that state but as the grand jury report says authorities didn't do inspections for the fear that it would be seen as putting barriers up to women. so my question whether this particular piece of legislation make it easier for these types of individuals to continue to operate with impunity? >> this legislation would make it easier for them to operate. the law actually says, this legislation actually says is a provision woulif aprovision wout abortion, it would be invalid or if it would indeed access to abortion and one of the factors to help determine whether it impedes access to abortion is allowing the provider to determine and whether or not the new law were unable with impeding his ability to render

services. so if abortionists like kermit would be able to practice and set up shops and we did see many of the state health departments decide after hearing and realizing they haven't don hadny kind of inspection of the clinics they went in and started doing them and they were finding some horrible tuitions and clinics have been shut down because of that but this would save it for law is specific to abortion it is invalid, or if it would indeed access to abortion and even then from there it has to go on to whether or not the state can prove that it's going to improve access or health benefits for women and even then it would be yes the than is the punaro means possible plaques there are so many layers set up that practically any law dealing with abortion or impeding access

in any way to abortion would be considered invalid. >> some states have laws on the book that would require that providertheproviders of abortioe located near the health facility in the event that medical care is needed and that would probably involve the life of a woman. some states also require abortion providers to have admitting privileges to hospitals at first do you agree with the law and second can you elaborate on why they make sense in your expert medical opinion? the patients are told to present to the emergency room and they are not given any documentation. no one is told what was done and what the competitions were. this has happened to me in

practice. why did you do this? you knew that the perforated her at the time and essentially what he told his team knew that he did it but he didn't want to send her to the emergency room and i said that his malpractice. that's not appropriate. and again his response was she started moving. i said that's your issue if she is moving during a procedure that is your issue. you should be performing a procedure in such a way it is comfortable but to get more directly to respond to your question, i do believe that physicians should have admitting privileges because that is a part of the standard of care. if you perform a procedure on a patient or if you are caring for a patient, you need to be able to follow the complications of the procedure. that is a surgical maximum. as an ob/gyn or surgical or whatever specialty you happen to be in you need to take responsibility for the patient

if they have a complication to either admit that to the hospital and care for them or arrange for the transfer to the hospital so that patients can be taken care of. transfer agreements or i are important because they provide continuity of care and this is why i believe that physicians need to have admitting privileges and need to be able to be located within the hospital so they can be managed. there are a couple issues here. admitting the privileges to apply the practice on the part of the physicians. if that physicians cannot obtain the privileges there are reasons why you come and that's why. the peer review is generally the rule when they are applying for privileges. when physicians cannot get privileges it is most often because there are issues of competence or they have a trail in the background of malpractice event that causes their peers at the hospital to see this person isn't someone that we want to be on the medical staff. the hospital credentialing protects patients and requires

if a physician has demonstrated a difference in getting specific procedures and that they are not running from medical boards were from adverse actions on behalf of the licenses. physician to physician communications improve the process of care. one of the major problems with morbidity and mortality in any surgical specialty. and a medical specialty is the handoff. it's like a baton handoff in a race if you fumble, you lose the race i if he fumbled a handoff d medicine, patients are injured. admitting privileges allow for discipline if they are practicing outside of the scope of the practice, if the skills begin to deteriorate after time, admitting privileges provided for a regulatory framework where physicians who are in trouble or causing problems with patients can be disciplined. this is one of the reasons why i think many people in the abortion industry oppose credentialing because it exposes

the fact that if they are not competent and they've had members of complications and if they have a trail of injured patients and lawsuits this is going to be exposed. finally, i think that it establishes the fact that if you cannot get privileges, you cannot meet the standards for the medical practice. finally, an important issue is being on the hospital staff were part of a medical society implies that you are part of the medical community. if you are outside of the medical community then clearly something is wrong. there is another issue going on and i hope i've answered the question. >> i have a an articl an articls about what happens when the abortion industry is allowed to self regulate itself and i would request this be added into the permanent record.

>> senator grassley has some documents he would like to add. >> i have 15 but i would mention five. the concerned women of america action committeeaction committet the female state legislators across the country, the association of american physicians surgeons and the association of pro-life obstetricians and clinical coaches and last several ob/gyn physicians including john in north carolina, stephen kelvin in minnesota, byron told. >> all that those documents will be made a part of the record without objection. >> i represent a state that has been a leader in protecting women's health and safety and in 1970 i believe we were the first in the country to decriminalize abortion in a woman's right to choose therefore protecting the woman's right to choose and i also want to mention by mentiony background about the state

senator who led the charge to provide women in hawaii the right to choose was a practicing catholic and the governor of the state of hawaii who allowed the bill, this very important bill to become the law to protect a woman's right to make that choice was a practicing catholic who went to mass every single day. in hawaii we understand the separation of church versus state. i do agree it is a different procedure because it's foundation is a constitutional right. so in my view there should be a higa high burden that when it's such a constitutional right. you've heard about the testimony from our panel members. so i wanted to ask ms. northrop because the right to make this kind of a choice is based on a constitutional right, do you think that anti-choice law

should be based on medical necessity? been absolutely come and i want to just say it again all that this bill is about is being sure that women's critical access to reproductive healthcare including services and as i said in my testimony, that is an issue for one in three women in the united states, that is women in every state, every congressional districtcongressiy city and every town. her health care is important to her, that this bill is about making sure that because the state legislatures cannot just blatantly ban abortion which is the desire of some people that sit in them and some states have been wishing that envelope. north dakota has banned abortion as the essentially six weeks. and that is now in the court and it's been joined because it is plaintively unconstitutional. the state and its responsive briefs in the case that they

basically thought roe v. wade should be overturned so they have that going on. but you also have this under handed attempt to do what they can do by the front door so it is important that you make sure that the regulation of abortion is not just about singling out abortion providers but is also based on the great medical practice and scientific so in response to even the doctor's statement is look, without a patient's doctors who are doing outpatient surgeries need to have admitting privileges, that's fine. let that be the medical standard that is applied across the board. no objection to that -- >> i don't mean to cut you off, but i do have a question. my time is limited. doctor parker you provide abortion services in us is that even if you don't live there. i understand that you were denied hospital privileges in mississippi; is that correct

