vote principle. the deviations are less than 10% which doesn't usually cause constitutional problems because the supreme court said that is not a problem. but here, the argument is as follows: that the underpopulated districts, almost all of them are minority districts, democratic leaning districts, and the overpopulated districts nearly all of them are anglo-districts and republican leaning districts. and the people who drew the map, the independent redistricting commission, said that is because we were striving to draw ten effective minority opportunity districts because we thought harry reid to do that to comply with section five of the voting tact -- act to get the number of

blocks we need. here is what the challengers are saying. they are saying the voting rights justification says section five is no longer in effect and you should not be able to defend the deviations that have a pattern of difference between the majority districts based on the statues that are no longer enforceable. if that argument is accepted there is a lot more maps around the country subject to challenge. the other argument is that is a sham, it was done for partisan reasons, contrary to the finding and fact of the district court, and that is an interesting argument in addition to the fact it defies the ruling of the district court in terms of the facts. the amount of partisanship is so

small it is tiny compared to maps that have been upheld by the supreme court in previous cases. what you have here is an effort to use these minor deviations in populations to ratchet up the level of scrutiny in the drawing of district maps to the point where you would have a double standard. some maps have completely equal populations and can have massive amounts of bias, small amounts of deviation, they can't. lots of possibilities about how it may come out. the third case is a case where i wrote an amicus brief called foster versus chapman from georgia. that is the case where the court said it is unconstitutional for prosecutors to systematically exclude people from serving on criminal juries based on their

race. that rule has been around long time but it has been violated much more than it has been followed in many courts around had country. this is a guy who has been on death row since 1987 when he was convicted of capitol murder. the litigation that was trying to free him was focused on whether or not he was disabled so he could not be constitutionally executed and that argument was ultimately rejected but took a number of years. during the time his lawyers got a foyer request do get access to the prosecutor's notes used in the jury process and found race all over. they identified race of the black candidates are color codes and had a discussion of which black they would take if they

had to take a black they would they can this one. it was evidence this was race based selection of jurors. they said one juror was 34 and that is awfully close to the 19 year old defendant. that kind of stuff. so the challenge was brought to the court and interestingly there is no particular legal issue. it is kind of an error correction case but races the issue of if this can be enforced and it is going to be decided in the backdrop of the whole new disagreement with the court on the death penalty we saw come out in the open in the case about league lethal injections

and whether or not the death penalty has the problem of racial discrimination. the brief we compiled showed massive amounts of evidence about how blacks are excuded from juries around the country and more likely in cases that involve a black defendant. and the final case is the government services case from yesterday presents this year's arbitration case. the supreme court allows arbitration clause but the rule is if you agree to arbitrate disputes under the federal arbitration act the agreements have to be enforced. the specific rule is they can sometimes not be enforced but only under contract law.

the argument is that california has a strong policy of favoring severalability clauses in contracts saying if the parties agree one piece of the contract is invalidated everything else should be enforced california will generally enforce the agreement. however the argument is they don't have that policy with respect to arbitration agreements and the rule in california, which the federal court out there enforces, is if a couple pieces of arbitration clause is shown not to hold up we will not just enforce the arbitration agreement all together. so there does seem to be

allegedly a different set of rules applied to arbitration contracts. i would say this looks like it is headed to the annual slap down of those people not enforcing arbitration agreements which is a regular feature of what goes on in the supreme court. that is a prediction i will make. >> mike, want to say anything about those cases? >> i would like to weigh in on the harris case. just to make sure everybody understand what is going on. arizona was under populating the districts with the fewest citizens. so it was acerbating the problem. their votes were worth more and then by underpopulating them they made them worth more compared to the anglo-districts which i think is a serious issue. and the truth is, it will be interesting to see how the

conservatives on the court react to this, the 10% thing, total population is by definition a rough proxy for voting power. so the court i thought was pretty consistent with saying if you get it to 10% that is close enough. but there was a summary from a couple years ago that indicated we will make an exception, even if you have a bad purpose, and the bad purpose was politics, as paul alluded to they are saying there is no partisan jerry mandering claim out there, not withstanding paul's efforts to the contrary, andy was saying it was a defense to a short challenge. if you come in saying i didn't create this black district because of race, i created it because of politics which is the case because it helps republicans in adjacent

districts, that is not good. so paul is arguing that politics have nothing to do with it and race have everything to do with it. while litigants in some cases, including one of mine they might take, argue it is all politics and no race. i don't think the shelby county argument has any legs. they will judge a legislatures interest in terms of the interest that would confront the legislature when they enacted the law. not pretent they can be put in a time machine and figure out shelby county would be reversed. the other part i like about paul's argument is they are taking a good approach to section five pre-clearance. you could saw they didn't need the underpopulate to get the

