set a precedent. some of these cases, dred scott, the chatham -- korematsu case is where the court got it wrong spent as you said, the supreme icurt kicks off its new term on monday. tell us which case you'l l bee featuring monday night when the series begins and wide. >> mine tonight we featurerk: o marbury v. madison which isrsuse really the foundation that chief justice roberts and justice ginsburg and a lot of the justices quote today and the sight of one most often cited case in history of the court. what marbury v. madison does is it establishes the court as a the ultimate arbiter of thete constitution. judicial review. which is still being debated today by the court is stepping into much more debate going on in i think that shows there's relevance on whether the court should be deciding issues like gay marriage, other issues like that. marbury v. madison establisheseh

that.gr is also a great case that showst the personal stories behind these cases. there is a battle going onis a o between john adams, thomas jefferson and john marshall behind the scenes the road is the story of this case. it has legal import that the ima shows are personal that are engaging and a cigar illuminating on the time period. >> 9 p.m. and monday nightng tuning in c-span's landmark cases. mark farkas executive producer, appreciate it. >> thank you very much. >> the c-span cities to were working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. this week and we're joined by comcast to learn more about the history of literary life of santa rosa, california, consider part of the napa wine country. we look at the evolution of the wine industry.

>> sonoma county's agriculture historic guess you could say begin with wine because the first line planted here were by general vallejo, probably in the late 1820s or early 1830s in which is a very long time ago. they were mission grace and nobody in their right mind would make wind out of them now. with that whine label -- wines labeled we are beginning to be better and better known. >> when my folks first purchased the ranch in the late '50s, they didn't know it at the time but it was, they saw quite a change in the agriculture industry happening just in our little valley. it hasn't always been the quote-unquote wine country. we have a wonderful story,

agricultural history here in the valley and in sonoma county also. >> we visit the jack london state this to work farm. spiff we are on jack london's beauty ranch also as the ranch a good intentions. this is where jack london lived until his death in 1916. jack-o'-lantern probably would've been writing longhand when people came upon him in his office. he was very productive. two-thirds of his writing was published after he moved here. looks like white fang was published in 1906. are you after he bought his ranch property. valley of them in the published he was living a. little lady of the house was published while he was living at the jack london claimed he worked two hours a day. i think a lot of his time was spent as he was trying to build the ranch.

that took a lot of his time spent see all of our programs from santa rosa saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. >> we are live to talk with issues about aren't sick leave and paid family leave, equal pay, criminal justice reform and voting rights among other issues. legislators wonderful national progressive leaders like congressman keith ellison and leaders from black lives matter moving. the name of this conference is to inform and provide state lawmakers to enact change in the community. it is expected to start any moment and we'll have live coverage on c-span2 on this friday morning as it gets under way. while we wait we wish we were

marks from house republicans congresswoman and republican conference chair cathy mcmorris rodgers who spoke yesterday at the washington ideas forum. >> you are the one who's supposed to all house republicans together. you convene meetings. >> thank you hundred 47 speakers how is that going to? >> -- republicans of every corner of this country, bring us together. certainly speaker boehner's announcement on friday have sent shockwaves throughout capitol hill and throughout the country. >> that announcement came at a

meeting. >> 9 a.m. friday morning, regular gathering of the house republicans. i laid this meeting -- i believe this meeting each week and i just invited speaker boehner to come to the podium and give his remarks when i slipped this little note that said the speaker is going to be announcing his retirement spent so you had no indication before walking up to the podium to? >> no. you read it, what does this mean? although it was clear what was going on. i stood there and then listened to him announce this news. and it was unexpected. i really thought we are in a better place. the pope had just been to capitol hill first time for the pope to visit, address a joint session of congress. it was a positive day for congress, and then obviously the

speaker decided later on that evening on thursday evening that, you know what, might be time for me to go. >> it was striking, the news broke. there with the family values forum went on in town for the presidential candidates. the presidential candidates including margarita, ted cruz especially, they were celebrating this news as it is a some great victory from ted cruz, that john boehner had been vanquished. he's a republican speaker of the house. how do you been briefed us as his legacy? someone the republicans have been so critical and, frankly, i think ungracious. you worked closely with him. what's his legacy, what kind of speed was he? >> in my role i've had the opportunity to work closer with speaker boehner. into the years i'd really good that he was the right man at the right time to be leaving as.

it didn't mean obviously that every member upgrade with every decision, and there was a lot of people suggesting that speaker boehner should've made different decisions, could have gotten something done oregon more than what he did. but i saw in speaker boehner with someone that was trustworthy. and i think day in and day out that is why even speaker as long as he did. the members really did trust him when he told them something, like they knew that he was not playing games. and the second part was that he made decisions based upon what he thought was good and right for america at the end of the day. and for me he may not always agree with every decision which have to respect someone that is even willing to make the tough decisions at times, maybe not something that he went over to well with the republican party as such, but someone who was really trying to do day in and do what was best for the country

and what was going to improve peoples lives all across this country spend one of his last acts in because he is still speaker, one of his last acts was to bring up a bill yesterday to fund the government temporarily just through december 11. i was amazed how i watch that boat. you voted yesterday he voted against the government shut down. 151 house republicans voted yesterday to shut down the government. how do you run a conference when you that many who are willing to say just because we're not getting everything we want, we are not willing to pass the bill that would keep the lights on? >> for those republicans who voted against the continuing resolution to keep the government open, i believe it was more a message to the senate and it was a message to the president. there's a lot of frustration that we have not been doing just that basic job, our responsibility of getting a budget in place. that's pretty fundamental and

every to the federal government needs to get a budget in place. that's how you keep the government running and operating. there were high hopes, high expectations that in january of this year for the republicans especially having a republican partner in the senate -- >> you all should be able to do -- >> yes, we cut the budget resolution passed earlier than ever. we went to work on the appropriation bills, and the house, we really were, this was a high priority for us to get these appropriation bills done. because that is the way that we assert the power of the purse. that's the way that we as legislators really make clear we do not agree with what the executive branch may be doing if we want to address funding levels, if we want to not fund certain programs. that's where we get to really assert our power. it was very disappointing. it was very frustrating that not

one of those bills passed the senate. >> this was a striking vote because again it's only to keep the government running temporarily so you can negotiate a longer-term deal. and because it would have continued government funding, include funding for planned parenthood -- >> it didn't include any funding for planned parenthood spent well, it didn't cut off funding, right? >> but there's no money, the money has already been spent spent so because it didn't affirmatively cut off planned parenthood you had a large majority of republicans thing we would rather see the government shut down. this bill would not pass without all the democrats voting yes. you voted yesterday to leadership voted yes, but most of your fellow republicans voted no. >> there is a big frustration with the status quo on capitol

hill. and i think that this vote just underscores the frustration which is status quo. and it is across the board. i think we are seeing that in the presidential played out for both republicans and democrats. this country wants to see us get things done. they want us to make decisions based upon what they think is best for the people that we represent a there's a whole bunch of people that are just, they see the argument, they see the dysfunction and they're just sick of it. so it is reflected in the members do not be becomes kevin mccarthy's problems, and use them like i did you beat the next speaker of the house? >> yes spirit so good luck, kevin mccarthy. i understand it was john boehner singing when he made his decision and not kevin mccarthy. mccarthy now is under come has faced intense criticism because of what he said about the benghazi committee. he suggested that been dicey to me is responsible for bringing

them hillary clinton's poll numbers. people are now unsure as to what i think was his work. -- [laughter] personal what do you make of what you said about that? >> i believe he'll respond numbers really reflect people that do not view it as being trustworthy, right what's i think there's a lot of question related to whether or not she has been forthright, whether she's cooperated. obviously, it's been difficult to get e-mails, et cetera. but i do believe the work we're doing in the benghazi committee is very important it's important that we know what happened, that evening and benghazi. we have a responsibility to do that. we do not, we have not yet had important questions answered. for americans died, and it is --