>> it's great to see you again, senator. as you know i used to live in hawaii and in show a serving under your leadership. with regard to my decision to travel to mississippi to provide abortion and care is in part a response to the fact that well over 85% of women within a county there is no abortion provider and so, as i said earlier my decision to go there was based on the fact that nobody else would go that is goinif it isgoing to go. when i made the decision, the regulations changed in the state of mississippi to require a hospital privilege. i made an effort to apply to all of the hospitals in the given area, and many of the hospitals declined to evaluate my application. this, why they chose to do that, i'm not sure. but in order to meet the law, i was unable to do so because there were hospitals that simply declined to evaluate my

credentials. >> i think that your experience just points out how difficult these make it for women in certain states to have access to certain kinds of health care services. ms. northup, i would imagine that these kind of restrictions would disproportionately impact of populations such as the low income women of color and immigrants women. would that be the case quite >> that is absolutely the case, and i gave the example in my testimony that in the rio grande valley -- which is one of the poorest areas in the nation -- the clinic in talent texas that have been providing care for the one time to those residents had to close. and again, it was under the circumstances where the doctors were not allowed. >> i just have one question for ms. tobias. do you believe roe v. wade should be overturned? >> yes he >> thank you. i'm sorry to the answer was yes i believe unborn children should be protected. >> thing you, senator graham?

>> thank you. i want to thank you for having the hearing because i think it is an important topic and i would learn with ms. tobias's' recommendation w tobiassapostroe have a hearing on my bill which is the capable unborn child protection act 1670 and have a joint vote on the senate floor and see where everybody goes out on us because it is a subject worthy of debate. let's see if we can find some common ground here about how these laws work. ms. tobias come is it your understanding that 1670 would permit a ban on third trimester abortions? that protect with exceptions for the life of the mother and rape and incest? >> 1670? yes. >> excuse me, the other 11696. i'm sorry.

>> yes. this bill would limit or prevent the ban on abortion in the last trimester. it would prevent -- is northup, do you agree with that? >> the bill has provisions that attracts a constitutional standard that do say that those buying abilities needed to be an exception for a woman's life and health as the supreme court has said. >> so, could a state passed the law that bans abortion in the last trimester except for the life of the mother and rape and incest your answer would be no? >> they standard would have to be that. >> what would you say ms. tobias? >> i think probably one of the best example examples would be e sponsor of the bill, jim and blumenthal was asked if the bill would ban abortions it talks about life were held and he said the health make no distinction.

the exception makes no distinction between physical or psychological health. so it would be very difficult and impossible under the bill to ban abortions for help if psychology and psychological health is going to be -- >> there are 13 states -- thank you -- there are 13 states that ban elective abortions after 13 weeks except for rape and incest. would this go down? >> you said what. >> do you agree? >> like the ninth circuit did with arizona's 20 week then yes it would be unconstitutional and this bill tracks the u.s. constitution -- >> they have waiting periods before the abortion is performed. performed. would this bill strikes a down? >> is it wit >> is it with sea view in p. action in any way it would be struck down. down. stack ms. tobias, do you agree with that? >> it depends on what the court would look at. -- >> so you don't know how that works? >> yes i do.

the first question would be is this type of waiting period something -- >> the ones you are familiar with q-quebec and yowith continw with a waiting period that you think would survive? >> well, i would say that i think it's important that we look at the factors in the bill. as it applies to similar services -- >> with a waiting period requirement that you think would survive scrutiny under the spell? >> well, if it were able to say that it did not significantly impede access to services, if it was a waiting period that is not a particularly long one. >> so you can't give an example. ms. tobias, does the bill then statestates requirements that rn exercise their conscience and not that of performing an abortion; there are laws on the books of? >> yes. if someone says according to their conscience they cannot take the life of an onboard title that would be impeding or reducing access to abortion shall be -- >> the legislation would invalidate those walls?

>> yes. i don't agree it doesn't address the issue of conscience objection. >> should this? would you accept an amendment offered by me to make sure people with a conscience don't have to do something like this? >> well, i think we have important laws that are on the books that respect peoples rights of conscience and so i don't -- >> on this issue with you and tv to accept agive you to accept at by amy to exempt conscience? >> well, i not elected to make those decisions. i think the bill clearly doesn't cover that. >> sure enough. i think the answer would be no. so, doctor parker, is it standard medical practice for physicians operating on a child that 20 weeks to apply anesthesia to the child? >> well, senator i. am not well-versed in fetal surgery because most surgeries at 20 weeks to ocher in utero.

>> it would. are you familiar with the care? >> when people surgery is done -- and i very well aware of the landscape -- initially went fetal surgery is being done, the fetuses react very strongly to institutions and placement of catheters. >> said it is a standard medical practice to provide anesthesia when you operate on a baby at 20 weeks? >> yes. >> medical encyclopedias -- invites are a -- encourage parents to talk with the bbf 20 weeks. they can hear sounds coming react to your voice coming your heart beat high they can hear your stomach growling and they can react to loud noises. does that make sense to you ms. chireau? >> yes it does. >> has anyone ever been born at 20 weeks that survive? >> as far as i'm aware, no. stack not to my knowledge. >> i can show you twins.

thanks. >> senator hatch. >> thank you mr. chairman. the congress has a few times told states they have to pass certain legislation. but on the condition of receiving federal funds of some kind. now, i'm in my 38th year here in the united senate. and on this committee, i don't recall congress ever passing a law that prohibited states from enacting entire categories of walls simply because congress said so. i don't recall that. can anyone on this panel gives me an example of that; and if not, why is abortion so unique that congress has this authority in this area but not in any other? does anybody care to take a crack at that? i don't see it personally. let me ask a question to you,

ms. chirea tobias. states have been passing laws on abortion for 13 years. the supreme court took over in the rubthe rue v. wade decisiond since 1973, the united states have had the most permissive abortion laws in the world today that most americans have always imposed most abortions of the vast majority of americans that support reasonable and common sense abortion regulations. at least that's been my experience. and i don't think it is a false experience. this bill attempts to wipe it all out to eliminate even minimal regulations that most americans support into the visiting court has already said is constitutional. now i opposed this kind of legislation more than 20 years ago when i was the ranking member of what is considered today the help committee. this bill would not regulate abortion. it would regulate the states telling them what laws they may or may not pass.

