully expressed by berlin, opposition as well as government officials. we can't move forward with the trade until we get much more rigorous both transparency on the nsa programs, but in the case of germany a new agreement that the u.s. will not spy on germany. so this is not going away. it's not going away after the

german election, frankly. it will continue. it needs to be taken very seriously. there is now a real breech in confidence and trust we have to manage and work through so we can get back to working on the bilateral engagement and agenda and first and foremost is that t tip we can't allow it to sideline that. right now it has the potential to do that. he certainly will hear it. he may, if he has an opportunity have discussion which i assume he will with chancellor merkel in the corner of the g20 he may hear additional words on that. [inaudible] well, the revolution of the hard are hard to underestimate as a blow to, you know, u.s. credibility as a moral leader in many places. and plays in perfectly of the

russian and the chinese, i think. just the fact the states edward snowden is viewed by a significant part of the population as a doing the right thing. you can imagine what the view is in other country, and so in other countries in which we repeatedly are very watching very carefully there violation of human rights. it's a kind of a big pr public relations gift, i think. the irony mr. snowden goes to china and russia, which are certainly, you know, i think taking more intruce measures -- more intrusive efforts to surveil their own citizens. the irony is kind of staggering. >> questions? >> paul. >> yes a followup question on

that. one of the significant disclosure from snowden has been the extent and debt of surveillance at the summit. practicality in the sway in which leaders will approach it. interesting. i think that's a data point in the broader conversation, and, you know, and i assume your point about practical issues every dell -- delegation security team and i.t. team will be a libel -- little more vigilant. i don't know how to answer the question. it's part of the broader conversation and the tensions that heather and andy have

talked about. i don't see any kind of profound impact on the g20 conversation itself. but it is an issue among the members who were there. yes, right over here. [inaudible] unless japan want it is to be mentioned as a specific camp how japan is taking on the fiscal challenges, it will almost certainly not be mentioned. is the decision that the prime minister has to make about whether to increase as planned

and legislated an increase in their value-added tax. so-called consumption tax. a decision he may make. he may not make it before the summit. he may make it in september. and so no, i mean. i think there will be a broader conversation about what countries are doing consolidate their fiscal position and the timing and sequencing and pacing of those moves, but not a specific conversation in the g20 about that issue. if the prime minister meets with president obama no doubt the prime minister will talk about that, but again, i don't think it will be part of the formal output even the bilateral meeting between the two. [inaudible] you mentioned the upcoming german elections in -- [inaudible] i was wondering if you saw any other potential impact of the

elections on broader -- [inaudible] g20 perhaps in the austerity discussions or along those lines? >> i think in some ways as matt reflected it will be one of the first g20 conversations where the euro crisis is not front and center of the conversation how europe is addressing this. this has been an -- i would argue a pause in the crisis. hopefully we are seeing early signs of healing. inwe are far from over. that's been part of the conversation in recent days with them suggesting that the greek package will have to be reassessed and, you know, obviously continued concern about the health of the french economy. the euro crisis has taken a pause. it will return back to the conversation. it is a legitimate question what essential a recurring theme since 2009 has been the rebalancing initiative of the current account. surplus country versus the

deficit country. it puts germany and china squarely in the surplus camp and needing to find that rebalancing. i would argue in looking at the cdu platform we are seeing a bit of stimulus in the german perspective of encouraging additional spending. it's certainly not going address the concerns of the enormous current account surplus that the germany currently hold. i would not suspect -- i guess watching closely how syria could potentially impact the german election in the conversation as a merkel -- yesterday came out with a strong statement of support that action must be taken. it was firmly supported. i'm wondering how the issue may or may not play in. it's been a quiet and subdued german election with few issues other than the nsa prism being forced first and fore month most. i don't expect volatility.

>> very quickly, i think heather is right. i think the euro crisis is no longer front and center as the main issue for the g20 leaders to discuss at the summit. but elements of -- a., i guess i would first say the u.s. and probably others are not going quite as comforted as one quarter -- you know, modestly positive growth in think that the overall crisis is solved. second, i think there will be element of the euro situation it including germany 6, 7% gdp that will appear in the rebalancing conversation or banking union will be something that people will be interested in and the progress on that in the financial discussion. it will merge but won't be the central theme i think of the conversation.

[inaudible] i wanted to ask you about the -- [inaudible] i think the g20 countries are expected to set some kind of target for after 2016. how much do you think will the discussion on fiscal policy -- [inaudible] >> well, again, i mean fiscal consolidation is part of the conversation at the g20 in some sense since the beginning but since the toronto summit in where there were the commitment to reducing fiscal deficit and debt that were the laid out. i mean, that was partly because i think there was a little bit more optimism that the point in 2010 that the worst of the crisis was over and things were beginning to pull back up. and so it was time to focus on what i think everyone agrees is critical medium term challenge

for many countries in the g20. but i think that the bait has shifted over time partly because growth hasn't performed as well as people hoped in the first part of 2010. partly because the impact of some of the more austere policy that some member of the g20 have pursued have ended up, you know, fairly hurting growth and i think there have been domestic have shifted. i think the cfghts is a little different now. it's about we need do medium term consolidation. in the short term, the priority, i expect the first or -- the first census of the communique will be we met in -- [inaudible] t t the second paragraph will be growth and jobs are our top priority. and that is a subtle shift from earlier but i think that's going to be focus growth and jobs

versus immediate fiscal con sollization or austerity. >>. >> rebranded growth friendly consolidation. i think we're seeing the sensitivity balance. just in the european context we have a fiscal -- or institutional requirement for balance budget will come in to play in 2016. again that will in some ways impact the leeway for stimulus spending and legally -- [inaudible] consolidation. >> additional questions? >> with that, i would like to thank everybody for coming to our briefing this morning. follow us on twitter @csis for update on when the transcript will be available. should be made available later today. we'll be mailing it out. thank you again, we'll be seeing

you soon. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] here is with a is coming up on

c-span2.