the legislative branch -- >> you are lying. [shouting] spent i don't care who's in the white house. i don't care who the second estate to on behalf of the american people, this, this come visit were representative government with the legislative branch does have a responsibility to hold the administration accountable and to add this to ask a probing question. that's what the benghazi committee is seeking to do. tray down is an honorable man. he's a former prosecutor who knows how to go about it and he's done it in a way that i would encourage you to look at the way he is approached this. he is approached in a way where he is asking questions and he has not made it political. >> were you disappointed when you heard mccarthy said what he said? why did he say what he said? he seems to be saying look, we did this and a poll numbers came

down. this committee was designed to bring down hillary clinton. >> visit from day one, this committee and trey gowdy have made every effort to make this about getting answers. as far as what happened that evening. we have a responsibility to do that. >> what's going to happen when we get to december? now it's going to be mccarthy's problem and had to come up with a more enduring solution for doing all the congress has to including the basic function of keeping government-funded. how are you going to get agreement amongst this group that you have to convene together every week when he couldn't even agree on a temporary funding measure? >> we need, we need to do our job. we need to come to the table. we need to negotiate how -- >> compromise of? >> yes. we need to figure out how we can reach some common ground and

move forward. i think we recognize, i recognize that we've got, it is in our best interest to keep this government-funded and yes, we will debate funding levels that we would debate priorities and republicans will bring certain priorities to the table, democrats bring certain priorities to the table. but this is regular order, right, and there's a lot of cultural baggage order. regular order is when house produces a product to the sin and to come to conference committee and you come together and she figure out how you can agree and something to move forward. >> the last time paul ryan got together with patty murray and you're able to come up with a solution to kind of overt a crisis for two years but now that's expiring. you've got the debt ceiling, possibility of default and you got this question of how to fund the government with the planned parenthood issue hanging on. yet a large portion of your

conference and republicans say they would rather shut the government down and keep planned parenthood continue get funding. some say they will not raise the debt ceiling the matter what the hell do you do without? >> what we are proposing as relates to planned parenthood, and these videos have raised serious concerns and it is a proper we did an investigation. so they're going to be launching an investigation. we've been calling for a one year hold on the funding to go to planned parenthood, transferring to federally qualified clinics. and allow us sometime to really ask questions. there should not be taxpayer funding used for abortions, and this is -- >> which is the current law. >> which is the current law. and that is through our

investigation we are going to ask those questions and we're going to get some clarity. and i think people should recognize that it is an appropriate path for us to take and it is a thoughtful approach to some really concerning videos that have been released. >> it will be quite a battle. we don't have much time left but i've got to ask you about this presidential campaign. i noticed this when the current front runner is still a gentleman from new york named donald trump what are the chances he's the republican nominee? >> i don't see it happening. donald trump is a great entertainer, and his slogan, make america great, has certainly struck a chord. but i'm very proud of the fact that we have a very diverse field. i think that is, that is, it's exciting to see the republicans

that we have used senators, governors, people from the private sector that have been very successful. i look at where we are as a party, and the republicans, we want to be the party of the future. we want to be the party that is really embracing new ways, challenging the status quo, and addressing outdated models that are not meeting the needs. look at these agencies. look at the veterans administration that is failing our veterans. i mean, these are outdated models and i'm excited about the party that is really not just on the presidential side, in the house right now. we have the next generation of conservative leadership. we've had two-thirds of the republicans in the house elected in the last five years or less. there's been a lot of turnover, a lot of new blood come and as people that ran for office because they are really concerned about the direction

this country is taking. but even more fundamental than that i believe is a fundamental fear that we are losing our government, that we are losing representative government. when you see so many decisions being made outside of congress, you know, being made by the administration, by the executive branch or by the judicial branch. nomad is a republican, democrat, independent, you should believe in the power and the decision-making that belongs in the legislative branch. that is what i believe is number one priority is to restore trust and confidence in the legislative branch on behalf of the people of this country. so if we can do our job come if we can figure out to be more effective in the legislative branch, restore the trust on capitol hill i believe that's the best thing we could do for people all across this country spirit it's going to be quite a challenge. thank you very much. appreciate it.

>> thank you. [applause] >> again we are liv live at the second annual state innovation conference or progressive state legislatures from across the nation are here in washington to talk about aren't sick leave and paid family leave, equal pay, criminal justice reform, voting rights among the issues that would be discussed here today. legislator from national progressive leaders like congressman keith ellison and leaders from the black lives matter movement. the aim of the conference is to inform and provide state lawmakers with the tools to pass policy and enact change. we got a two minute warning a couple minutes ago so we should get started here in just a moment. this is live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> all right. everybody bright eyed and bushy tailed this morning? good morning, everybody. thanks for joining us. i had the pleasure of meeting a great many of yesterday, a number of events, and it is my

great, great honor to stand here before you this morning to introduce the man of the hour, our director, a great, the one and only. i was saying yesterday, performed the same task come in thinking about this moment that we are living today, i'm reminded of one of my favorite movies of all time, which i saw as a teenager 30 years ago, back to the future. it is astounding to me standing here now as a middle aged man to think that the future as defined in that movie is today. this month, october 2015 is supposedly the future. now, a lot of great things, great progress in the past 30 years for sure has been made. no flying cars built but google

and elon musk seem to be working on it but that's still a couple weeks to get right. among the not so great things in the last 30 years as we all know because you feel it in your states every day is that right around the time that back to the future was originally released in theaters come in the '80s, a number of folks on the right that together and decided that they wanted to write their version of the future. and giving credit where it's due it is hard to deny standing here today as we look at the landscape of power in our great country at the state level it is a sea of red. and that is where six comes in. six wants to write the next

chapter in the american story. we want it to be our chapter. [applause] and to do that six has articulated a long-term vision to build a winning progressive infrastructure in the states and, of course, given the state of play you might ask reasonably, who is that person who is bold enough and audacious enough and crazy enough to think that in 2015 we can start to tell that story, to build that winning progressive infrastructure in this space so that 30 or so that they're talking about our chapter, not us about theirs. and that is our ace in the hole. america, you are about to meet the future of this country.

standing to my right, sitting to my right is a born organizer, a natural leader, a coalition builder, and ending american guy from nebraska, a democrat. ..

strategy as we know the other side is doing and has done effectively for some time. he is the one who will carry that out. so that's why i am very loud that nick is at the helm. clearly i love nick. i know you will as well, if you don't already. and i am very proud of all of you who support six's audacious goal and it is ambition to write next great chapter in the american story. please join me to kel come to the stage, mr. nick rasad. [applause] >> thank you so much andres. that was very kind and generous welcome. i hope you remember the name

andres lopez. he will obviously be president of the united states some day. well tom state exchanges internationallal legislative conference. great to see so many familiar faces from folks that came last year. some new faces from all of our travels this year which is very, very exciting. in fact this year we have nearly 250 legislators representing all 50 states in attendance. give yourselves a round of applause. [applause] we've grown our network to over a thousand now which is amazing. to put that into context, as you know there have been predecessor organizations to six. at their heights, they gathered between 50 to 150. in the nine months of our existence we almost doubled that, which only speaks to, i think, the enthusiasm and the

excitement currently happening in this moment. and there is so much great work came out of last year's conference and relationships that were forged, that i'm really, really excited to see what happens after this year's conference. so just a few quick housekeeping things. unfortunately due to the pending hurricane that is about to hit the east coast we had a few cancellations. so mayor de blasio has to be back in new york with his emergency management team. my friend chuck defrom public enemy was going to be here, had to go to atlanta. and so, you know, you plan for a conference, for months and the one thing we didn't plan for was a hurricane hitting washington, d.c. so, unfortunately we lost some folks. in spite of those cancellations think we have a great lineup for you all. the last two days have been wonderful with legislators having opportunity to be at the