how did congress have the authority to do that? >> i think that it would be -- currently the law other than the supreme court will or will not allow -- has the state legislatures elected by the peoplpeople setting the laws for their states. i think that's actually a very good way to handle this. the states have been the linguist the conscience clause -- dealing with the conscience clause and the waste provisions and the courts have been allowing visas to stan these tws with difficult to say that the law that the court has upheld is unconstitutional. so, we certainly think the congress would be overstepping in passing the law that would completely override a procedure that the supreme court has said is different. >> this bill would prohibit restricting abortions based on the reasons for the abortion.

the way that i read the bill. neither the states nor the federal government could prohibit abortions performed because, for example, the child is a girl because the child has a disability. is that the way that you understand its? >> yes. >> doctor chireau, this bill sounds like it is differential to medical judgment and abortion should be treated like any other medical procedure. but under this bill, politicians, lawyers and judges to make final decisions on such, such as which medical procedure, which medical procedures are, quote, comparable. which tasks doctors may delegate to other personnel, which drugs may be dispensed, which medical services may be provided through telemedicine, how many visits to a medical facility or necessary, the relative safety of abortion services, which methods advance

the safety of abortion or the health of women more or less than others. from your perspective as a doctor, doesn't this bill actually compromise the practice of medicine? >> i think it does compromise the practice of medicine. and i believe that is on two levels. number one, for the reasons that you have integrated. number two, because i delete the current legislation of the states to set clinic specified access to clinics and so on and so forth is protected to the patients. so i think that it is totally a problem. number one, for those reasons that you've listed and also because the regulations that have been enacted were enacted in an attempt to prevent abortion providers from being exempt from the same sorts of bigotry frameworks that other medical practitioners have to te with. >> this bill would prohibit a search in some abortions are also not imposed on what it calls medically comparable

procedures. now that is just one of the key terms in this bill that are brand-new and completely undefined. but this bill makes a pretty clear statement that there is nothing unique about abortion, the thing that makes it different from any other medical procedure. and that, of course, is not true. >> that's correct. >> pro- abortion or antiabortion. even in roe v. wade, the supreme court said the united states has unique reason for restricting abortion because it involves witwhat the court calls potentil human life. and inherits versus mcrae they held that the abortion, quote them is inherently different from other medical procedures because the weather procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life, "-end-double-quote. i don't think that we need the supreme court to tell us that. but there is. doesn't that settle this question and completely undercuts the entire theory behind this the?

>> yes i think it does. and the issue of comparable procedures is false. ideally that abortion is a unique procedure. as you've said, it is the only procedure that terminates a human life and in addition from the technical perspective, and abortion is a very different procedure from say completing a miscarriage were doing a violation on and on nonpregnant women. >> can i ask just a couple more questions? >> we are approaching a vote and that senator cruz is here. >> let me ask one more. the supreme court created one set of rules in 1973 for evaluating the constitutionality of abortion regulations. then the court changed the rules in 1992. now, this creates yet another standard prohibiting regulations so the state cannot show by the convincing evidence significantly advanced the safety of abortions.

now it's bad enough the supreme court sometimes does congress job. but here is the congress attempting to turn around and do the courts job. the federal regulations in the past into the present and in the future. does this mean for example the states would be required to reveal any law or regulations other than the books that do meet these new moves. with respect to abortion it creates abortion as a special protected class of procedure and as a special protected class of providers. >> well, i can't imagine why any state legislature would support this. no matter the position on

abortion. i am having trouble here with this approach. but at least i want to raise these issues because i think they are important issues. >> sorry to impose on senator lee. >> senator lee was here earlier so i'm going to call on him at this point. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you mr. chairman and and all of you for joining us today. >> there was a time with the humanities of an unborn child to plausibly be dismissed as philosophical conjecture. today we know it is a biological fact for every x-rated announcement, every baby shower, every ultrasound image posted on facebook all of this attests to this scientifically confirmed very deep human truth.

the only difference is that unborn boys and girls are small and helpless and mute and if he cannot speak for themselves. they rely on strangers. they rely on us to speak for them. iab lead in the innate dignity of every human life and i believe every human society is rightly judged by how it treats its most formidable members of the sick, disabled the disablede abused, the homeless, the widowed and the orphaned by the pregnant mother in crisis and of course the unborn child in the womb. neither our society at large for our laws have to put the vulnerable one against another. we can choose. instead, we have the power to choose instead. to welcome and to love and to protect all come even and

especially the weakest among us. making that choice presents an enormous challenge to all of us as policymakers come as citizens and as neighbors and friends, as parents and children ourselves. but the challenge of life is come after all, why we are here. to use our strength and defense of the week. we should choose to embrace the challenge and to do so with love and open arms. we can choose life. and when this debate finally one day ends, i think we will. i think we will choose life. so let me start with a couple of questions for his tobias if i might. at a rudimentary level, does s. 1696 even consider the

possibility that there might be more than one life at stake when a woman has an abortion? >> no it does not. spirit and if the proposed legislation would have far reaching effects potentially not just for one life but for two in any given instances is that right? >> for every abortion performed there is a human life that is destroyed. this bill doesn't mention it, treating the child has a tumor instead. >> so in that respect it's very different than other legislations that might affect one person that might just affect one person this one involves the one potential. >> many medical experts and health providers have strong

ethical concerns they have every right with providing abortions. they would have the federal government telling the states that they may not protect the rights of conscience of medical providers. my own state for example guarantees the right of a medical provider to refuse and to participate or to treat for an abortion based on moral or religious grounds. these laws matter. notwithstanding and against serial and religious objections.

so let me just ask what role does the freedom of conscience law turned the play and what effect would this bill have on those walls and what concerns should we have and what you have with such an outcome? >> a lot of people go into the medical field because they want to take care of people. they go into obstinate jerks and gynecology and become a delivery room nurse because they want to take care of pregnant women and babies. if they are told they do not want to kill unborn children if they are told that they have no choice that they will have to perform or participate in the performance of an abortion procedure they will either be doing something that is very strongly and deeply offensive to them or they will leave the field which means we would have a lot of wonderful doctors and nurses that could be helping pregnant women and their children finding something else completely false to. so i think i would actually be a

huge detriment to the medical community. >> and this bill with stripped-down conscience laws because they would impede or reduce access to abortion. .. legislation designed to force a radical view of democrats in the senate that abortion should be