we'll feature the first lady in their own words. >> the building of human rights would be one of the foundations chon we would build in the world an atmosphere in which peace could grow. i don't think the white house can completely belong to one person. it belongs to the people. i think whoever lives in it should preserve it and enhance it. season 2 features 22 lay i

dids. health secretary has been talking about the implementation of the health care law recently. next a portion of an event that focuses on the law's impact on the latino american community. this runs about fifteen minutes. [applause] [applause] it sounds like the mayor is fired up and ready to go. i like that attitude. hello, and thank you to the great team here for not only having us here today and hosting this important community discussion, but also for being a great champion for coverage, and i know the kind of outreach that

will go on here in the throughout the community thanks to this organization is huge. i want to thank the mayor for welcoming me back to philadelphia. i haven't gotten the key to the city yet. i'm kind of waiting are in. it's great to be here. and great to have a chance to visit with all of you once again. part what we're focused on around the country is making sure that latinos have a chance to reach their full potential in this country as huge contributors to the diversity and the broad richness of the united states. the latinos political capitallations has about 10.2 million nationally eligible and uninsured residence debits -- residents here and across the country. it's one of the highest

uninsured populations in america. so outreach to the community to talk about what is available and what is coming is hugely important. uninsurance is not just that you having brought a product of late. it's a public health crisis. we know that people live sicker and die sooner without health insurance. there is a direct correlation. we know that workers are less productive. that kids are less successful in schools. families have a more difficult time taking care of their own business. so health insurance is really about a quality of life. it's about the ability for each and every person to have not only the security they won't lose everything if they get sick, but it's about peace of mind, peace of health taking care of our families. contributing to 0 the community. that's why the full

implementation of the affordable care act is important. let me give you a little snapshot. the law really is about a portion of the population who is under uninsured or underinsure order in and out of the marketplace. let's start with the other 85%. across pennsylvania and here in philadelphia, most people have health coverage, have coverage that is relatively affordable. it does a good job on behalf themselves and their families, and all that has happened with that coverage is actually has gotten stronger thanks to the health care law. people now have preventive services as part of their health plan without copay and conational hurricane center -- coinsurance. everyone will have an opportunity to make sure that if you're under 26, you can stay on

your parent's plans. we now have about 4 million young adults under 100,000 latino adults here across the country who would be uninsured except for the law. they now have full coverage. we know that small business owners are already benefiting from tax credits. so they can provide coverage to their employees and the tax credits will increase we have a situation where people don't have to worry about being in the middle of the treatment and running out of coverage. which happens to individuals all the time. there are no lifetime limits they can be opposed on policies. beginning next year, there will be an out of pocket limit year to year. so people be even insured won't be stuck with bills they can't pay. those things have already begun to be in place since the president signed the law in 2010. the last piece of implementation

is about to happen. starting october 1st of this year as the mayor has already said, for about 15% of americans who don't have health coverage at all, they will have some new opportunities. they will have a new marketplace available to them. because they don't have an employer paying a share of the coverage, they have some help from the federal government. about 92% across the country of people in here and pennsylvania who don't have insurance coverage at all or who have unaffordable coverage will have some financial help paying for that coverage for themselves and their family. they'll have a choice. for the first time ever in the united states, companies will have to compete against each other based on price and service. they will no long we are able to lock anybody out because a preexisting health condition. being a woman will no longer being a preexisting condition you can't be charged for your

insurance company. [applause] and some of the rule which is used to lock out or price out or dump people out of the market are changing forever. here is why it's a critical period for the latino communities. latinos have the highest rate of uninsurance in the country. we also know that they make up about 25% of the individuals eligible for new coverage option under the law. that will effect about more than 10 million people. in pennsylvania about 9% of the states eligible uninsured are hispanic. in philadelphia, that number is even higher. it's about 17% of the eligible uninsured are latino. more are men than women. we know there are a number of young adults in the 18 to 43

category that need it. i'm the parent of two young adult son. i know, getting health insurance is not the top priority. they don't get up every morning thinking about health coverage. i'm not sure some days what they're thinking about. i can pretty well guarantee it's not health insurance. getting the attention of younger adults is also a priority in the outreach campaign. a lot of people don't think about not having coverage until something goes wrong. but i like to remind folks that we are all an accident and illness or diagnoses away from what could be a lifetime of unpayable bill or treatment that could save a life. never before in this country have we had the opportunity that we have today. where affordable coverage is really within reach. to help individuals begin to think about enrollment. we have a website up and

running. ours is a little easier than the mayor receipted. it's health care.gov. the spanish version is -- [speaking in spanish] anyone can access the website today. begin to develop an account, get information about what is coming, get questions answered. and the website is designed to be pretty consume urban america -- consumer friendly and easy to access. it has the kind of cat feature. if you pause too long ?b something will pop up and say do you want to have a conversation? we have a call center open 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. and we have translators available to answer questions up to 150 languages. that's up and running now. people can get the information. you heard the mayor remps -- reference the fact there are now

in-person helpers beginning to populate community ace cross the country including here in philadelphia. all community health centers will have outreach and enrollment individuals. navigators will be available in communities. then we have organizations and volunteers who will be training staff to help and i was so pleased to hear the mayor talk about the city of philadelphia putting their own resources. because we know some people are tech savvy and can go on long. some want to talk on the phone. others may need one-on-one person help. they may need series of questions over six months. we have a six-month enrollment period on october 1st. a brand new day is coming. i share the mayor's hope that the pennsylvania legislature and the governor will reconsider the decision to expand medicaid. absence, medicaid expansion

thereby way too many citizen who will not have any access to affordable care. that would be a tragedy. let me just tell you because i think this is often a myth that is circulated. of the medicate eligible uninsured individuals over 80%, over 80% have a full-time worker in the family. so these are people who are going to work every day. they just do not have employer-based coverage or don't have the north carolina to -- income to afford 100% of coverage on their own. but it is a big opportunity. the door is not closed by the federal government. there is no time that the offer runs out. the federal government for the first three years of medicaid expansion will pay 100% of the cost. and over the next seven years,

for a ten-year period of time. the federal government share duos down, but never blow -- below 90%. it's always at the minimum a-1s. that's a pretty good deal for the state of pennsylvania. i'm delighted to be here and delighted to have a chance to participate in the panel. i'm anxious to hear from hilda, who is part of the panel today. it's one of the great champions we're working with. everybody from the national counsel and local faith and health care communities are stepping up. now president obama likes to remind us that change doesn't happen overnight, and it doesn't often happen in washington alone. it really happens door to door, day-to-day in towns and communities across the country

with neighbors and friends talking to one another with outreach going on with people who are trusted. so all of you can be outreach helpers. you can talk to your family members. you can talk to your neighbors. you can talk to your church group, you can go and put a link on your facebook page reminding people that on october 1st there is some new opportunities. we need that person-to-person coverage inspect is. this is a historic opportunity we never had in the united states. ..