white house, meet senior administration officials, get briefings on economic issues, energy and the environment, education policy and so many other things. this morning we're going to hear from a number of great leaders. deirdre shifling from planned parenthood. congressman keith ellison moderating a panel from legislator's point of view from the 2015 legislation session, looking into 2016. our lunch will feature leaders from the movement of black lives, how to engage with the movement in your state. to address issues of police reform, mass incarceration and economic issues. this afternoon we have a series of breakout sessions on a host of different issues. then tomorrow we'll really dig in on some issues and do legislator only training briefings to get set up for 2016. one last point, we encourage all of you to take social media and tweet about the conference using

hash sixconference. tweeting using social media be sure to use that hashtag. i want to thank a few people. andres lopez is on our board of directors. we have many of our board of directors here in the room. we have an amazing staff. molly, sam, john, patty, anthony and sean spent so much time putting this conference together. please give them a round of applause. [applause] and for those of you who don't know me, my name is nick rathod. i've executive director of six. i've been working in state and local government for 15 years. i worked at center for american progress on state and local issues. i was a community lawyer and community organizer here in d.c. in immigrant communities. i worked for governor eliot spitzer until that fellow

departed. i was president obama's liaison to the states in the white house, states and territories also helped elizabeth warren set up the cfpb right after the dodd-frank legislation was passed. so i have had different vantage points to learn and fully appreciate the investment and infrastructure building that conservatives have done at the state level. for nearly a generation conservatives have far outpaced progressives at the business of movement building in the states. they have focused hard on it, poured resources into it and been ruthlessly efficient at it. this investment has paid off. think about where we are right now. people spend a lot of time and energy focused on the presidential cycles. but with all due respect, i find that simply focusing only on federal power to be shortsighted by those within the progressive infrastructure, donor class and

establishment. i'm not saying it is not important. it is for a number of different reasons but only focusing there is a recipe for disaster. frankly for progressives it has been. if you take a look at the map of legislative control in this country, it is currently nearly all red. that is because right now in america, conservatives control more state legislative chambers since the 1900's. in fact, in that, in the period that president obama has taken office alone, republicans have gained over the hundred state legislative seats, 11 governorships and majorities in 30 state legislative chambers. none of this is by accident or just happened overnight. since the 1970s, conservatives have been methodically investing in the development of coordinated state infrastructure focuses on election, ideas promoting training and

grassroots organizing. their electoral support comes from a group of republican state leadership committee. through an organization called the franklin center who has affiliates now in most states. organizing comes from groups like americans for prosperity, and idea generation through groups like the heritage foundation. that infrastructure coupled with two groups in particular, the american legislative exchange council and state policy network create this network of in-state resources go to advance their agenda in the states. we looked at irs filings after alec and state policy network have combined budget of $16 million. looking closer budget reports and estimates internal corporate spending we estimate constellation of groups have $250 million through the network to advance policies, coordinate message, organize, train and influence legislators.

i can say that progressives are nowhere near that number. and there are of course a number of different consequences to all of this that each of you in this room on a daily basis are facing. for one, if progressives do not control legislative chambers, in the vast majorities of states then they do not control the redistricting process. if you don't control the redistricting process you effectively will not have control over the united states of house representatives. that is where we are today. after losses in legislative races in 2010, we effectively gave away the house of representatives for a decade. in addition, gerrymandering these districts incentivizes idealogues. districts are drawn around a narrow group of similarly-minded individuals leaving no reason for elected official to need to compromise. in fact on promize has become a dirty word in washington. and you see the effects of that. the inmates who are currently

running that asylum were willing to shut down the government this week because they didn't believe in funding women's health. how crazy is that? in exchange for not shutting down the government, their own speaker, john boehner. i'm sure john boehner's head was a delicious treat for conservative base but that sacrifice did nothing for the country. in fact we should be scared of this form of extreme governing. but again there is nothing we can do about it because they control the legislative chambers in states. progressives negligence has also left legislators in other state elected officials in a position to have to fend for themselves. up until now, there is not been any serious organized effort to identify rising stars, nurture and trainee elected officials or build a farm team. you all, each of you in this room, many of you in this room told us this. last summer as we were building organization we had one-on-one conversations with hundreds of legislators from around the

country. we heard literally thousands of, hundreds of times consistently the same thing. legislators feel like they are on an island. they feel like they're alone. they do not feel connected to one another. national leaders are higher or common program. they don't have a central place to go to find information. they sometimes get trained when they are running for office. but when they are in office feel abandoned. look at the presidential candidates currently running for office on right. most of them are governors. in the case of marco rubio, state legislator. they are also relatively young and relatively diverse. they have a farm team in way that we do not. finally, power in legislatures also allows for ability to have power over policy making and movement of issues state by state. take guns for example. later today we'll have a moment of silence for the victims of the oregon shooting. think about how many mass shoots

occur on regular basis and nothing happens. "rolling stone" magazine reported this morning that oregon's shooting was the 264th mass shooting this year. this year. october 2nd, today, the 272nd day of the year. so there are 272 days of this year and 264 days there has been mass shooting. how is that possible? our barred chair yesterday told me that, former state legislator in kansas. he said that when he would vote for a gun bill, if he voted for it, even a simple restriction on access, that within hours he would be getting calls and emails into his office. that happens to all of you. after colorado and oregon passed simple background check bulls,

the program lobby went after legislators hard and began recall efforts against those who voted for simple background check legislation. in colorado two legislators were recalled and lost their jobs as a result. and look what alec in partnership with the nra was able to do with stand your ground. versions moved from florida to 17 states in one year. it is now in 26 states. when i talk about infrastructure and mechanisms to actively quickly influence policy making in the states, this is what i'm talking about. we all get frustrated seeing other mass shooting happen. we ask ourselves, how can this happen? how in oregon did we let this happen? how in charleston did we less this happen? how in newtown do we let that happen? how is that public opinion, even amongst gun owners to have at

very least simple background checks in place and still nothing happens? in my opinion, one of the major reasons for this is because they have built this infrastructure, that rapidly deploys information, can stand up calls into legislative offices, can craft and disseminate policy and messaging to move bills quickly across states and build public opinion for things. you couple that with the fact that until now, until six, there has not been a real alternative or countervailing force to check this sort of power in the country. and you have an environment that reinforces extreme positions on guns and everything else. another example is that economic policy where there is an all-out assault on working and middle class families in this country. think about this. we live in the wealthiest country in the history of the world but i can tell you that the people i grew up with in

nebraska and many other people i meet when traveling across the country would never know that because so much of the wealth is concentrated at very top. millions of people in fact are simply trying to provide for their families and make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck. many are barely making it. in fact i was reading recently that the top .1 of 1% in this country, not just the 1%, the.is of 1% in this country almost owns as much as wealth as remaining 90% of us. think about that for a moment. how is that okay? meanwhile, at the same time people are working long and hard for wages and benefits which should be viewed as nothing short of offensive in this country. just the other day i was talking to my brother who is lawyer here in d.c. he mention ad client he had. this woman worked at a restaurant in north carolina. the employer which is a major

national chain was paying this person effectively a 1.69 an hour because they were providing 5.66 hourly tip credit which was calculated to include also a meal they would throw in. that is $1.69 an hour. they claimed to satisfy the federal minimum wage of 7.25 when you add the two together. in real think she absolutely was not making 5.$6 an hour. they figured she would in tips. emi employer had the nerve to make her work 20% of her time on non-tip work like in the kitchen. $1.69 an hour in america in 2015. this is an honest person working hard to make ends meet. i don't care who you are, there is something fundamentally wrong with that. that we have a system takes advantage someone like her,

following rules, working hard, only to pad the bottom line of the ceo and make that person more wealthy. there is story after story, after story of that happening in our country. while all of this may seem bleak i can say there is hope and it starts here. we are in a unique historic moment in the progressive movement. for the first time the donor class, major national institutions, the media, and as we saw in the past few days, the white house is aligned in an understanding and commitment and in supporting progressive state infrastructure building and in particular the state innovation exchange meaning all of you. we understand when you're organized armed with the right information and tools and resource as lot can be done. we issued a report this year that highlighted the progressive victories around the country. you can get that report online

at www.stateinnovation.org. what we found in that report. it was clear from what we saw even in reddest of states progressive ideas and values can break through. for example in my home state of nebraska, they eliminated the death penalty. by ballot initiative pass admin mum wage increase. [applause] in north dakota, they enacted pregnancy accommodation. in oklahoma they enacted online voter registration bill. these are just a few examples of progress serves in red states. of course no other states this year approved what is possible in advancing progressive agenda than in oregon. this year they passed series of reforms to improve work place standards and requiring sick leave and prohibiting employer retalltation for discussing wages.