universally available, common, without limit, and paid for by the taxpayer. that is an extreme and radical view. it is a view shared by a tiny percentage of americans, although a very high percentage of activists that the democratic party who find, provide manpower politically. and it is also a very real manifestation of all war on women given the enormous health consequences that unlimited abortion has had damaging the health and sometimes even the lives of women. i have with me 317 statements from texas women who have been hurt by abortion along with letters from texans opposing this bill, along with letters from pro-life doctors, nurses,

lawmakers across the united states. with the chairman's permission i would like to have it entered into the record. >> without objection. >> a number of the restrictions of this legislation would be invalidated, common-sense restrictions the vast majority of americans support. for example, restrictions on late-term abortions. the overwhelming majority of texans do not want to see late-term abortions performed, except in circumstances when necessary to save the life of the mother. and yet the united states laws and the law that would be reflected in this bill is a stream by any measure. today the united states is one of seven countries in the world that permits abortion after 20 weeks. we are in such distinguished company as china, north korea,

vietnam, those known perry gonds of human rights. if you look at some other countries across the world, and france abortion is prohibited after 12 weeks. in italy abortion is prohibited after 12 and a half weeks. in spain abortion is prohibited after the first trimester. in portugal abortion is permitted it after ten weeks. this is the norm across the world, and get this legislation would say that that 23 states to have enacted limits on late-term abortion, their loss would be set aside. a question i would ask dr. parker. is it your view that these nations, france, italy, spain, portugal, that they are somehow extreme or manifest a hostility

to the rights of women? >> thank you for your question. i am not an international human throat -- human relations expert. i can tell you that when abortion is legal and safe that the known mortality related to women taking desperate measures when abortion is illegal is greatly minimized, as demonstrated by what happened in this country after 1973. i do know new that move internationally in a country like darnell where i have travelled where they have made great strides toward reducing their maternal death rate by having better access to maternal care, despite the fact that abortion is legal because it is so heavily stigmatized when women access that care, the major cause of internal 45 maternal mortality is related to unsafe abortion.

if access to legal and safe services for -- were a reality, an unplanned pregnancy reflects human rights, values, then countries that restrict that, we would have to question their commitment to humanity and safety. >> well, thank you for your views, dr. parker. i would know that this suggestion that somehow france or italy or spain or portugal, much of the civilized world is somehow in sensitive to the rights of women is rather extraordinary command the idea that america would rush up to embrace china and north korea for the standard on human rights is chilling. i would note that this law would also set aside state laws preventing the taxpayer-funded abortion. the state would also imperil

state laws providing for parental notification if your child needs an abortion. in the minimum before that serious medical treatment that the parent has a right to be notified thirty-eight states have that law. yet this extreme bill in congress would imperil everyone of those laws. if i may have another 30 seconds finally to just share some stories from women in texas. one this story, i was told i just had a blob of tissue by planned parenthood after they did my pregnancy test and referred me to a nearby abortion clinic. i was not given the option of having a sonogram. i was not given the option of hearing my baby's heartbeat. having been given the opportunity of seeing my baby and hearing a heartbeat i can assure you i would not have chosen abortion. i would have chosen life instead of death. how can anyone believe abortion should be illegal after seeing a baby living in the womb on a sonogram and hearing the

heartbeat of that baby? i felt i was pressured by planned parenthood because they told me the best thing that could do would be to have an abortion since i was so young. i was 15 years old and still in high school. that abortion ruin any chance of me giving birth. as a result i have had five miscarriages, three of them have been tubal pregnancies requiring emergency services and work very near death experiences. i have suffered from depression and attempted suicide, self mutilation. my experience of the emotional trauma after abortion is the same as millions of other women. i have 317 statements coming each as powerful as that in terms of the human consequences of what this legislation would produce. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. nancy northup, with this legislation prohibits the use of ultrasound when a patient requests? >> oh, no. not at all. this law, again, is focused on

those underhanded type of restrictions that are treating abortion not like some of these -- similarly situated medical practices that do not advance health and safety and are harming access to services. >> in essence it would be irrelevant to the instances described? >> absolutely and also explicitly does not cover the question of insurance funding. would not invalidate those laws. it has nothing to do with minors and specifically says it does not address issues about parental consent and edification loss. >> monique chireau, have you ever performed an abortion? >> no, i have not. >> dr. parker, how many abortions have you performed? >> i don't have that number right off the bat, but i can tell you that over 20 years of patient care, i have seen thousands of women, and some have been an abortion care. >> in your experience to over how many years?

>> twenty. >> twenty years, has the wit of a hallway in those clinics where you have performed your medical services affected the quality or expert this of those medical services? >> no, senator. >> as the theme admitting privileges within that state affected the quality or effectiveness of your medical services? >> only to the extent that they prevented me from providing care to women. >> admitting privileges are irrelevant to the quality and excellence of your medical services because anyone in need of a hospital will be admitted to the hospital. >> correct, senator. >> end the waiting, is that relevant the reality, senator, is that women are extremely powerful. most women that i need will, they have been thinking about

what they will do about their pregnancy from the minute they found they were pregnant. i know women to be extremely lawful. won't. >> thank you. ms. nancy northrup, in response to a number of questions and you essentially said limits in bodied and incorporated in this bill were the constitutional standard, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> misstates under the supreme court's constitutional ruling can ban abortion later in pregnancy and to as long as they have an exception for women's health and life. those laws are on the books now and would still be on the books. >> in effect this law basically enforces the constitution. >> absolutely in force is every woman's constitutional right to make the important decision for herself. >> finally, in those countries -- in reference was made to a

number of them are abortion is made illegal, is it made safer? >> no. around the world many of the places where abortions happen and women are terminating pregnancies, it is illegal and unsafe. whether you see this country before roe v wade or places in latin america and sub-saharan africa today when women do not have access to safe and legal abortion they are harmed. >> you made reference to the state of texas, women in texas going across the border to mexico so that they could buy on a free-market drugs necessary they thought for abortions. >> yes. the clinics have been shrinking in texas because of laws that -- and i commend the american medical association brief in the fifth circuit talking about the medically unnecessary laws that

have been passed in texas. the a.m. a very mainstream medical opinion because it is taking clinics from three dozen cut by one-third down to less than ten if allowed to go into effect. women have been going over to the border in mexico. they have been buying medication on the black market and trying to sell full board. the situation will be worse. women are hurt when they cannot get the medical care that in their decision to make decisions about their pregnancy that they need. >> has it made abortion sifter? >> no, mr. chairman, they have not. >> have they created confusion or discouraged women? >> absolutely. >> a few.

we are voting. i apologize. i will have to close the hearing my colleagues are on their way there. i want to enter into the record without objection various statements including planned parenthood in southern new england become a statement submitted for the record. as it is our custom, the record will remain open for one we can face my colleagues have additional questions, and i, again, want to thank everyone of our witnesses for participating in this very, very important hearing. thank you all for attending. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] minimum 111.