>> this is the law, and we're about implementing the law, so it's great to be with all of you. and i look forward to working with you on a healthier, more prosperous philadelphia, pennsylvania, and the united states of america. so thanks very much. [applause] >> so thank you, secretary. we're going to transition to our panel, and i'd just like to highlight some folks who are going to be with us as it relates to our panel. as mentioned by the secretary, you will hear there hilda. the secretary will be joining us as well as i'd like to invite dr. don schwartz to come, and our mayor's staying. [laughter] so i'd also welcome -- so we're happy to have another seat at the table for dr. schwartz. so i'm actually, while we're transitioning, i'm going to

start where the rubber hits the road which is about consumers. and i've asked, we've asked and invited hilda to share a little bit about her own experience as it has to do with affordable care act and her own story and how those bits and pieces connect. so, hilda, welcome. >> okay. um, well, as you can tell, i am la latina. i'm from this region, the north philadelphia area. i'm the first generation puerto rican, also the first to graduate from high school, undergrad and graduate school in the my family. can you hear me? oh. i don't know how to do this. [laughter] >> that's all right. >> okay. which one do i speak into? can you hear me now? >> yeah, just -- >> i need a booster seat. >> i can help you. >> okay.

all right, thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. i'll start over. [laughter] i'm latina, and i'm from this area, from the north philadelphia area. first generation puerto rican, i'm the first to graduate from high school, from undergrad and graduate school. when i graduated from undergrad, i was around 22. between that time and enrolling into graduate school, i was employed full time and no benefits. but luckily, when i enrolled back into school, i was able to get back onto my parents' insurance because around that time was when one of the first provisions of the affordable care act came into effect that allowed me to stay on until i was 26. this past june i turned 26, i aged out again. [laughter] and again, i'm fully employed. i'm a legal assistant and no health insurance. and so, again, aca is, has been

a blessing for me because i'm able to, or i will be able to shop for affordable and quality health insurance and eventually in october be able to enroll. and for me as a young person, it's important to have health insurance because i can get sick or hurt at any time and incur health expenses that i can't afford. and so that's why it's important for me to have health insurance. and and aca has definitely within good to me so far. >> okay. nice job. [applause] >> tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the march on washington for jobs and freedom where martin luther king made his "i have a dream swts speech. to mark the anniversary, a number of civil rights leaders as well as presidents obama, clinton and carter will speak on the steps of the lincoln memorial at 11 a.m. eastern. and just before the march tomorrow morning, "washington

journal" takes a look at how the nation has changed this the 50 years since the march on washington. our guests are author michael eric dyson and "usa today" managing editor owen ullmann "washington journal" is live every morning at 7 eastern on c-span. >> one of the things i looked as as i was exploring this was a lot of the county records in which these college cans, the counties where these colleges are. and when you look at the colonial county records, very often you'll have the name of the president or the name of the professor and then listed with their taxable property finish. >> all right. >> -- will be an enslaved person or two or three. >> did students bring their slaves? >> yes, students -- >> students actually brought their slaves to school with themsome. >> yeah. and what then happens, if you look at the name of the president and then three lines over, part of his taxable property is an enslaved person.

what you'll often have is, for instance, in the case of princeton or harvard, you'll actually have the president's name, ditto the college. well, who owns the person then? when, in the sort of common knowledge of the town, of the local area the president and the college are kind of inseparable anyway. >> craig steven wilder on the connection between elite universities and the past intertwined with slavery, sunday night at 9 on "after words." part of a three-day holiday weekend on booktv on c-span2. and booktv's book club returns in september with mark leibowitz's "this town: two parties and a funeral plus plenty of valet parking in america's gilded capital." in our original series first ladies: influence and imhajj, we looked at the public and private lives of the women who served as first lady during the nation's first 112 years. as we move into the modern era,

we'll feature the fist ladies in their own words. >> the building of human rights would be one of the foundation stones on which we would build in the world an atmosphere in which peace could grow. >> i don't think the white house ever can completely belong to one person. it belongs to the people of america. and i think whoever lives in it, the first lady, should preserve its traditions and enhance it and leave something of herself there. >> season two features 20 first ladies from the beginning of the 20th century to the present. live monday nights including your calls, facebook comments and tweets starting september 9th at 9 eastern on c-span. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate, on weeknights watch key public policy events. and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web

sites, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> now from this morn's "washington journal," a conversation on eminent domain. >> host: and joining us is steven eagle who's a professor of law at george mason university just outside the nation's capital. we're going to spend the final 40 minutes of the program or so talking about the issue of eminent domain which has come back into the broader discussion because of a number of issues. the supreme court case of a couple of years ago and, obviously, municipal concerns like the city of detroit. define for us what exactly is eminent domain? >> guest: well, thank you, bill. and, again, it's a pleasure to be back on "washington journal." eminent domain is the power of government to take private property. it's actually a very old power. kings in europe exercised it hundreds of years ago. garage -- gradually the custom

arose that people have to be compensated when their property was taken. and it was certainly an attribute of the british crown. so after the revolution the states had the power, and interestingly the fifth amendment to the federal constitution says that nor shall private property be taken without just compensation. it doesn't actually give the federal government the power, it simply assumes that as a sovereign the federal government has that power. >> and was that fifth amendment built into the constitution based on the experiences of the colonies with the crown? >> well, this is a very fascinating point because the crown had abused the colonies in, many ways. so you have the third amendment to hinting quartering of troops. the troops ate people out of house and home and also spied on them. but interestingly enough, the king of england didn't abuse the eminent domain power, so this

part of the fifth amendment was put in just because james madison thought it was important to do. >> host: the issue of eminent domain, in fact, the term has kind of come back into our discussion over the last years with the decision by the supreme court this what's called the key low case. why don't you tell us a little about that case and what the court decides. >> well, kilo v. city of new london involved efforts by the city and the state of connecticut to revitalize an area which was economically depressed as a result of industries and naval bases in eastern connecticut closing up. mrs. kilo lived between the thames river and long island sound. i have been to her home. it was a very nice home in a moderate to middle income area. the state of connecticut and the city decided they would take all of those sound houses, demolish them and use them to out up