banned profiling instituting body ramps. further background checks on gun purchases and made major changes to the education and voting systems. again you can find all of this in our report. in addition, working with all of you, six helped fight and kill bad bills in states related to preemption of local laws and attacks on the clean power plan. do you remember that indiana religious refusal bill that passed in, i think it was march of this year? which basically gave legal right to discriminate, for businesses and others to discriminate against the lgbt community? one of the reasons you haven't heard about many more of these passing or any of these other passing because six has been working with groups to in many states to kill a lot of those bills. this year we're looking to scale up all of this as well as go on the offense on advancing family economic issues, criminal

justice reform, and voter modernization. a big part of this conference and work in the months and years ahead will be amongst other things to help legislators prepare and provide tools, political and other support you need to move bills this next legislative session that protect workers, enhance work place benefits, help incentivize pay equity between men and women and modernize our antiquated voting system. there are a number of other tools and resources we're going to bring to bear to support all of your work in the coming year and years to come which will begin to, we hope, level playing field across the country and really start working on behalf of working and middle class families. we have a long way to go. but i'm confident that working with all of you, that we're going to seize this important moment to begin turning the tide where we've been and get america working again on behalf of working and middle class families. thank you.

[applause] >> i think we're going to turn it over now to the oregon delegation. i would like members of the oregon delegation to please come up here. >> good morning, everyone. i'm diane rosenbaum and with me are three of my colleagues from oregon. and i think, as now everyone knows our hearts were broken yesterday when we arrived at the conference and started hearing

the news about the shooting in roseburg, oregon. i thought i would just say something about the town of roseburg because we don't yet know much about who the people are who were the victims but roseburg is a beautiful little town just barely more than 20,000 people in oregon. it used to be a timber town and that has largely dried up and so, at umpqua community college, the students who died yesterday are generally older, in their mid 20s. they're learning to be nurses or welders, often being retrained for other occupations. and it has got a river that runs through it called the rogue river. it is a beautiful town physically, great place for fly fishing. and that's the place that it is and yesterday, it became our every town usa. these 10 students and one

teacher who died yesterday morning and then the seven who were injured, were just starting their day like any other day in the first week of school. so as nick said earlier, alongwith way too many names that we all know, columbine, aurora, charleston, now there is roseburg, oregon. our governor spoke last night at a candlelight vigil and said we don't know why this happened and we really don't know why this happened and the community is in shock and grief and we standing here are too. while you hold us in your hearts and we hold the families and teachers and students and that community in our hearts, we also i think want to remember what president obama said yesterday. that our thoughts and our prayers are not enough on a day after an event like this.

you know oregon is a state as you heard that has done miraculous things, including most recently, closing final loophole in our background check law, but the fact that this could happen, the fact that these mass shootings keep happening in this country and really only here means that there is more work to do and i want to commit with all of my heart and energy today together with you, that maybe we can't say not one more because we know there are always will be but this has to end. we have to end this! [applause] so thank you for standing with us, for supporting us and let us commit to do that work beginning now and every day so that there will not be a another roseburg,

oregon, after today. thank you all. [applause] >> thank you, diane. i didn't get much sleep last night. i have found myselves various roles, covering shootings at schools and other places. i was a reporter for many years and director of public information for the portland schools. i ended up helping to act as sort of a tiger team to go deal with crises like this. i wrote a lot last night but i ended up just sort of publishing one paragraph and i'm going to read that right now. to the next person who offers condolences and prayers about the suffering of the families in the community of roseburg and

beyond, are you now ready to limit the number of guns sold? and bullets sold? or do you just want to see another incident in week or two somewhere else and simply feed the fear? stay trapped in some mythical realm where we are not part of a real solution? condolences only go so far. the president said this, a number of people said this, enough! we have to take action and we have to take really clear action. i am, i have been to too many vigils, talked to too many folks about this issue. i think we all have. it is time for us to decide that we have too many guns in our country. and start finding some way to

bring those numbers down and take those, take the opportunity of these kind of issues, this -- these kinds ever incidents taking place. i want to thank all of you folks, over time, rest of the day we've been talking about this but it is really time to follow what the president said yesterday. enough. it is time to take action. it is time to talk about how we have allowed the gun lobby and gun industry to control the safety of our children and ourselves. thank you. [applause] going to ask, if you wouldn't mind to join me in a moment of silence, if you wouldn't mind standing. thank you. [moment of silence]

thankthank you very much. >> thanks so much to the oregon delegation and our thoughts are with you and folks back in oregon. we'll take about a five, ten-minute break to get the next panel cued up. we have power point we need to get in place. so folks can finish their breakfast and take a moment.

and if you could be back here, what time is it now? if you could be back about 10 after 9:00, that would be great. thank you. [inaudible conversations].

[inaudible conversations].

[inaudible conversations] >> so as you heard this is going to be about a ten-minute break in the state innovation conference taking place here in the nation's capitol. up next a panel discussion on national, political, economic landscape. that will about an hour. a little bit later we will continue with more from the national idea, actually from this segment, this state

innovation conference. taking place live this morning on friday morning here in washington. while this break is underway now, we'll go back to the washington ideas forum that took place yesterday with comment from hud secretary, julian castro. >> first of all i would like to thank steve and the atlantic team and bradleys for invitation. it is great to be here with you, mr. secretary. >> thank you very much for having me. >> so i want to start off by pointing out to you, not long ago, there was a map that was released, became pretty popular on social media, it talked about how many hours a person would have to work at minimum wage in order to afford to live on average in some of the states in the united states. and, it came out to something like 92 hours in california, 9hours in new york. north of 70 hours both in texas and colorado. is there anything that public

policy can do, and yourself being secretary of housing and urban development, sorry, housing and urban development, is there anything public policy can do to alleviate what is crisis in housing affordability in this country? >> that is÷f a fantastic questn and very, very timely question in terms of issues folks are dealing with in their lives. there is an affordability crisis happening throughout the united states in cities big and small. so, just to put a very fine point on it, the national low-income housing coalition over the summer released a report that said there wasn't a single place in the united states, a single city any size, working full-time minimum wage you could afford rent for a two bedroom apartment. only few places where you could get a one bedroom. what can we do? the answer is yes, we can do some things. those fall into different categories. first of all, for years now, hud has been making important

investments so that affordable housing is possible. good example of that is our home partnership dollars, also community development block grant. out of treasury there is low-income housing tax credit which has been a fantastic spark for more affordable housing opportunity. so the number one thing we can do, we can invest in creating affordable housing opportunities. the second thing is that we can look at some of the rules and regulations that we have now and become more creative, either to preserve affordable housing or create more. good example of that is something we call rental assistance demonstration project started in 2012, which is understanding we lose every year about 10,000 units of public housing to disrepair. essentially because congress has not been allocates over the last couple of decades needed money for renovation and repair to