section-5 preclearance. you needed cushion and who knew what the justice department would do with these issues which is an argument that would be made. we had to preserve the district and you cannot hold us to literal compliance because it is providing predictions about how the hostile justice department would have reacted. i think it will prevail, but i am not making a prediction. they will be deciding this case at the same time as other cases that are relatively interrelated. >> at the risk of causing our viewers at home to switch to another channel, perhaps whatever is on c-span2 or

c-span3 i want to talk about the arbitration case. the supreme court and lower court are at logger head over this. particularly state supreme courts that are engaged in this campaign of objections of the supreme court's recent cases impleme implementing the federal arbitration act. this case is the latest in the line of cases that often involve supreme court contorting principles of state law in order to avoid remitting parties to arbitration. so i am sure this case is headed for a reversal for precisely that reason. but if you are in a private practice you will encounter this and it is cases from courts

across the country where the lower courts are out of sync with the supreme court. >> we are going to take three minutes each, if we could, to talk about some of the cases on the horizon for the supreme court. we will go in the same order so starting with mike. >> i tried to find more about the jones day case. i was unsuccessful. i think the case that is clearly going up to the court are the mandatory contruceptive cases where the religious organizations are challenging the obamacare requirement which is a follow on to the hobby lobby case that involved an employer that was religious. this is the religious organizations themselves. the eighth circuit sided with the organization causing a split. and the solicitor general yesterday pointed to the

archdiocese of washington case it is litigated by my partner at jones day neal francisco. i think the court is going to take the cases. i think there is a strong argument on behalf of the religious institutions argument. the federal court has been dismissive in saying you just need to check a box. but the reality is this is an insurance plan that obamacare requires organizations to have.

i will not predict how the supreme court reacts to that opinion. the other case which i am not sucking up to joe any but plf is the case where that is a strong challenge being brought. the constitution says all bills shall start in the house. this was the senate version post scott brown that got enacted into law. so the sensible challenge saying look the revenue bill didn't i orinate in the house and you need to devalue the law. the washington, d.c. circuit court said this was not a bill to raise revenue. there is 9,000 taxes in

obamacare but obamacare was designed to improve health care not raise revenue. it is true as a technical matter the senate didn't initiate obamacare. they took a bill from the house that had nothing to do with anything involved in obamacare and gutted it and put it in 1800 page amendment. everyone knows that is a fiction. i think the judge's point was the fiction has been around for a while. we are not going to second-guess how the two houses deal with each other even though i think he was acknowledging this would largely gut the requirement render futile the render requirement that revenue bills originate in the house if they can get around it this easily. >> now i feel like i should talk

about the williams and conley case. abortion is the only controversial area the supreme court hasn't gotten into it but there is a chance the court will wade into that area and they will then wade into the it during an election here. the court has two cases in front of it that are currently sort of in the certificate stage/briefing process so the court hasn't decided to take both, one from texas, one from mississippi, involving restrictions on abortion providers. the requirement that abortion providers have similar facilities to ambulance facilities and the requirement that abortion-providing doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital. the cases came out in different directions. you have the state of

mississippi seeking review in one case and abortion providers seeking review in the texas case and the mississippi case is being held and if the court grants review it will prevent the question of whether they constitute reasonable were visions or go too far set-up in the case of planned parenthood versus casey. there is a good chance the court will grant review in both of those cases. since mike didn't have enough time to complete the information, another case is a mcdonald case and a case called newman in which the supreme court grabbed on to it but we don't know if they will grant review, these cases have the potential to be the highest

profile criminal cases. the mcdonald cases involves the prosecution of governor bob mcdonald, the former governor of the state of virginia, for public corruption related offenses and the newman case involves insider trader and they involve the same issue at a possible high level of generalitay which is how you discip -- design the benefit and what constitutes the quote and how much benefit does the inside have to receive to be criminally liable when it is someone else who is doing the trading? both of them are closer cases in terms of the likelihood of the court granting this. we will nee soon with the newman case and further down the road with the mcdonald case.