stores and a hotel and restaurants to complement the pfizer pharmaceutical company which had built a research facility next door. and basically, before the kelo case everyone understood that government could take private property for public use which hept one of three -- meant one of three things. the first was for direct use by the government for a fort or some other kind of government facility. the second reason was for use by the general public such as a road. the third reason was use by a heavily-regulated public utility like a railroad or pipeline where everyone had access and rates were set as a result of government rules. what the kelo case did was to pick up on a smattering of older supreme court cases and announce

that public use also equated more broadly with public benefit. the idea being that the revitalization of think london, connecticut, con perked -- conferred a benefit justifying its being treated as a public use. >> host: so the jobs, etc., etc. >> guest: yeah. jobs and a general shot to the economy were the keys. >> host: want to open up our phone lines to our "washington journal" viewers, the numbers for republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats use 202-585-3880. and independents and others, 202-558-3882. you can also reach us on facebook, we're at c-span wj. so the kelo decision was in 2005. >> guest: 2005, yes. >> host: since then you've had the economic downturn, financial collapse, the housing collapse. how does the collapse of the housing market play into the discussion of eminent domain? >> guest: well, this is now a

very controversial plan which apparently has been adopted and will be implemented in the city of richmond, california. previously had been shopped around in san bernardino and other places. the idea there is that government would condemn mortgages and would then basically readjust the amount of the mortgage to the homeowner so that the new mortgage would be based on the current market value of the home rather than the much higher value in these cities at the time the original mortgage was given. and the idea is that a private company, mortgage resolution partners, have come up with a scheme whereby they would initially fund this, local governments would condemn

mortgages. they would give the owners obviously -- of those mortgages what was called just compensation. in turn, they would cancel the mortgages and issue new mortgages, as i said, to the homeowners at a much lower amount, and the goal is to keep people from losing their homes and keep the economy of these communities from faltering and keep a lot of vacant real estate -- >> host: and the banks are objecting to that. >> guest: the banks -- the mortgage industry is vociferously fighting this. >> host: just for an example, as stephen eagle was talking about, the city of richmond, california, here's the article in the washington times from yesterday. california city looks to seize and ease home loans. some numbers here. they say richmond, the city of richmond -- this is in california -- working with a mortgage resolution partner offers $150,000 to buy a $300,000 loan, so they'd athe

bank $150,000, and the banks are saying, wait a minute, that house is worth 200 or more. >> well, it's even more than that, because many of these loans -- perhaps the majority, the substantial majority of these loans -- will be ones on which borrowers are current in their payments. in other words, if borrowers are making their payments as far as the lender's concerned, there's no loss at all. but the houses, the mortgage is understwheart is that the deal? >> >> guest: well, yes, but first in california and some other states there is a so-called one action rule which means if a lender goes against the property and forecloses on the loan, the lender cannot then turn around and sue the borrower for deficiency. but even if the borrower is not liable for a deficiency in court, nevertheless there are people who are paying their loans, who have the money to do

that, who assume that the parcel may well go up in value again. in the meantime, they don't want that stain on their credit rating. so, again, these loans are performing. and to say that a $300,000 lobe which is in good -- loan which is in good standing is only worth 150,000 is problematic, to say the least. >> host: lots of comments and callers. daniel in connecticut. up first on our republican line. good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. mr. eagle, that case in new london, i live not -- i don't live too far away from think london, but correct me if i'm wrong, that case was -- they took that land almost ten years ago, and correct me, but they never did anything with the land. they never built any businesses or hotels or motels or anything like that. is that, is that true? >> guest: russ, you're absolutely right. what happened is the city condemned those, the si tried to

buy out -- the city tried to buy out as many of those houses as they could. as soon as they bought a house, they demolished it. after they obtained the last houses through eminent domain, they were going to have this great new area to complement the pfizer center. the economy turned, and you're absolutely correct, nothing was done. that land is vacant at this point. it looks kind of to have horn. >> host: ocean city, new jersey. john on our republican line. >> caller: yes, good morning. my -- i agree with steven eagle and his position. constitutionally, the article iii is extremely succinct. the supreme court has exceeded its boundaries andis willy-nilly interpreting -- that's in quotation marks -- all kinds. this is just one more example of an out of control supreme court who's taken activism to the extreme and is crushing, you know, the small americans.

now, that's just a comment. i do have a question. do you feel that this exceeds the good behavior clause and that they might be prosecuted criminally? >> guest: well, i think that historically there's been a lot of latitude given to judges in interpreting the constitution. certainly, the five be justice majority led by justice steeps was able to -- justice stevens was able to point to some isolated cases dating back to the 970s where governments were allowed to use private land to further the interests of other private companies that they thought were in the public interest. so even though i think this is an undue extension of the law, it's certainly enough within boundaries so i think it's not an egregious violation of the judges' duty to have ruled the

way they did. >> host: obviously, the kelo case was high profile, but it doesn't seem like we see a lot of property cases come up. is that a misinterpretation, or we just don't hear a hot about the property cases in the federal and state courts? are there a lot of property cases concerning, in lahr, eminent domain in local courts? >> guest: yes, there are lots of eminent domain cases in local courts, and most of them do not involve the ability of government to take the land. rather, they involve how much compensation the owner is going to receive so that, in fact, lawyers who deal with these cases spend most of their time arguing over the amount of compensation. which is a really important issue in the city of richmond party that you mentioned. because even if what the city is doing is constitutional -- and i personally believe that under the kelo decision which sets quite a low bar that it is -- you still have the problem of whether these insurers or

whether these openers of the mortgages -- owners of the mortgages are, in fact, going to get just compensation. i think the matter is a lot more complex and more difficult than the city of richmond and its supporters let on. >> host: here's kim in vazzer, michigan. independent line. hi, kim. >> caller: yeah. i have a comment about the, you spoke of the kelo case. wasn't in michigan back in the '70s the polltown, it was an old polish neighborhood in detroit, there were old churches, it was a very old polish neighborhood, and didn't -- wasn't that, the entire neighborhood, seized by, under eminent domain for general motors to build, i believe, a cadillac plant in that neighborhood? are you familiar with that, that case? i think it was in the late '70s, possibly the early '80s. it's been a while ago. it was very controversial in michigan.