traditional public housing, 1.1 million units, we lose those 10,000 every year to disrepair. essentially this rad partnered with private sector and moved what was traditional public funding to voucher funding that is based in that project, project-based voucher funding to make it possible to renovate units that were going into disrepair so we preserve affordable housing options. then the third thing i would say, having been a mayor of a city, of san antonio, you can see very clearly whether we're talking about transportation, or housing or education that the evolution has occurred in terms of the need for states and local communities to make significant investments as well. same thing is true for affordable housing. a good example of that austin, texas, passed affordable housing bond as part of their bond

program that voters approved. you will see, i bet, the cities that truly are serious about addressing this, taking a leadership role more and more because we have a congress that for years now, governing majority has not dedicated the resources that they ought to be dedicating to create more affordable housing opportunities. >> well at the same time, you mentioned austin, texas, austin is one of the cities in the country that is experiencing what has become a controversial question, and that is gentrification. there is quite a debate going on the academic sphere whether gentrification is real or whether a way vilifying new entrant into america's urban centers and downtown. if you look at places like portland, oregon, denver, colorado, parts of new york city, even in this city, washington, d.c., there is clearly turnover in certain neighborhoods that used to be concentrated with the black and brown poor, which are rapidly

turning over to very high-rent, higher net worth residents and affordability gap becomes even wider, becomes even more difficult for people to live in those cities. again looking at it from public policy standpoint, are we oversubsidizing, for instance, developers pushing this kind of gentrification? do you believe as a public policy matter gentrification is real problem? >> i do believe in certain communities there -- they are caught in this vicious cycle in distressed areas the city council will incentivize redevelopment and that starts to pick up and the place becomes cool. the place folks want to live. somewhere is reach as tipping point. and then it becomes more difficult, either for folks who have lived there for a long time to stay there because rents go

up or their taxes go up, their property tax, particularly in states heavily dependent on property taxes and it also becomes more difficult for folks who are moveddest means, who might reflect via same demographic as folks who used to live there, becomes hard for them to take advantage of new opportunities in housing that exist. so when i got to hud 14 months ago, i told my staff, i think hud has a leadership roll to take putting together a commission or something to look at this issue of gentrification because i hear it over and over and saw some of it beginning to happen in san antonio as we revitalized urban core. the challenge the research is asking bedeviling inconclusive as to what extent gentrification happens and whether, when gentrification does happen, the

folks who end up leaving, whether they actually end up benefiting more because there has not been sufficient longitudinal analysis okay, do they end up doubling up with someone? who they end up in neighborhood worse off or end up in higher opportunity neighborhood. so i would like before the end of the term to be able to figure out a way to robustly bring folks together to try to address that issue. i don't have any illusion we'll be able to solve that in the next fifteen months before the obama administration is done but i see a hunger for communities for figuring out a way to address this. i can not point to one single community, having been a mayor now and having visited a lot of cities as hud secretary, where i say, you know what? they got it right. they did a great job catching the cycle and not letting it

happen and getting a great balance. but the number one piece of advice i would give community is that when they start to see an area get revitalized, that they do everything they can to invest in preserving affordable housing, and their incentives lock in inclusionary policies that require some affordable housing to be component of incentivized properties that were renovated or built, that they work with the neighborhood residents to understand how they better help them stay in those neighborhoods if they want to do that. >> one of the arguments by those who say gentryification is myth, that fit real, they point to a 2014 study, 2014 study that found in fact if you look at the period from 1970 to 2010 less than 5% of cities that were considered in the grips of extreme poverty actually saw the average income in those

community rise to the national average by 2010, from 1970. in that same time period, the number of resident of cities that are considered gripped by extreme poverty has doubled, something like four million americans living under extreme poverty. >> yes. they say what do you mean you have all wealthier people moving in? >> right. >> this is part of the challenge i think out there in terms of the research. >> so if in fact the real problem is extreme poverty, how does one get the kind of service, just basic service, streets that are cleaned properly, neighborhoods patrolled properly but not overpoliced, how do we get liveable communities in cities where there is extensive poverty? >> well, i mean, number one, is that i think an important movement that happened over the last 30 or 40 years is creation of single member districts in local governments. that was a hard-fought victory to get that in most, i think

probably maybe now every big city in the united states. significance of that is, you have districted representatives there to fight on the council for resources for their areas. you need a conscientious city council and mayor that are willing to make investments that are inclusive, that take into account differential needs that exist across the city. in san antonio i used to say look, we need to acknowledge that there are areas in our city that are newer areas, generally more well off and there the streets don't need as much investment. you won't find as much need for summer nutrition program and some other social services but you might find a greater need there for a fire station because as the city grew the fire stations and police stations were more clustered together in the older existing part of the city.

we have, you have to be very cognizant where the needs are, what they are. and then, fair-minded about how you distribute those resources. the challenge in a lot of communities, there is a real tendency i think where we chase the glitzy kind of investments and there's a certain cachet in that and sometimes those investments help your city get ahead, whether it is stadium or other types of high-profile investments. but, for distressed communities you need to make sure you're investing in neighborhoods as well. and in people. i encourage, when i speak to mayors, for mayors not just to think about their cities in terms of those investments in infrastructure and things that you can throw a stone at, but go beyond that into things like education and the environment. where, the conditions that people live in.

if you can take that holistic view, that the administration has tried to take, with things like promise zones and promise neighborhoods and choice neighborhoods i believe that's a winning formula for helping to lift people up. >> we now have of course a very high-profiler developer running for president doing quite well in the polls i should add on republican side and one of the things that donald trump is talking about is sort of rearranging, even though his plan won't actually do it, maybe tax hedge fund guys a little bit more. should we think of developers in the same way? are we oversubsidizing wealthy developers and really doing not enough to protect homeowners sometimes having their properties targeted for taking? >> well i think that, you know, the one of the ways that we try to encourage developers to encourage low-income housing is a low-income housing tax credit.

we have mortgage deduction, mortgage interest deduction. that touches many more americans. there is argument investing in affordable housing an opportunity for people is mortgage interest deduction really, not necessarily giving more over to developers but giving more over to wealthy, upper middle class folks versus middle class and lower middle class folks who own homes? i think that we should have that conversation. you know, i haven't seen the spectrum of data on that but, think that is an argument that deserves an airing. what, with regard to developers, i believe that the bargain is worth it if you can get good, affordable housing opportunity out of it. some of these deals, sometimes you see in some local community where, that the bar that is set for the amount of affordable housing created is probably not worth it. >> yeah. >> it varies. the deals vary, but i think

everyone would agree, that you want to get as big of a bang for your buck creating housing that will be affordable and remain affordable for the long haul. if not, i don't think that the pub, the government, should have as much of a role in subsidizing that. >> i would be remiss if i had you here and did not ask the question i think on a lot of people's mind when they think but, mr. secretary. have you had entreaties or discussions with the clinton campaign, with the hillary clinton campaign about potentially running as, running for vice president? >> i have not. i have not. >> and, had to ask. you of course are from texas which among other things is a state with tremendously high latino population butc' that ds not vote at its population strength. actually not even close to it. something like half of its voting strength. >> sure. >> what do you think would make difference in increasing voter participation among latinos?