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

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

commemoration at howard university in washington d.c. this is 15 minutes.

>> please welcome the interim president of howard university, dr. wayne frederick. [applause] >> welcome. it is with great pride that i welcome our distinguished speakers, guests to howard university for their momentous celebration of the 50th anniversary of the civil-rights act of 1964. it is an honor for howard university to join the department of justice and hosting the symposium which will explore the history and future of this groundbreaking legislation. it is my pleasure to acknowledge individuals and groups for their attendance and contribution to today's program. our esteemed program guests, cabinet members, including those

whom we are honored to have on our program today, attorney general eric holder, secretary tom perez, and secretary arne duncan. white house officials, members of congress and other elected officials, leaders of the various federal agencies represented today, leaders and stakeholders from the civil-rights community, national archives for displaying the original civil-rights act and the distinguished members of the howard university community and faculty students, staff and alumni. the process of the civil-rights act of 1964 was paved with the footsteps of careless ordinary americans led freedom rides to and segregation and discrimination. core for comprehensive civil-rights legislation gain momentum. civil-rights activists continued to organize peaceful demonstrations throughout the

country's. after hundreds of nonviolent protesters were met with police violence and arrests and birmingham, alabama. president john f. kennedy delivered a nationally televised speech voicing his support for comprehensive civil-rights legislation. after president kennedy's assassination in november of 1963 president lyndon b. johnson made a commitment to pursue civil rights legislation. after the longest debate in senate history this civil-rights act was finally passed and signed into law becoming the first of many legislative victories over the next 50 years that have been critical tools for protecting civil rights. through the past 50 years heart university has been grounded by the legacy rendered and outcomes of the dedicated commitment of countless locals as well as national civil rights activists. signed into law by president lyndon b. johnson on july 2nd

1964, the civil rights act outlawed discriminatory voting requirements and segregation in schools, employment, and places of public accommodation. today's keynote speaker, attorney general eric holder, has made protecting civil rights a tough priority of his administration of the department of justice. howard university awarded president lyndon johnson and honorary doctor of law degree at our june 5th 1965 commencement convocation. in his commencement address he offered the following insight on the future path of civil-rights and our country. it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. all our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates. this is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. we seek not just freedom but opportunity. we seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right but as a

fact and results. i believe that the presentations and discussions of today symposium highlight the critical discussions that must continue to guarantee justice and civil rights for all citizens. as we reflect on the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 1964 civil rights act we celebrate activists whose sacrifices pave the road toward equality. their unwavering commitment to strengthen our nation and inspires us to persist. let us rededicate our efforts to preserve the gains of the past 50 years in advance a robust agenda for the future. we must obsess about the journey and not any specific destination . the passage of the civil-rights act was the destination, an important one, but not the final

one. like the virtue of love, this is a journey without an end. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce to you today the attorney general eric holder. eric holder was sworn in as the 802nd attorney general of the united states on february 3rd, 2009, by vice president joe biden. president barack obama announced his intention to nominate mr. mr. holder december 1st, 2008. in 97 he was named by president clinton did deputy attorney general, first african-american named to that post. prior he served as u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. in 1988 he was nominated by president reagan to become an associate judge of the supreme court of the district of columbia. while in law school he clerk at the naacp civil defense fund and the department of justice criminal division. upon graduating he moved to a

washington. he was assigned to the newly formed public integrity section in 1976 and was asked to investigate and prosecute official corruption and a local, state, and federal levels. as attorney general he has many protection of civil rights, the highest perris of the department of justice. it is my distinct pleasure to welcome to the podium the attorney general of the united states eric holder. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. well, thank-you for those kind

words. thank you all for such a warm welcome. it is a pleasure to be here on the beautiful and historic campus of howard university, one of our nation's great historical black institutions of higher learning and how to generations of leaders in rome models. i would like to thank the howard university color guard for being a part of the celebration and bert cross ii for that exceptional rendition of the national anthem. i am glad that did not have to follow him. i also want to recognize ambassador young. [applause] and i also want to thank every member of the game in scores who will share their talents with us later. i am also mindful, as we gather

today, of the leader that we lost this past friday. twitter.com/booktv was a passionate journalist, a lifelong defender of the first amendment and a fierce civil rights advocate. he was a top aide to my predecessor as attorney general, robert f. kennedy and later served as pallbearers. he risked his life alongside the freedom riders and fought for civil rights protections at a time when most southern journalists turned a blind eye. he was a truly remarkable man and a singular voice for the cause of justice, a guiding light and an inspiration to many, including me. i count myself as extremely fortunate to have known john seigenthaler and they stand my heartfelt condolences to his family. he will be dearly missed. his critical work goes on. it is a privilege to be among so many distinguished guests including fellow members of the cabinet and accomplished

trailblazers in the fight for civil rights and young people, young people who will carry on the work that we commemorate and build on the singular achievement that we celebrate here today. half a century ago this month with doctor martin luther king jr. at his side president lyndon johnson marked an inflection point in a struggle that predated our republic when he signed the landmark civil rights act of 1964. it was a struggle that had begun more than three centuries earlier in 1619 with the arrival of roughly 20 captive africans in jamestown, virginia. and it continued through the spending colonization of north america. by 1763 the colonial population included roughly 300,000 africans, the overwhelming majority of home where slaves. it was not until a century later that our greatest president

issued an emancipation proclamation providing a legal framework for a that eventual release of many slaves and secured the 13th amendment, which finally struck this evil from our constitution. even then jim crow laws and other measures were engineered to keep millions of african americans effectively in bondage, slavery by another means for a century more and intimidation and violence were routinely employed to prevent them from becoming educated, to keep them -- to keep us from voting and to stop them, us from mixing with the white majority. finally, 60 years ago this may when chief justice earl warren led a unanimous supreme court to declare in brown v. board of education that segregation was unconstitutional. our nation took an important step to reconcile not only two races but to histories, it to