it was an old polish neighborhood. >> guest: yes, the caller is absolutely right. what happened is that the city of detroit literally condemned an entire thriving ethnic neighborhood with 1600 businesses, many churches and a large residential district to build the gm cadillac assembly plant which was not built for many years later. but this is a more interesting and complex situation than the facts we've talked about -- >> host: kelo? >> guest: well, no, the poletown case. because, basically, people say it was done for general motors. but the fact is, the city of detroit was able to get large federal grants for urban revitalization and then induce general motors to build in that old neighborhood whereas general motors preferred to build on a green field site out of town so that, in essence, general motors

didn't benefit from the situation as much as the city of detroit getting the federal money to enable the scheme to work. >> host: how many years did it take for them to finally build that plant? >> guest: oh, i think it was about six or seven years after the case that the plant was finally built. but let me respond to the caller that the michigan supreme court shortly before the kelo case repudiated its holding in the poletown case in a case called hapcock v. wayne involving redevelopment of the metropolitan airport. the court in michigan adopted what had been the exact minority view in the poletown case and saw the error in that decision shortly before kelo. >> host: a bit too late, huh? >> guest: well, a bit too late for those people, yes. >> host: yeah. tacoma, washington, good morning to adam on our democrats' line. hi, adam.

>> caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. steve, the situation that i have here just in my review, the federal acquisition regulations, 9.2, 9.5, the conflicts of the government acquiring public property through eminent domain or any other power. and using public monies. can you explain the reasoning for the bonds and such on eminent domain actions and why they're needed? >> guest: well, bonds are needed on eminent domain just because the federal government and state governments can overreach. even if, and this is a big if, just compensation is given, just compensation is defined by the supreme court as only fair market value. so that most owners, for instance, who live in a home or are running a business are not eager to sell their business immediately or sell their home

immediately simply because someone is offering them the current rate for that home. people have their own subjective values and the place where their family has lived, they have values in the place that their customers are used to coming to, they have customized their home, they've customized their businesses. they have to relocate, they have to pay lots of money to build new connections with professionals, physicians and the like so that, basically, for most people just compensation does not put them in the lace that they were before -- in the place that they were before. so it's important to limit eminent domain to cases where it's really called for. >> host: adam, you still with us? >> caller: yes, i am. wouldn't that be a type of servitude onto the people, not just the property? >> guest: could you explain that further when you mean servitude? >> caller: servitude usc title 18 bringing somebody -- it's, how do i say, involuntary action

other than it being onto the property that would also subject the people to to being involuntary, into servitude and just defending the action. >> guest: well, first of all, if someone does contest condemnation, the they contest the -- if they contest the amount they receive in just compensation, typically they will get attorneys' fees, so that's some help in that. but, absolutely. eminent domain takes land away from owners without the owner's consent. the justification behind it in appropriate cases is that the you own land in precisely the lace needed for a fort -- place needed for a fort or if you own land in the middle of a narrow valley through which a transcontinental railroad or highway would be built, that individual landowner would be in a position to hold the government up to get the lion's share of the benefit from the entire project. so in order to prevent that,

it's necessary to take land away without the owner's consent. but, again, the constitution pelt that that should be done only in narrow and appropriate cases. >> host: typically, who decides what is just compensation? >> guest: at the outset, of course, the agency that takes the land will offer to make a payment. >> host: uh-huh. >> caller: if the owner accepts it, the end of the game. many owners, especially of lower valued property, accept it simply because they don't think they could win or don't want to fight about it. but if the owner contests the amount of compensation offered, it's the court that decides, usually a jury. >> host: let's go to our caller in hartford, connecticut. excuse me, northford, connecticut. roast a lee on -- good morning. that would help. here you go. >> caller: thanks. listen, i live near new london. i was outraged, i'm still outraged by the taking of the land of those people who lived

near the water. and living near the water, as everybody knows, is always quite valuable and increases this value every single year. and when those people bought that property, perhaps they were thinking in 10, 15, 20 years the value of that land will have increased tremendously, and maybe they needed to put -- needed it for their retirement, or they wanted to leave it to their children for retirement. this fair market value at the time that -- sorry, new london took that property be is not going to be anywhere near what it's going to be worth t in 10, 15, 20 years when those people who owned those lovely homes on the water will need it for their retirement or leave it to their children. and nothing has been done with that property, by the way. it's just still sitting there. >> host: all right. we'll hear from steven eagle. >> guest: in theory, just compensation should take into

account full current value which a good appraiser will come up with by looking at the future uses of the land as well. so if the land is going to be much more valuable later, at least in theory, it should be much more valuable now. but that's, obviously, very different from the subjective value of people planning a retirement, people planning a place for their children. that is lost. and i'd like to ask possibly this caller this, and something we all ought to think about, the pfizer pharmaceutical company had been the largest private employer in the city of ann arbor, michigan. they left ann arbor because they were reduced to move to new london. the people many in ann arbor are now left in the lurch. i don't know if the people in new london were very upset about that; this new business comes in with government subsidies and now, of course, it happened to them. the point of this being that

most people don't think a lot about these problems until it happens to them. >> host: going to the issue of companies again, the lexington herald leader in kentucky writes about an issue down there involving a pipeline. the headline on the article is legislature pipeline oversight, do companies have eminent domain? they write in part that the huge supply of natural gas has driven prices so low producers are looking for ways to generate more money by selling the by-products to chemical manufacturers, but there's only so much demand which should be raising questions about how many pipelines are needed, where it makes the most sense to locate them and whether the conversion could leave electric utilities short of natural gas. unfortunately, kentucky has no legal avenue to take a proactive role in answering these questions. and i guess the laying of this pipeline or the design of this pipeline falls, declaring eminent domain in a number of places. >> guest: yeah. as i mentioned earlier, of the three traditional uses of

eminent domain, the last of them was for -- was regulated common carriers of which railroads and pipelines are illustrations. >> host: so this fits into that. >> guest: so many states have given the power of eminent domain to railroads, to pipelines, sometimes to electric utility companies. you don't have to be a government to exercise eminent domain as long as you've been authorized by the government. >> host: here's christa, fredericksburg, virginia, on our democrats' line. >> caller: hi, professor eagle, this is christa. i was in your property law class about four years ago and was very happy to hear you on the radio this morning. i'm calling because i was wondering since the kelo decision how courts have since interpreted it and how it's been expanded. for example, i've heard of properties being taken for solely private use that only have incidental benefits for the public like greater tax revenue to the area or to the county.