>> the court and the incarceration of the former governor was interesting. i wasn't sure anyone thought the supreme court would take it until now. i will talk about a petition we are filing next week. >> i am a really bad marketer >> electronic arts, the video game maker, this involves a tort called the right of publicity which was invented in the 21st century. it a tort claim you can bring if you are a famous person and portrayed in a book or movie or video game or work of art or song. and the claim, unlike defamat n defamation, when you say they said something harm about me, it is portrayal of you by name or likeness without permission. ...

which says you can portrayal of famous person for free if you transform them in some way like the examples in the cases where you put a comic look out and there's a worm or monster but you have to see the person isn't on the other hand if you see them portrayed realistically doing what they do in real life however true to life that is is a violation of the first

amendment if you do it without getting permission first. there are other tests that tend to make more sense to us as rogers testified in the second circuit which says you can do this. unless you are doing something like using it as an advertisement or implying endorsement that's the exception. there are some states that have balancing test on a case-by-case basis whether the first amendment values outweigh the celebrities concerned being used in somebody else's work. not a good first amendment test that i think it's an issue that needs to be decided. he comes up in the context of the videogame electronic arts among other things with the famous maddon series of football games and this case a plaintiff who brought professional football players who appeared for a number of years and didn't have the names used but it was obvious who they were or at

least that alleged to be the case. we will see ultimately whether this issue gets to court. my own view to say the truth is bad and transformation are making people looking less like reality is good under the first amendment but it doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense. >> thank you all for your remarks. i'm standing up here so the mic can be freed up and we can get a few questions in which we have time for it. i'm going to ask after a call on you for you to wait to get the mic and also to stand up and state your question. i saw italy was the first with his hand up. >> i'm from the cato institute and i want to ask you you about a case that nobody talks about that hasn't been granted yet which i think could he one of the most important on the docket

it's a case if they don't take or affirm the ninth circuit would seem to overturn the important case regarding the freedom of association and not disclosing your associates or supporters to this date without any good reason and i wondered if you had any comment on that case? >> since i know nothing about it i will offer you nothing. a litigator is never intimidated by the facts. what kind of intimidation? >> with that a gate on campaigns and jamal harrison bryant information. to make it more convenient there was ongoing investigation.

>> look you have two conflicting supreme court cases and one is buckley bee vallejo but the case that liked anonymity when people are pamphleteering. you certainly have a credible argument that this is issued failed candidates vote for candidates. >> the state wanted more information. >> they can have an obvious chilling effect on people in this something that the courts has never come to grips with. >> in the political context required disclosure is constitutional. >> all the cases put together is complicated, there's no doubt about it. >> in terms of candidate donations you have a strong argument we need to know who's giving to this guy so we can police quit breaux corruption. he becomes more tenuate when you are talking about public policy

groups advocating it particular viewpoint and then it's harder to figure out. >> another question. >> there has been an attempt over the past few terms to find information in cases like the one you mentioned. they don't meet the constitutional measure of standing in a couple of terms ago the court took up the case held onto it for nine months and i was wondering if he could talk about whether or not the cases you mention might be a vehicle for justices and particularly justice roberts to test that standing. >> the case is really about that. to case that presents the issue in essence that the court seemingly deadlocked on a couple of terms ago and they sat on the case for an inordinate period of

time and ended up dismissing the case. i tend to think that this is a very hard case to predict maybe because we know that the court is closely divided on this. on the one hand i think that there's a real appeal to the notion that you have to have a real injury and congress can't simply create an injury. on the other hand there are not a lot of these statutes and the historical evidence doesn't clearly point in one direction or another and responded in the case put together historical evidence to the contrary suggesting that there was this law and practice as congress essentially created an injury for purposes of litigation. i think it's a very hard issue to hand down before the supreme court. >> the facts are so weird as you point out.

the facts are complementary to the sky. >> at least some of them. there were a friday facts. >> it seems to me there's a middle ground where we can say there's injury but you can't always put a dollar amount on reputational type injury or disclosure of private facts. i may not be able to do that and i think the legislature can just put an arbitrary number to deter that kind of behavior. i think that would be relatively attractive and i'm wondering your view does this case hit that? >> i think that's hard to say and i think in many ways part of the difficulty is that think it's very hard to measure how many of the cases under any of these statutes fit that paradigm. on the one hand when you have the cases you can take judicial notice of the fact that 99 out of 100 of those cases unless you have the grandfather or grandmother sitting by the fax

machine if there's injury that will be congruence. there's a whole range of statues maybe that will cause the court to formulate a compromised outcome as you suggest. >> wayne simmons for state farm. in the last terms some of the decisions impacting congressional authorization, congressional acquiescence statutory interpretation, then he cases going forward they could have a significant impact on how we look at congressional intent or legislative history? >> it seems like every turn there a number of cases involving initiatives for federal regulations. i don't know any particular one. there were five or six last year where they started moving in the

direction against the deference to administrative interpretations including the recent case but also others. that seems to be a pattern and what we have seen and i wouldn't be surprised if we don't see that pattern continue as there will be opportunities. >> the big issue out there is this question to which agencies get deference to the interpretation of their own regulations, the so-called question of our deference and an issue on which my former boss justice scalia hasn't particular been leading the charge suggesting that is one of deference that is recognized permissible and he is out of public change of heart on that issue. that issue will get to the supreme court. >> does that case from yesterday raised the issue?