>> a number of things, you're right. african-americans in 2012 voted rate of 66%. whites at 65. latinos at 48. in texas the rate of voting for texan latinos, is 10% less than california latinos even among the states are different. what battleground texas is doing down there, good old-fashioned organizing, reaching out people to vote. candidates that speak to them and get connected with them and get excited. >> thank you. good morning. so i'm sean hinga i'm six's national political director. this year i had honor of meeting and working with a lot of you and 2016 moving forward i know

there will be many more opportunities to meet, work and support the work you're doing in the states. this morning i have the privilege to introduce three expert that we work with on many issues and they're going to be talking about major issues that americans are focused on. as well as recent polling and data in several areas. first you will hear from david winkler with project new america. he will give us a broad picture of critical issues people are focused on. he will also discuss the general public's distrust of the government and how that can be addressed through enforcement of current laws and regulations. next we hear from molly murphy from grove research. she has done extensive studies on family economic issues and will share some of that with you today. these issues are critical to your constituents. they are issues six will take a leadership role in helping support you move policies in your state. finally we're hear from deirdre

shifling planned parenthood action fund. with current brinksmanship and potential shutdown threats of defunding planned parenthood we thought it would be helpful to hear on recent polling issues in this area. so we'll hear from these three panelists. then we'll have ample time at end for questions and answers following the presentation. with that, david, i will turn it over to you. [applause] ♪ can you hear me? good morning. great. thank you for having me. thank you everyone for being here. sean mentioned i'm director of research at project new america. we're really excited about our partnership with the state innovation exchange working with all of you in state legislative issue areas. i'm going to kind of draw the big picture here through some research from a few different sources. and then we'll get into a study that came out around rules, how

enforcing rules properly is a strategy for building trust in government. building a fair economy. this is longitudinal graph of four different economic measures that are out there. and, i think what is most important is if you look at the green line, you can see that year to year change in hourly earnings is stagnant since the recession. so on left side worse part of the recession. unemployment at top during recession has been going down steadily. people are finding more work than they were in the recession but they are not being able to keep up with the cost of living. incomes are flat and people feel like they're falling behind. they can't save for the future. they can't afford to send their kids to college or think about paying down debt that they have. and that's where really central concern of people's perception of the economy today is that

problem. and, we need to understand that. and find ways to try to address it. so another question from a recent survey about six months from now, do you think there will be more jobs, same amount or fewer? you can see 40% saying the same amount of jobs. only 26% saying fewer jobs. so there is pessimism about the future even though things are not as bad as they were in the worst part of the recession. this is some research from center for american progress and they have looked at what people think should be the one or two phrases that describe the important goals for america's economic future. two phrases at the top really popped and kind of underline when what progressives and those of you in the room ought to think about connecting with voters. building economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy. and creating jobs and getting

america back to work, two of the strongest frames we saw in this research. this is from a few years ago but i can tell you we've seen this consistently over and over for the last few years, even just recently. we presented voters in this study, actually center for american progress presented voters with a lot of different economic facts and wanted to see what caused them the greatest concerns. and top two here in this tier were, first one around corporate ceos making 23 times the average worker. i think now that number is over 300 times the salary of average worker. when people feel like they're not keeping up, when they can't get ahead and see contrast with those at top, that is their greatest concern about this economy. and we need to address that i think second most powerful fact that is important to bring home is one in four american children

growing up in poverty. people are blown away by that number. they know we can do better. i want to encourage to remember those facts as powerful ways to connect with the public on their economic concerns. this is from gallup, time series about government corruption. i will shift from the economic concerns to government concerns. rising perception, this is worldwide study but these are american numbers whether corruption is widespread. you can see 75%, gallup released this couple weeks ago, 75% of the people in the u.s. perceive that government is corrupt. and, we can look, you can look all across the world, we're one of the top countries in this rating. some countries only 15% think their government is corrupt. this is not a human condition. this is an american condition. as elected officials, as people who believe in the power of

coming together to solve problems, we have to find a way to address this perception and hopefully i will give you some ideas for that coming up. at the federal level there is almost record low trust of the federal government to handle

everyone is corrupt but i love my congressman. that is not true anymore. as progressives not in charge of u.s. congress, we need to make sure the public understands we're on their side and who is running congress right now. i know you're not in in congress. you should use contrast to draw a distinction. this is some polling that came out earlier this work, actually, from the global strategy group. they talked about two questions i thought were core on people's confidence that government is capable of doing positive things for the country. 56% of all voters were very or

somewhat confident. only 12% not at all. you can see break down look at core republican voters, call them buys republicans, they're sort of split down the middle with 43% not at all confident. and quarter of republicans are fairly confident government can do something well. everyone else is confident can do positive things for the country, 61%. same thing on next slide, same kind of break where the survey asked people, is government capable of great things but today's government is broken? on one hand, or, government works best when it is limited in size and scope? and seven out of 10 felt the former was true. that government is capable of great things but isn't doing them now. and you can see the same kind of breakdown that buys republican audience is much more conservative on this question than the rest of the country. so i don't want to encourage you

to be out there saying that government is going to solve people's problems. there is a lot of skepticism, as we talk about distrust but people hope for better future and find real ways to show it can be done. and they had some great language recommendation came out of this for candidates, for government. so, better to talk about the words on the right side of the screen here. candidate, public official will be a voice for you, that cares about the issues that are important to you. better use those phrases than promising to address those issues. people are keptal of a promise. they're kept al you can actually come through with it. so, language of caring being a voice stronger than speaking for you or promising to fix things. generally talking about government, the words on the word on left, very advocacy speak, detailed, transparent,

open, inclusive, government for all, not quite as powerful as government for the people, government that works for everyone. simple, common sense language everyone can get behind that, even if we don't believe they're there yet they would like us to be. that was going to earlier session the economic message, the people want economy works for all, not just the wealthy. they certainly want a government that works that way too. that is transition where i end my section talking through a research project came out last year for the coalition of sensible safeguards. i think you find this really interesting. they did a series of focus groups, national study, that is available online and, is really talked about kind of one way to solve these challenges of mistrust in government and disappointment with the economy is addressing the rules, addressing regulations and people's perception of how government works. i think that is something you

all in state legislatures can do as you think about budgets, think about enforcement agencies. here, let me take you through the top lines. people are supportive of stronger and enforcement of rules and regulations, across all subgroups. they think regulatory enforcement is a good thing and there is too little of it. voters want tougher enforcement. this is crucial, they want it applied equally, just like they think the economy and government isn't working for everyone, working better for those at top with special interests an politicians. they want the rules to be applied in a way that is equal. and then, reasons we want to enforce the laws fairly to prevent deadly mistakes, protect seniors, families reduce pollution and hold big business accountable. for 30, 40 years the right-wing pushed a narrative that government is source of our problems and that rules an regulations are killing the

economy. this research shows there is a message to solve that challenge, that is more powerful and also speaks to those perceptions of economy and role of government. so it's a big reason i want to show you walk you through it. . . they are split down the middle,

too much, too little. small business and families come down on the side of too. we have people, a few different ways of phrasing these things, standards, there is favorable ratings for rules, favorable ratings for regulations, more so than standards or in forssmann, but talk about playing by the rules, a great way to say everyone should have a fair shot at being on a level playing field. near unanimous support for increasing enforcement of regulations so this is a message test where we had four different words to describe with the increased dan forsman should be, should be proper, should be common sense, should it be fair and more equal or tougher a basically strong supporter across the board for all these

rules the slightly higher, 94% said proper enforcement common-sense enforcement, fair enforcement, great ways to describe what your goals are. when we asked people what would be the priorities for enforcing these rules, why would there be a reason to do it, they want us to focus on clean water, food and drugs imported from other countries, government officials, way to help ensure more trust in government by having an ethical and honest enforcement, a civil rights discrimination, drugs in the u.s. nuclear energy, wall street banks in the financial industry, a lot of areas in people's everyday life where they know there are rules and rules of the breakers are getting away with it. we ask them about eight specific federal agencies, i know these are not state agencies, you have