have you seen a great expansion of the kelo doctrine? >> guest: well, first, thank you for your kind words about my class, that. and second, the supreme court has not followed through on its promises. in the kelo case, justice stevens for the majority said that the court would be policing the situation to make sure there wasn't abuse of eminent domain, and justice kennedy -- who was the needed fifth vote in kelo -- wrote separately saying that there would be certain kinds of situations where there should be a heightened standard of scrutiny for courts to overlook these things but, in fact, it has not happened. many courts, for instance, those in new york state have, essentially, rubber stamped eminent domain. there was a case a few years ago involving columbia university which had done a blight study, paid for it. the study found blight. the redevelopment, the state

redevelopment corporation condemned the land, worked for columbia. the new york intermediate court found this was done for the private benefit of columbia, not for the public benefit, and the new york court of appeals -- the highest court of the state -- chastised the ael late judge for for -- abe pell late judge for going outside the agency's own record and indicated very strongly that the courts were going to defer to local officials. >> host: what was the vote on the kelo decision? >> guest: it was 5-4. >> host: here is mcclain, virginia. lucy is on our republican line. welcome, you're with stephen eagle. >> guest: good morning, and can thank you for taking my call. i was wondering what your thoughts about down zoning were and in my case i live this fairfax county. our family property was down zoned from a potential really at

that time of 200 acres of one-acre density, it was down zoned to requiring five acres upon which to build a house. and i have always felt this was in anticipation of the ultimate ultimate -- [inaudible] that was required to put fairfax county property through our land. the land, you know, there were existing -- [inaudible] that, you know, were half acre density. but we were a large, beautiful, naked piece of land, and it was worth so much. it was, you know, almost 200 one-acre lots -- >> host: lucy, how much of a voice did you get? were you able to protest or contest the decision -- >> caller: well, you know, the saddest thing about this was it was done three months after my father died in 1982.

and at that point he was leading the fight against the zone, against it. and anyway, it was just done. and what was to be an extremely valuable parcel of land, i mean, it was the corner of west ox road where it met lee highway. >> host: all right. let's get an answer. thanks for your call, from steven eagle. >> guest: ing this a very typical kind of program. you have a community, most of the land in the community is build on. now the people who live there really would like the rest of the land to remain open space because they like to look at it. they don't want traffic congestion. if the other land isn't built on, their houses are more desired and worth more. so as far as the other people are concerned, it's a win/win situation. the losers are people like our caller who find that their land suddenly is worth a lot less than they thought it was. >> host: well, following on

lucy's comments, a headline in the "wall street journal" today about the housing market. big homes make a comeback is the headline on their's. and with the rebound of the housing market and the increasing number of new units being built, are we seeing an uptick in the number of eminent domain cases or in those sorts of zoning cases where areas are being rezoned for higher density housing? >> guest: well, we're not seeing an uptick in eminent domain cases. states that traditionally have used a lot of eminent domain are, for the most art, continuing to do so. most states do not. the kelo case really sensitized people, so local government officials are being much more careful in taking land, especially if it belongs to familyings as opposed to businesses. >> host: grand rapids, ohio, up next. deb on our democrats' line. >> caller: yeah. i was wondering, i know this law's been in effect since the

beginning of our time, but what are the chances of this ever being, this law ever being revised so it wouldn't hurt the public so much? i've known a lot of cases that have hurt the public. >> host: follow on to her question, what has congress done since the kelo decision in terms of eminent domain? >> guest: well, there were hearings in the senate judiciary committee right after the kelo case. i was one of the witnesses. i sat next to suzette kelo, in fact. and over the years congress has had many bills that were proposed, lots of legislation considered but, ultimately, congress did very little, almost nothing, in fact. and at the state level, those states can which did not use much eminent domain tightened their laws as a result of kelo, and those states where it was used aggressively like new york and california and new jersey did not. >> host: and that hearing, by

the way, the kelo hearing on capitol hill in our video library at c-span.org. thomas on the independent line. >> caller: good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: excuse me, sorry about that. with the eminent domain and homes being underwater and mortgages and all that, how would all that work? and wouldn't that just be kind of almost ridiculous when people bought the houses, it's just like buying a car. you buy a car, as soon as you drive it off the lot, you're underwater on it. and wouldn't that -- that kind of affects everybody in the long run because if they could buy a house for $150,000 that's actually worth $200,000, doesn't it just pass it on to everybody else across the country? >> guest: well, the caller raises a good point. cars, of course, traditionally we expect to depreciate in value rather quickly. people thought home prices could only go up.

starting in 2006-2007 they discovered that was wrong. so you did have many houses going underwater. the essence of this is that the city of richmond and other cities that might engage this such purchases -- in such purchases will try to seize mortgages, will try to claim that the fair market value of the house using our illustration as $200,000, then they will say, well, it's going to take you so long to get the house foreclosed on because of our complex foreclosure rules. and in the meantime, the house will stay vacant, and it may get damaged by vandals and so on. so really even though it's worth $200,000 in the market, it's only worth $150,000 to you as a practical matter. so that's all we're going to give you. as i said, though, sometimes the house still is being paid -- the mortgage still is being paid. >> host: and that's the bigger problem in this richmond case.

usually the people who are current on their mortgages there. >> guest: well, yes. two problems. one is that people who are current on their mortgages may well continue to make their payments and the fact that their house is now underwater is academic. so as far as the lender is concerned, as long as her getting paid, no reason to write down the mortgage at all. second, lenders have portfolios of mortgages, and there is something in eminent domain law called severance damages. so if government takes part of someone's land and the rest of it is damaged, let's say the government takes the land along the road and leaves the interior part, well, the interior part's worth a lot less because it doesn't have frontage on the main road anymore. and so government has to pay for that severance damage as well. and the industry is arguing that when you take certain loans out of a portfolio, you're unbalancing the portfolio, you're destroying lender expectations. and so this should lead to

severance damages as well, making the case a lot more complex than the city of richmond would have it. >> host: we'll go next to rosalie who is in winter harbor, illinois, on our independent line. you still there? >> caller: yes, hello. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: my husband and i went through two eminent domain cases, and they are extremely difficult. we had a beautiful home on lake michigan, and the state of illinois said they wanted it to add to the state park. and our neighbors and all of us went through a very, very difficult time. and it seems as though the state appraisers were told how to araise the house -- appraise the house was they didn't give us, i didn't teal, a fair market value. we had children in school --