americans that had been intensely separate and profoundly unequal since long before the american revolution. ten long years after that as long simmering in justice gave way to activism and the civil rights act was adopted to forever enshrine equality into american law. this historic measure of our discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin as to two critical employment projections that outlawed discrimination and public accommodations including schools and workplaces and prohibited unequal application of the requirements. in so doing it greatly expanded the mandate of the department's civil rights division which is to this date committed to enforcing civil rights acts and and -- up holding the civil and constitutional rights of all americans, particularly society's most tolerable members

the new statute also created the plan and opportunity commission as well as the community relations service which assists vulnerable populations and promotes healing and times of disorder and distress. now, securing this law was an extraordinary undertaking born of a consensus brought by decades of hard work and profound sacrifice. it required to great presidents, john fitzgerald kennedy who called on us to confront a moral crisis and fill a national promise and lyndon baines johnson who took action after president kennedy's assassin -- assassination to make that promise real. required a congress with the fortitude to stand up to those who defended a way of life founded on bigotry and oppression. it required leaders of conviction from medgar evers said dr. king, willing to risk

and even give their lives and order that others might live free most of all, it required men, women, and even children, children have tremendous courage and unwavering faith to in toward the unendurable and advance the cause of justice. these are the heroes whose legacy we celebrate on this milestone anniversary. these are the pioneers on whose shoulders we now stand, and these are the trail blazers to a home we pay grateful tribute this morning. of course, like all who are old enough to remember those days when northern cities erupted and when mississippi burned i will never forget the turmoil and the violence that characterized the civil rights era. i will never forget watching on a black-and-white television in my childhood home in queens in new york city as countless people rich and poor black and

white, famous and unknown braved dogs and fire hoses, billy tubbs and baseball bats, bullets and bombs in order to secure the rights which every american is entitled. these extraordinary citizens streamed in the birmingham and marched on washington. they stood up in barack and sat in in greensboro. they faced -- they walked through a school house door. they dared to dream of a more equal society and risk everything -- they risked everything they had to make it so. that was the fight that half a century ago brought nearly 1,000 students to mississippi for a voter registration campaign called freedom summer. as the battle for civil rights was waged in the halls of congress and thundered across the streets of america inch by

inch the nation as a whole moved slowly toward equality. but mississippi and other states continued to a stand in stubborn , racist opposition. registrar offices instituted voting tests and other measures that made it almost impossible for black men and women to go to the polls and vote. citizens and even sworn police officers fought racial equality and threatened african americans who dared to stop and step into voting booths. newspapers, newspapers published the names of registered black voters so they could be targeted and terrorized by those who harbored hatred. yet hundreds of young people can in defiance of these threats and in the face of deadly violence to help extend our democracy's most basic right to people of color. in ten weeks of freedom summer more than 65 buildings were bombed or burned.

hundreds of civil rights workers were beaten and arrested, and three brave young man, andrew goodman, james chaney, and michael schwerner were brutally murdered. yet violence did not send the activists running as perpetrators had hoped. instead it galvanized them and galvanized our nation. more and more brave americans joined the cause. both residents of the communities and students of all races from across the country. when they saw that african-americans were being deprived of quality educational opportunities they established freedom schools to teach black history, to facilitate discussion and encourage political activism. these young people devoted themselves to the hope, as the widow of michael schwerner once wrote, that they could pass on to the next generation a world containing more respect for the

dignity and respect of all men and that world which was will to us. a senseless murders in a case that became known as mississippi burning captured headlines and sparked outrage across the country. it their tragic death moved public opinion, spurred cautious politicians to take long, -- long overdue action and intensify support. but their efforts also made possible the voting rights act of 1965, the fair housing act of 1968, and the americans with disabilities act of 1990, along with countless other movements for progress. although michael and regions never had the chance to have children of their own, their work and the efforts of their friends have left a better world for me and my children and millions more.

as we mark this anniversary i am especially mindful that without the civil rights act, the protections is codified, or the monumental progress that followed a few of us would be here this morning. without the sacrifices of countless activists and citizens i would not stand before you as attorney general of the united states proudly serving in the administration of our first african-american president. i am just as mindful that none of this progress, none of this progress was preordained. we know from our history that advances toward equality and inclusion have never been inevitable. every step forward has been hard-1. the words of our founding documents were not automatically endued with the force of law, and our nation's future continues to be defined and its destiny determined by men and women of both character and conviction. courageous people who are unafraid to stand up to what

they noted be right and by patriots who never shrink from their responsibility to draw this country's ever closer to its highest ideals. like? colleagues at every level of today's department of justice are determined to do everything in our power to further these efforts, to protect and expand the work of those who have gone before and to extend america's promise to new generations and populations that have been too long disenfranchised, overlooked demand depressed. half a century after the civil rights act was passed it continues to provide an arsenal of singularly useful tools and waging a stroke. as we speak the justice department is using provisions of this law aggressively and innovatively. earlier this year we reached a

$99 million employment discrimination settlement with the new york city fire department. protected by the best qualified among them. in 2012 the department used provisions of the act to address harassment against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered students and a minnesota school district establishing a model for other districts to follow. we are currently employing other provisions to fight for gender equality and education and finding that in a variety of cases and circumstances from ensuring that schools provide safe and equal opportunities to all of our sons and daughters to guaranteeing access to state courts for those with limited english proficiency, the civil rights act offers powerful enforcement authorities to address contemporary challenges and save kurds vulnerable people beyond the act itself the

justice department has worked with our partners throughout the administration most notably the department of education and the department of labor led by secretary tom perhaps who not long ago lead and helped to revise our own civil rights division ushering in what i am confident will be considered an era of historic achievement for that division. alongside these other agencies we have worked hard to build on the spirit of the law by winning new legislation and judicial rulings that extend the promise of equality to others. we have secure additional protection for women. we have achieved historic progress in ensuring civil rights of lgbt individuals across the country so that they can finally receive equal opportunity, equal protection, and equal treatment that they deserved. all of this is important, like changing work.