similar state agencies, there are opportunities in your state that while congress did at an all-time low in terms of approval, six of these agencies have 50% favorable rating and i'm not going to read specific ones there but the public is generally favorable towards these agencies and even new agencies, consumer financial protection bureau only two years old at the time of the survey, 2-1 favorable ratings with 36% of people who didn't know it yet. we went through specifics, what did people think enforcement can do, why doesn't make their lives better? preventing deadly mistakes, saving lives, protecting seniors and children, preventing pollution of air, land and water, incredibly powerful reasons to have enforcement, holding big business accountable, government should be accountable, financial markets from harming people, not

quite as high but all hole second-tier i am not showing on this slide that were rain steve and lower. these were the top reasons. voters believe enforcement is not equally of wide, is not fairly applied and it hurt small business. these are the hurdles we are trying to clear when we talk about why we should have proper enforcement of rules, have a level playing field and that leads me to one last status wide and i will get into the messaging section where it breaks down how to talk about this. is this is from mop bipartisan, on the right side, conservative argument you heard for 30 years, other people say, we need your gird -- burdensome regulations and these work to make things more difficult for businesses, individuals who create jobs and economic growth. this sound familiar? maybe you have heard that at a few points in your political

life, running for office or from voters, a frequent comment the right wing has been decades pushing that narrative with millions of dollars in resources. this new work contrasting narrative, some people say we need fair and tougher enforcement of regulations in the u.s. to protect american workers and families and give the little guy including small businesses a fair chance to compete. a pretty new narrative, one that has not been consistently applied more resources in away the conservative has and this narrative means your regulation piece of 7 points in the national setting so that is what we take from it, there is a pass here towards building a fair economy, building a government that works for everyone and one of the ways to do that is fairly enforcing the rules that are on the books. let's get into the messaging. most effective way to talk about

this is with specific case studies and by walking through a couple. the most powerful, talk about negative consequences, failing to enforce regulations can cause costly and deadly disasters. is important not just to be negative, there are some real success stories in enforcement, i will give you a couple examples of those. we want to show people is possible to have success and have government that can work and save lives and save money and the third piece, gold and a level playing field to create a fair economy, up enforcement, calling for colonel penalties for ceos found guilty, a crucial way to make that economic argument and get to people who believe those at the top are getting special breaks while everyone else gets left behind. so here is one of the case studies we tested. i'm going to briefly read the language but is from the west texas fertilizer explosion.

when enforcement of public protection is neglected the results can be disastrous. in 2013 and explosion at a fertilizer facility in west texas killed 15 people including 12 first responders and destroyed three schools, nursing home and hundreds of homes. last time the facility was inspected by osha was in 1985. displays serious violation they got a $30 fine. we need strong enforcement to prevent deadly situations like this. incredibly powerful. we tested a case study in west virginia of a leak that contaminated water, there are probably examples like this in every state and i think it is a great opportunity for you all to be helping people to see the real role of government in their lives and the way the we can do better. here is the way we can do better, positive case study, consumer financial protection bureau, we will read language on

the web site recently consumer financial protection bureau ordered bank of america to pay $727 million in fines because of a bank's deceptive practices including charging consumers for products they never agreed to, ordering jpmorgan chase to take us receive the $99 and american express and a $59.5 million for deceptive and unauthorized billing. this agency saved consumers $3.5 billion in excessive fees and interest since its creation two years ago. we need to strengthen for some of these laws, not weaken enforcement. incredibly powerful success story, how enforcement can actually make a difference in people's lives. this image is what you'd get if you google thank her. [laughter] >> that is not a shot from our office. we tested a few other messages in this research. you confined all of this online

at sensiblesafeguards.org. to piece together the negative consequences, a positive solutions, their reasons for it, give us this message triangle, a couple -- one of the other success stories was product safety inspections, keeping millions of defective products out of the u.s. market, a.2 million in six months, very powerful but i want to wonderline the message at the bottom, the the the engine of the american economy, fair enforcement of rules creates a level playing field some multinational corporations can't use political influence to squeeze small businesses out of the market place. so that is my section of today's presentation, the big picture, a little bit, one of the pathways and looking forward to working with you in the future as we

dive deeper into more recent research, according to challenges and less damage next year's legislative session. [applause] >> good morning. my name is molly murphy and i am from the polling firm growth research, we have over the past several years conducted extensive research on issues impacting families, middle-class families, and their role and relationship with the work place. what i am going to do today is present some public polling on these issue is and i am going to augment the presentation with recent examples that i can't necessarily share from our clients because they do alone that data but we have seen consistently about the power of

these issues, making a family friendly economy and making sure family economic issues are a top priority for voters and we can go ahead and get started with this. there we go. we are going to talk about family economic security and to start with, i don't know if there is any way to size it down so the edges of the power point are not cut off but i can tell you that to set the stage, david did some of this to begin with we know that the economy is moving and is recovering since the recession but what is not happening for families right now, they are not seeing that direct benefit in terms of wage growth, in terms of improved quality of life and workplace benefits and so what this slide shows is that you actually do not seem movement, unemployment is down, you are not seeing a

movement in household income and what we are seeing in poll after poll is people feel things are generally getting better, when you ask them about their own personal financial situation they feel they are not seeing the benefits of an improving economy and this is a critical critical concern for families and is going to impact the 2016 election, it impacts families every single day. because of this, there is a broader framework of issues that are out there to address some of these concerns so there is raising the minimum wage but as we all know that impact's minimum wage workers for the most part and there are many families out there who are looking for greater relief, thank you very much, we also see greater focus on tax reform that close as corporate tax loopholes and david addressed some of this as well, there's a huge perception, and the right perception out there and then

those of the top are doing great. people seeing their bosses and corporate ceos arriving in this economy while they feel they are paying for it. also access to affordable high-quality long term care as well as child care. it is not just about wages they bring home. is about what they are able to provide for their family. preschool, college of portability, both ends of the education spectrum, both of these are economic issue is for families and they look at them that way in terms of opportunities for the future and equal pay. there is enormous support out there and a strong perception regardless of what those at the extreme end of the partisan spectrum lights at, that there is a gender discrimination problem with hate in this country. so we did a poll for american women and tested a package of the issues and in that package we asked whether people

supported raising the minimum wage to $10.10 because that was the federal proposal, we also asked about guaranteeing workers the ability to earn paid sick time, we tested equal pay making it harder for employers to pay women less than men for doing similar work and creating the family and medical leave insurance fund, and when we tested this you see incredible support for this nationally, 63% of likely 2016 voters, people who are turning out to vote, 63% support this as a package. when you look at those numbers you know this is not just support among democrats or all little bit of support from independents, but this is something we get support across the board for, these are common sense family economic policies. we also asked as we have seen there is a disconnect sometimes between what people like and what they are willing to use when they're considering how

they're going to the and we do not see that disconnect on these issues. we ask people, when candidates for elective office support policies that have a direct impact on working families like fair pay for women, higher minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, paid sick days does it make you more or less likely to support them or does it make no difference? you can see that it tracks with support, those who support this package are also willing to vote on it and you see very little back lashed, less than one in four of voters would say they would vote against someone who supported this package and so perhaps not surprisingly you are seeing a lot of candidates take on these issues and talk about these directly. we have got the democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton talking about equal pay for women is not a women's issue, this is a family issue and an american economic issue, that is exactly right and that is how people look at it. this is not a niche women's

issue, this is something people really connect to their own families. bernie sanders also talking about this issue. and daytime when millions of american workers see declines in their incomes and are working longer hours for lower wages the wealth of the billionaire class is soaring in a way that few can imagine. this is connecting with voters where they are right now but i don't think it surprises anybody in this room the democratic candidates are talking about these issues. q the next slide. for the first time since i can remember you really hear republican presidential candidates embracing these issues. many of you in this room saw the marco rubio rolled out his paid family leave program which is a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing but he is taking this issue on. the previous lives and david's presentation should give you every explanation as to why. he is saying and to and he disagrees with this, one of the greatest threats to family today is too many americans have to