>> host: what year was that, rosalie? >> caller: ah, dear me. that was in the '50s. and they, of course, succeeded in buying it and adding it to the state park. but they have not developed it. it's only just vacant land, and some of the homeless people go and camp out. you're almost afraid to even walk there without a large dog. >> host: how about the second incident you mentioned? you said there were two incidents of -- >> caller: yes. the second incident happened in the city of chicago, and that's even more interesting. my father-in-law's father-in-law built the home. it was his honeymoon cottage when he immigrated from sweden to the united states.

and brachs candy factually wanted the land for -- factory wanted the land for a parking lot. well, of course, you couldn't deal with them for a fair price, but they joined up with the the city of chicago so they could use the law of eminent domain to take the property and said that it was a deteriorating neighborhood. so they were able to take everything at a very low price. my father-in-law was very elderly, and it was a terrible thing for him because he had his favorite church for his entire life. but -- and he was quite elderly. >> host: i'm going to let you go there, but thank you for sharing your stories with us. >> guest: yeah. the caller has called our attention to a very important current problem which is that after the kero case -- kelo case gave a green light to so-called revitalization takings, in a

fair number of localities local officials are working hand in glove with redevelopers. redevelopers come up with ideas for around sells they would like to -- for parcels they would like to redevelop at a profit. they point these out to local firms, the local officials then say the land is blighted and in places there are very, very low standards for blight. things like inefficient street layout or too many parcels in the neighborhood can actually be grounds for a condemnation for blight. so the city goes ahead, condemns the land then transfers it all free of all of these obligations or interests to to the favored redeveloper. this is a really egregious example of crony capitalism. >> host: and the other thing is, too, in her stories there's an emotional attachment to both of those pieces of property which sounds like almost any amount of money -- >> guest: absolutely. yeah, and this is really why

public use has to be limited. because it's not simply a matter of dollars and cents. you're talking about people's homes and their families. >> host: kathy on our democrats' line, thanks for calling in. >> caller: hi. the government has not finish our government has not approved the keystone xl pipeline yet. in texas there's a 78-year-old woman that had 300 and some odd acres, and she was protesting because they're already using eminent domain to plow through her land for this keystone pipeline that supposedly isn't approved by our government. so how does that happen? >> guest: well, eminent domain is usually a function of state and local governments. so if the state approves the condemnation, the state can do that. the federal courts usually have an ability to police the process, though they rarely exercise it. but most condemnation is dope at the local -- is done at the local and state level.

>> host: to massachusetts, paul on our independent line. >> caller: yes. i went through this three years ago with the el paso gas delta corporation and our local utility unitel. they had a right-of-way for my property. they wanted a construction right-of-way, and they refused to pay. it cost me $26,000 to fight many court. in court. and the lawyers i had had no idea what i was talking about. they had no idea. and -- [inaudible] when epa or dep in my state says you can't use your land on your farm to grow crops, i am entitled to compensation. am i correct? >> guest: well, you're entitled to compensate if your land is taken. and many jurisdictions have so-called quick take statutes. that means rather than sue you in court to take your land and have the judge figure out a fair

price, many states allow governments to take your land now and then there has to be a lawsuit later, and only later do you get paid. you should get interest, but these not quite the same. >> host: so, paul, you're still in the hole $26,000? you haven't seen any money out of? >> guest: you bet. lawyers and appraisers. and they had no idea what they were doing. they had no idea. >> host: well, thanks for sharing your story. we share another local story from minnesota, this from the star tribune. they talk about minnesota's cities are adjusting to the loss of the hammer of eminent domain. they write in part: for a new best buy headquarters, the city got its way by using eminent domain to gain control of the land. that power reviled by some as government overreach was curbed by a 2006 change in state law. today cities condemn property but not for big, eye-catching development, but for street

expansions, trails and sewer projects. bloomington once used eminent domain to gain control over a single parking stall. >> guest: this is exactly the kind of abuse that justice o'connor's dissenting opinion in kelo is all about. the fact is government can always think of some way that theoretically is a better use of your land and will get more taxes for the local government. so if that is true, government always has a right to take your land in justice o'connor's words, to take a motel of and make it into a ritz carlton. >> host: one more quick call, last comment here. >> caller: yes. my feeling on the whole eminent domain for private sector profit, then the profit needs to be shared by the original owner, or with the economy being down like it is, then there should be some assurance that in this perceived tax increase, headache that developer put a -- make that developer put a bond out at

least 50 years that they're going to be able to guarantee the profits for the taxpayer that the eminent domain is being used for. you just don't take someone's ancestral property or heritage for a profit. >> host: what do you think of that idea? >> guest: well, it sounds great to me, but on the other hand, none of the justices in kelo brought the idea that government should have to guarantee that things would work out well. >> host: steven eagle, professor of law at george mason university in virginia, and you can reach him on twitter @georgemason law. steven b eagle, thanks for being with us this morning and talking about eminent domain. >> host: thank you, bill. >> tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the march on washington for jobs and freedom where martin luther king made his "i have a dream" speech. to mark the anniversary, a number of civil rights leaders as well as presidents obama,

clinton and carter will speak from the lincoln memorial. and just before the march tomorrow morning, "washington journal" takes a look at how the nation has changed in the 50 years since the march on washington. our guests are author michael eric dyson and "usa today" managing editor owen ullmann. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> one of the things i looked at as i was exploring this was a lot of the county records many which these colleges, the counties where these colleges are. and when you look at the colonial county records, very often you'll have the name of the president or the name of the professor and then listed with their taxable property. >> all right. >> will be an enslaved person or two or three. >> did students bring their slaves? >> yes, students also -- >> students actually brought their slaves to school with

themsome. >> yeah. and so if you think about this, what then happens,you look at the name of the president and then three lines over part of his taxable property is an enslaved person, what you'll often have is, for instance, in the case of princeton or harvard you'll actually have the president's name, ditto the college. well, who owns the person then? when -- in the sort of common knowledge of the town, of the local area the president and the college are kind of inseparable anyway. >> craig steven wilder on the connection between elite universities and a past intertwined with slavery, sunday night at 9 on "after words." part of a three-day holiday weekend on booktv on c-span2. and booktv's book club returns in september with mark look witch's "this -- look witch's" this town." read book and engage on our facebook page and on twitter. >> in our original series,