it speaks to the timelessness of the civil rights act itself, the continuing relevance of its core provisions and the need to keep expanding upon the safecard provides. but it also shows that our work is far from over. significant challenges remain before us, and each one of us, every american has a great deal more to do. although we can be proud of the progress made even within our own lifetimes, we cannot accept these advances as an indication that our work is complete, that hour-long journey has been successfully concluded. progress is not an end. it is a measure and effort and commitment. as we speak in far too many neighborhoods, far too many people of, and far too many lgbt individuals are denied credit and housing and in the workplace far too many women are deprived of the opportunity to perform

equal work for equal pay. for in our education system students of color are far more likely than white children to attend school spirit in the criminal justice system african american men are routinely subjected the sentence is averaging 20% longer than those served by a white man convicted of similar crimes. when it comes to our most treasured democratic institutions, many vulnerable populations, including young people, the elderly, and communities of color are now facing a range of new restrictions leveled under the dubious skies of voter fraud prevention that creates significant barriers to the ballot box. if these and other conditions from lower social and economic ability to reduce educational opportunities to unequal justice on unfair outcomes were felt so acutely by the majority of americans, i believe our

national dialogue and our response to these problems would be different. as it stands, our society is not yet colorblind, nor should it be given the disparities that still afflict and divide us. we must be color brave and must never forget that all are made better and more prosperous if all are given equal opportunities. that is why today together we must resolve once again to act not out of self-interest but out of national interest. we must take into account not only the considerable steps that we have seen over the last 50 years that the entirety of the experience that people of color have faced. and we must never hesitate to confront the fact that the undeniable truth that in too many places across this nation that i love and that i have served throughout my life, the echoes of injustice stretching

back nearly four centuries continue to reverberate. these echoes from times past are still hurt by too many in addressing -- still hurt by too many in our nation today. in addressing these lingering effects their is a need for personal responsibility. to many individuals are negligent or counterproductive, but there is also a need for societal responsibility, collective engagement and common effort. we must be willing to acknowledge the problems that we face, to talk frankly about inequality and to examine its causes and impacts and most importantly to ultimately eradicated and look at our great nation and reflect on its history with clarity and painful honesty with open eyes and deep understanding of who we have been, who we aspire to be and who we are today.

this is the key to protecting our union and formulating policies that will lead to a better, brighter future for all of our citizens. this is what drives the obama administration's sweeping efforts to insure every american has a chance to succeed based on his or her skills, talent, potential and not by the circumstances of birth. this is something that we will never be able to do on our own. today i am calling to renew the spirit of the civil rights act by updating fair housing and lending laws to address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status. [applause] by strengthening workplace protections to private pay discrimination against women and

to finally end -- [applause] and to finally end discrimination against lgbt citizens by ensuring -- [applause] by ensuring equal access to education and promoting nondiscriminatory learning environments and by passing an updated voting rights legislation that will enable every voter in every jurisdiction to exercise unencumbered the rights that so many have fought for and died to defend. [applause] after all, the civil-rights act of 1964 was an attempt and a

highly successful one to confront fundamental questions that had bedeviled this nation since its inception and that justifiably generate controversy even today. this morning we are reminded that carrying on this work advancing the cause of justice and ensuring the civil and human rights of every person no matter where they come, no matter who they are, no matter who they love continues to constitute our most solemn obligation. the true greatness of this country lies in our limitless capacity for innovation and invention, rebirth and renewal, forging greater societies and reaching new frontiers. as a people we have never been content to tie ourselves to an unjust status quo no matter how many individuals may have found it acceptable. we challenge, question, struggled, quarrel, bind

ourselves to the ongoing quest for a better future and ultimately move forward together as one nation indivisible driven by our pursuit of a more perfect union and determines to achieve it. that at its core is what defines us as americans, of people born of revolution and tested by civil war, a nation founded on the quality but built by those enchains, a country first imagined centuries ago by imperfect people driven by an near-perfect vision, a vision conceived by patriots who dared to reach beyond themselves and defended later by activists who fought for equal justice and challenge us even today to make this promise real. to them has to generations yet to come we owe our best efforts and steepest resolve. we must take up this challenge

and implement this vision and must build in their honor a world that is worthy of their passion, sacrifice, and humanity like you, i have no allusions that this task will be easy, but as i look round this crowd today , compassionate men and women dedicated to truth and devoted to service, i am confident in our ability to reach that promised land. i thank you for your commitment to progress and to the pursuit of justice, and i look forward to all that we must and will accomplish in the months and years ahead as an asian, has the beloved community, as a united people we shall overcome. thank you. [applause] [applause]

him. >> please welcome deputy attorney general of the united states department of justice. [applause] >> history is not just a series of events but the people who create those events, the impact of the stories told and untold of the many trailblazers and on sung heroes whose tireless sacrifices and relentless dedication have resulted in justice, equality, opportunity, and freedom for all. looking back, we have seen that the defining moments in american

history resulted from the strategic dedicated in tremendous hard worker for stickers, visionaries, leaders, leaders like president john f. kennedy and lyndon b. johnson who refuse to accept an unjust status quo, civil-rights pioneers like dr. martin luther king jr. mon-khmer reverence ralph abernathy, congressman john lewis car rosa parks, and many of today's program participants and guests. many of you in this auditorium as well as countless others who in the face of bigotry and violence called upon our nation to live up to its fundamental ideals of liberty and equality. history is ambassador andrew jackson young jr., a living legend and an icon at the

forefront of a watershed moment for america, one with enormous ramifications for our country and the world, the civil rights movement, and the ultimate passage of this or rights act of 1964. [applause] ambassador young met the challenges of segregation with truly remarkable sacrifice is open to transform america into a better, stronger, and fair nation. born in warns during the depths of the great depression, ambassador rihanna accepted the responsibility of service at a young age. in 1960 after receiving his undergraduate degree right here in howard university and his divinity degree from hartford theological seminary, he joined

the southern christian conference, the atlanta base so rights organization led by doctor king. he was soon named the director of sclc citizenship school program where he, like dr. king, employed the ghandi concept of nonviolent resistance as an organizing strategy and tactics for social change. later after becoming the executive director of the sclc ambassador young quickly became one of doctor king's most trusted advisers and confidants. he was one of the principal strategist send negotiators during the civil rights campaigns in birmingham, selma, and atlanta to name just a few. it was those campaigns along with other critical events the lead to the passage of the civil-rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965. even after being beaten and

jailed for his participation in civil rights demonstrations and after witnessing the devastating assassination of doctor king in 1968, the ambassadors devotion to public service, to social justice and to human rights never wavered. in 1972 he became the first african american from the deep south since reconstruction to be elected to the united states congress. in 1977 he became the first african-american to serve as our ambassador to the united nations in 1981 he was elected mayor of the great city of atlanta where he served for two terms. in atlanta where he resides today ambassador young has continued his service to the civil-rights cause. he is also established the andrew young foundation and

remained active in local, national, and global affairs. in recognition of his past contributions ambassador young was awarded the presidential medal of freedom, the highest civilian award that the united states has to the still, and he has received honorary degrees from more than 100 colleges and universities in the united states and abroad. just when you thought that his inventory of accomplishments could not extend any further, ambassador young has earned the title of film maker, a devoted husband, any of -- in the award winner, author, and proud father and grandfather. ambassador young, on behalf of a grateful nation and everyone here today i want to thank you for your remarkable service not only to our country but the world. your work along with the

historic efforts of others, laid the groundwork for what has become a significant part of the justice department's mission to expand opportunity for all people, to safeguard the fundamental infrastructure of our democracy and to protect the most vulnerable among us. ..