choose between being there for their children in times of great need or meeting the basic financial needs of their families. i agree. that is why these policies are so important across the partisan spectrum. you also have jeb bush talking about how the income gap is real, but only conservative principles can solve it but talking about the income gap in this country, this is a problem that has reached the urgency point and a tipping point in this country and voters are looking for real solutions and you have rand paul also talking about income inequality. imitation is the highest form of flattery. so in our polling we found huge support individually for the paycheck fairness act. this is the federal bill because this was the national study we did, but we can assume individuals statewide support state bills would be very high, 62% of voters support the

paycheck fairness act, only 29% oppose it. voters also support the family act and this is funding f m l a essentials and we gave the explanation, talked-about the sausagemaking that employers would contribute and employees would contribute and you see nationally 63% of likely 2016 voters support the family act. again, we see huge support across party lines for this, this is not something voters view as too much and when we did focus groups around these issues we heard voters talk about it in their own words either if they have paid time, they see the great value of and don't see it as something only for those who are privileged, they see it as a benefit that all workers should have. for those who don't have that they felt burden in their own lives in not having access to paid leave when they have a family need come up. what do we say about this? there are couple ways we can

address this from a message standpoint and this is informed by asko of research and what we have done over several years, first and we want to do is address the problem. we want to the voters where they are on these issues. many families are working harder than ever but not able to make ends meet and be there for their families when they need to be and too many families, marco rubio saw this slide, too many families are forced to choose between their jobs and being there for their loved ones in times of need. this meets people where they are, they recognize that this is a major problem in this country. we also want to acknowledge our shared values on this. a stable work force is good for the economy and we all benefit. this is not something that doesn't impact you if you have paid sick leave or if you do learn equal to your mail counterparts or make above the minimum wage, we all benefit from a stable and strong workforce and everyone who works hard should be able to make a better future for their family. that is the american dream and we all believe that.

those are shared values we all believe but we also want to inoculate from attack. we know that people will come out and say we shouldn't put these mandates on business or if this is too costly. what we have found time and again in our research is voters are not inclined to believe that but we do need to address that to make sure they know that the facts are on their side. this is good for hard-working families. this is also good for businesses, it saves money in terms of retraining and employee turnover and studies have proven it places where these policies are in effect have seen no negative economic impact so we need to take those attacks head on because we do have the facts on our side and the values on our side and finally we want to explain why this man is for everyone. this is not just about the individuals who are going to see some benefit of this if these policies passed directly but instead the work force and the economy will be stronger,

everyone will succeed and will also strengthen future generations. this is going to set families of for a successful future not just now but for their children and grandchildren in this country. and so, i will wrap up the presentation there. all right? i realize i went along. [applause] >> i will turn it over to dierdre shipping from planned parenthood action fund. [applause] >> thank you so much. i feel like these presentations kind of build off of each other, very happy to be following that. my name is dierdre, a i am executive director of planned karen and action fund, that is an entity does political and advocacy work and i'm going to be sharing with you today some

research we have done recently on the recent attacks on women's access to reproductive health care in this country as well as planned parenthood as an organization. but first i wanted to do a -- what planned parenthood his hand now i'm talking about planned parenthood federation of america, planned parenthood affiliates that provide health care. as folks may know, planned parenthood is a health care provider. planned parenthood provides health care to 2.7 million women and to around the country through 700 health centers around the country and we provide a range of reproductive health care and education. our doctors provide cancer screenings, breast exams, birth control, and abortion. 75% of patients are low-income, 150% of the poverty level or

below. and additional leif room our aged caters out in the community we provide comprehensive sex education to more than a million young people every year. that is to planned parenthood is and our mission is and has always been to provide compassionate and nonjudgmental health care and education to those who need it particular early in underserved areas across the country and within underserved populations. since mid july planned parenthood has been under an intense, and relenting and were native attack by some members of congress, some members of state government, you may have witnessed in your own states, as well as anti-abortion extremists. the goal of this attack is to kick planned parenthood out of participating in medicaid and

other government programs which reimburses planned parenthood for health services that are provided. to low income people. so i'm going to share some polling we did on that. at an end of july and some more recent polling on this issue from the last couple of weeks. but before i go to the first what i want to say at heart, this issue is not about planned parenthood providing exams or birth control or that sex education, it is about whether or not abortion should be safe and legal in this country or not. and as a reminder, unfortunately the federal government does not cover abortion services through the medicaid program except in extreme circumstances sell this is not about that money does not go to cover abortions, we think that is discriminatory against 4 women that that is the law of the land and we follow that so this is an attack on whether or

not abortion will be legal. so a large majority of voters favor continued funding for planned parenthood. we did this polling at the end of july and found 63 to 28 voters across the spectrum favor continuing funding for the service is planned parenthood provides. interestingly independents in this wide and throughout the polling that we did our e especially strong, 68%. many recent national polls even as recent as this week and have confirmed this finding and show strong support for abortion access. the wall street journal had a poll recently showing 61% of americans oppose eliminating funding for planned parenthood, quinnipiac, 69% oppose shutting federal government down over funding planned parenthood, and a new poll released by bloomberg

shows that the vast majority of the public agrees with the u.s. supreme court decision in roe versus wade which they abortion safe and legal. by 67-29%. this has been a standard, this two thirds majority support for the court decision is the same and unchanged year after year. those of you, the marriage equality ruling, 54% to 42% and the reason for will correct decision 49 to 44. this has import electoral consequences to the detriment of candidates who would run on defunding services the planned parenthood provides so we tested similarly to what molly was saying about folks can support something but doesn't mean they vote on it. they vote on this, 58 to 26 more

likely to support a candidate who supports continuing funding. voters' views don't change even when presented with the case for defunding, 64 to 30%, 64% disagree with republicans call for a vote to the defund planned parenthood. interestingly, 72% of independents disagreed with republicans call to defund planned parenthood. i'm using republicans as a shorthand because that is the party in power in congress but obviously we have a lot of republicans that support funding planned parenthood so i don't want to be too broad brush their. voters are skeptical about the congressional republicans' proposed hearings and investigation. we are now have been under investigation by congress, four different committees are investigating planned parenthood. they have recently set up, four was not enough, recently set up

a select committee completely dedicated to investigating planned parenthood. and i think probably a lot of folks saw that are president cecile richards testified for 5-1/2 hours tuesday. in terms of how the public is absorbing this, what they think of all this, they think it is just as political as we know is so 57 to 28 they have a political agenda they're trying to push. 60% to 25%, the investigation into planned parenthood is designed to score political points. they see through it. been in voters in particular have a high regard for planned parenthood. not surprisingly many of them -- a couple things to note, 61% believe planned parenthood plays an important role in reducing the number of unintended pregnancies which is at a 40

year low right now less of a very important role fair, 59% believe planned parenthood is one of the few affordable health care options. just to summarize the recent attacks this is in the past two months so we know over the last several years reproductive health care access for women have been under attack at the state level like never before. my colleague rachel, do you want to wave? she is our state policy director and she is going to be leading off the panel later today to talk about the state attacks and to preview what we are anticipating in this next legislative session. after a very intense several years of attacks on reproductive health care just in the last two months we have had 15 anti women's health votes in congress

including four specific votes to defund planned parenthood, 15 states attempted to defund planned parenthood in their state and 17 state investigations into planned parenthood justin last two months. the level of harassment is intense. here is the quick map of some of those fights. and i would close by basically with a few words of advice for candidates and officeholders talking about women's health issues. it is important in talking about women's health issues to highlight the motive of folks who would act to defund or restrict access to women's health care or planned parenthood and to focus on what the motive underlying that are. it is not about birth control, it is not about education, it is about a difference, a