"first ladies: influence and image," we've looked at the public and private lives of the women who have served as the nation's first lady during the first 112 years. we'll feature the first ladies in their own words. >> the building of human rights would be one of the foundation stones on which we would build in the world an atmosphere in which peace could grow. >> i don't think the white house ever can completely belong to one person. it belongs to the people of america. and i think whoever lives in it, the first lady, should preserve its traditions and enhance it and leave something of herself there. >> season two features 20 first ladies from the beginning of the 20th century to the present live monday nights including your calls, facebook comments and tweets starting september 9th at 9 eastern on c-span. >> janet napolitano is stepping down as secretary of homeland security to head up the university of california system.

she gave her farewell address earlier today at the national press club in washington. here's a few minutes of secretary napolitano's remarks. >> perhaps the best place for me to end my remarks today is by giving him or her some advice, a kind of open letter to my successor. in this letter i will tell the new secretary that you will confront everything i've discussed today; the evolving threat of terrorism, devastating natural disasters and the need for strong border security and immigration enforcement. you'll need to forge strong relationships with all of our partners including congress to make sure dhs has the resources it needs to meet our responsibilities to the american people. you will need to continue our work to move to a more risk-based, intelligence-driven security system as we've done at

our airports with programs like tsa precheck and global entry. which expedite known travelers through security and customs. you'll need to support science and technology research, building on the more than $2.2 billion we've invested over past four and a half years to strengthen chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security measures. you will need to continue to recapitalize the coast guard so it can meet its ever growing mission. you will need to continue to insure the security of key government leaders and events of national significance. and you will face new challenges that we have begun to address but that need further attention. our country will, for example, at some point face a major cyber event that will have a serious effect on our lives, our economy and the everyday functioning of our society.

while we have built systems, protections and a framework to identify attacks and intrusions, share information with the private sector and across the government and develop plans and capabilities to mitigate the damage, more must be done and must be done quickly. you will also have to prepare for the increasing likely hood of -- likelihood of more weather-related events of a more severe nature as a result of climate change and continue to build the capacity to respond to potential disasters in far of flung regions of the country that could occur at the same time. and you must continue to integrate the department, what i've referred to as dhs 3.0, and lead it into its next stage of development and operations through challenging fiscal times including the ongoing impact of the sequester. you will need a large bottle of advil. [laughter]

now, some have said that being the secretary of dhs is the most thankless job in washington. that is not true. no doubt, it's a very big and complex job. it's literally a 24/7 job. yet as my successor will soon learn, it's also most rewarding jobs there is. what you do here matters to the lives of people all across our great nation. and your decision cans affect them -- decisions affect them in direct, tangible ways. you make sure their families are safe from terrorist threats, that their local first responders have equipment and training and funding and that when disaster strikes, people who have lost everything are given food and shelter and hope. and the thanks for that is not owed by any single individual or cabinet secretary, but to the

240,000 dhs employees many of whom work around the clock to accomplish our shared and noble mission, and that includes some who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. >> coming up on c-span2, booktv in prime time features books about world war ii. first, author maury klein on his book, "a call to arms," about the creation of the u.s. war arsenal. then the story of the 1943 landing of a military medical transport plane in nazi-occupied albania. and later, robert edsel on the recovery and protection of historic artifacts of the nazis in his book, "rescuing italy." >> what are you reading this summer? booktv wants to know. >> hi, i'm robert costa, the washington editor of national review. i have a lot of books i want to read this summer, but as a political journalist, i'm looking ahead to the 2016 presidential race, looking at

the candidates who are probably going to run especially on the republican side, and one of the people i'm looking at is chris christie. so i picked up "chris christie: the inside story of his rise to power." it's a fun read so far, and it really takes you back into chris christie's political ascent in new jersey. before he became u.s. attorney, he was a morris county freeholder, he was involved in a lot of county politics, and so it takes us behind the story, behind the politician we've seen on the hag zien covers -- magazine covers, with president obama in new jersey, and it's told by people who really know new jersey politics. it's a fun read so far. i'd recommend it because chris christie, i think, is a very likely contender, and you've got to know what his politics mean ahead of the election. second book on my list is by a colleague, kevin d. williamson, wrote a new book called "the end is near and it's going to be awesome." one reason i think this book is a lot of fun is because fiscal

cliff earlier in 2013 was a big story we covered at national review, but later this year you're going to have the debt limit be the story that consumes congress. and kevin williamson looks at the debt from a political perspective, a historical perspective, talks about the consequences of the debt, how it's really taking up a lot of congress' time, how it could potentially ruin the country, make the country go broke. and be he does it with some wit, with some fund, and so i think "the end is near" is a great book. third on my list is "this town" by mark leibowitz. there's always gossip, always talk about what's happening behind the scenes, how stories really get written, who's leaking to who, the power struggles not only within politics, but within the media. so mark leibowitz, who really has the ear of the beltway crowd, coming out with "this town" about the inside scene in washington, in dupont circle, in bethesda, the famous georgetown salons. that book really gives the story and the color of what washington

and the political media establishment's all about. and for fun a book i'm really looking forward to reading is called "mickey and willie," one of my favorite sports writers, alan berra. i was just down in spring training in the arizona watching my cleveland indians, chicago cubs, and i ran into willie mays, but this book is great because it looks at two men -- mickey mantle, willie mays -- who became stars at the same time and actually formed a lifelong friendship. something i never knew. i think it's going to be a big book for baseball fans this summer. so that's my list and looking forward to reading them all. >> let us know what you're reading this summer. tweet us @booktv, post it on our facebook page or send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. >> next, a look at the creation of the american arsenal during world war ii. author maury klein talks about his book, "a call to arms."

from the prospect public library in connecticut, this is about an hour. .. me editor asked me if i was interested in doing a book like this because he always thought there was a story in here that needed to be told, and he had never seen it told. and i looked into it at the time, and i said, let me think about it. i thought about it. i didn't see what i could do with it.

and i said, no, i don't think i'm northwestern for this -- i'm not the person for this, and then we had to do another book i committed to and another book. and then peter came back and saiding are might you still now be interested in ts