[applause] that was an extremely generous introduction. but i want to come back to my days at howard university and the days before howard university because it was in 1941 that my sixth grade teacher took me to a federal courthouse and i saw a tall skinny young lawyer by the name of thurgood marshall argued the case of the equalization of teacher salaries in louisiana, 1941. already howard university had started through its law school laying the groundwork for what was to come. before that, one of our professors was asked to do the

intelligence network to try to understand how america should relate to africa during the second world war. remember the south africans were supporting. and ralph bunch in 1937 to 19399 took a week of absence from howard university and spent two years trying to figure out the world. but in the process, he figured out the united nations, and i really think that ralph bunch probably has more to do with every word in the united nations charter and every institution of the united nations that's ... today. i am saying without howard university -- [applause] without thurgood marshall, judge hastings and many others we

wouldn't have had a basis for the margin. i got out of here 63 years ago. [applause] and i said if you give me one more chance -- [laughter] i promise i will do better but i didn't know what happened to me. i say i neglected my studies and math my teachers knew my name, but i got a hell of an education. [applause] don't play yourselves cheap and let anyone else define you. let me go to december 171962. fred shuttlesworth's church was

bombed for the third time in the last 18 months. there were 60 bombings in homes where nobody had ever been charged or investigated. fred came to see martin luther king the next day ends at -- first of all the home came completely down and everybody was sure he was dead but he walked out with his shirt and tie on and said if this didn't kill me i can do anything i want to do. so he came to atlanta and got us to say we couldn't sit back and wait for desegregation. we couldn't continue to be passively nonviolent. there have to be an aggressive nonviolence movement much to my surprise because martin luther king was really known militant

on this occasion, he said yes we must. i said a lower to. but we ended up going to birmingham a few months later, and we had a plan to confront segregation and you heard about the dogs and the jailing and the fire hoses. that was not it. the plan was 300,000 citizens of color wouldn't spend a nickel on anything but food or medicine until the economy changed and so birmingham was an economic movement and when you pull 300,000 citizens out of the economy, everybody was underwater and my job was to try

to negotiate with them to help them realize it wasn't going to get any better unless they took and allow people to work and they said we can't find anybody qualified and i said that isn't true. that means thathe needs that yog those white embarrassing suit no more than the ladies you have coming from alabama about your departments. go home and talk to your wives and see who they come to when they want to shop at your store and go where something is. they don't go to the clerks they go to the needs. they are running the business anyway. so we ended up one by one helping them overcome the obstacles. there is no such thing as whitewater and blackwater. take the signs down. if people want to drink a drink and if they don't they won't. it was very simple but only

because we refused to cooperate with injustice and we slowly but surely we fashioned a society and that is about the time that the community relations service was born. it wasn't called that then but it was bill marshall and others in the justice department that wire we were talking with businessmen on one side they were talking with businessmen on the other side. it wasn't a children's crusade. the people that we organized to go to jail where juniors and seniors in high school who would have been going to vietnam in another year.

you are not going to have a choice. the captain of the football team and leader of the band, the key group of leaders in each high school went to jail early in april to have an experience. they had a religious experience. they went to jail with the ministers and members of the civil rights movement. when they came out, they were changed and the purpose was to organize the high schools on m may 5, 1963. may 5, 1963 every high school in birmingham and sounding counties closed down. they pushed the gates down. they walked some of them as many as 20 or 25 miles to get to the center of birmingham to get to

jail. by that time everybody knew that it was all over and so the justice department is able in 1963 to get 100 businessmen to sign an agreement that the challenges that have been offered by fred shuttlesworth and the alabama christian movement for human rights. 100 businessmen signed it even though it was against the law but it worked. it changed. people suddenly acted different. and we never even had any problems at the lunch counters. and the reason was that the south was basically very comfortable racially but for a few good funds and bonds the

established citizens and folks reigned in, we were able to move forward with the help of the really courageous congress and the coming together of the churches, the business community, behind the congress and the president we were able to pass the 1964 civil rights act but don't forget the hundred businessmen agreed to it a year before the congress passed. so when i said that to henry oppenheimer in south africa he said to you think that will work in south africa? i said sure. anytime 100 businessmen decide that they are going to change the society and they are far more vulnerable than congressmen and takes 51% to change a congressman.

you hit a businessman in his pocketbook for 10% and you have his full. [applause] or at least his attention. so we took some of the same ideas into south africa and all around the world. i sa see that you are a part of changing history, but we did only two thirds of our promise. doctor king's's mandate was to redeem the soul of america from the triple equals racism, war and poverty. racism isn't gone that it's illegal. the war isn't gone but you cannot say that there is a big difference between 66 million people killed in the second world war and the five to 6,000 president has been able to limit

in afghanistan and we have a president that is following up as best he can some of the values we have a default out of this institution into this movement to help make the world a better place. the one thing we did not do and we do not yet understand is poverty. we were reading in the world thm the triple evils of racism and poverty but we didn't understand poverty because we don't understand economics, the economics you all are probably being taught is probably a relevant to the future of the world in which we live. get mad if you want to, but think about it. [laughter] you're talking about the nationalist european economics in th a global economy they can transfer more wealth over a cell

phone than existed at the time the textbooks were written. so take us to the next stage and i challenge you to let the leadership for a global vision of a global economy that feeds the hungry "-end-quotes the naked and heals the sick, but sitthatsets at liberty those the oppressed and i hope somehow from your mind and soul and spirit that kind of economy might emerge in ou