i don't know enough about the national park service. >> i don't believe so but i say that with a low degree of confidence. the issue is going to be before the court and squarely presented the court essentially invited parties to litigate that issue and i expect we will see it litigated in the near future. the other issue that your question alludes to an paul's comments alluded to is this question of the circumstances under which chevron may not be worn today in the first place which is of course an outgrowth of the ada decision and i think that decision will sponsor a thousand flowers in the d.c. circuit where you have various parties arguing for one reason or another chevron is not appropriate in the first place and i'm somewhat skeptical that what that will take root and established doctrine in another context that we shall see.

>> there was ever cases last year in the court and there is a clear movement on justice scalia and justice thomas to cut back on that. maybe not in all situations. maybe they are categories where it applies or doesn't apply but that does seem to be a theme out there. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> tony morrow. i still don't quite get how you overcome the free rider argument in the previous case are the freeloader or whatever. is there nothing the union does for non-members that a union could charge for? >> let's take it a step at a time. even the cord raise on the unions lobbying does not justify

compelling them to subsidize. i go to the state legislature and say i'm going to get all these terrific pensions for my people and everyone agrees are just like every other circumstance where a bar association lobby for something or professors lobby for tenure. it's really none of the state's business i agree with that or not. i am the agent that makes the decision as to whether or not i want to do it remember to copy is it's borderline oxymoronic to say people who decided not to join me and won't give me money and for laughing at her he and like all of these -- policies. i gave the example of nobody who thinks he is good or to help inner-city kids is going to like what unions are advocating for. it's a huge educational debate now about whether or not the

future should be based on merit and whether you should allow chemistry teachers to get more than phys ed teachers and whether or not seniority should be the termination or assignments and layoffs all of which the unions are right it taken one position in the public policy debate and in which a teacher could take a very opposite viewpoint. so the notion that we are free-riding is like saying that a vegetarian is free-riding on somebody buying meat at their mail. we don't want this in and the government is not authorized to sign and the point that i briefly alluded to us if the unions don't want free riders, don't allow them. don't take extraordinary power to say i'm going to bind you to my theory of wages and benefits in class size in educational policy or they can be a members-only union that only represents members that they have voluntarily decided to

conscript the non-members to get the extraordinary power of exclusive representation so if there was any advocacy group in the world that would allow to make a free rider argument it's the unions because they voluntarily assumed this power, this burden of free writing in order to achieve extraordinary but greater power of exclusive representation. they can't go to congress and tell doctors how much they are going to get for medicaid and exclude other doctors from arguing for different rate. that's why if there's any context in which you would allow compelled ideological subsidization it would be this one. >> just a small dissent. as a matter of law in many places unions are required to provide representation to everyone including the grievous procedures when the employee wants to grieve about something and as justice scalia pointed out in a prior opinion that is a bargain that is made and if you

are going to buy lower choir unions represent everyone in the bargaining union on grievances and negotiating there is some logic to making everybody had to pay for that service. >> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> the clear results of not allowing unions to collect the cost of those services which is what they do is unions have a constitutional right not to represent these people so that is what you would do is end up with bargaining in the possibility of work cases where people are represented by different unions and employers are the last people that want to have that happen. you end up with an employer's interest and these employees interest but it's surprising to me that the employees would win out in that situation that public employees who have chosen to work in his work place. >> your facts are wrong in your logic does not follow up.

no state in the country requires you to undertake a duty of fair representation. the only required to undertake a duty of fair representation in the union has voluntarily decided to be an exclusive representative. on the nr -- nla you can leave the non-members entirely out of the negotiations. when they get that extra extra power and extra duty as you can't discriminate against those that you are purportedly representing. the notion that this is an important labor policy is belied by the fact that among other things 93% of people in the private sector don't have an exclusive references and 30 states don't have states don't have to sew the notion that this is somehow essential to labor peace doesn't make a lot of sense and in california if it was essential that would require unions to be exclusive representatives which they

don't. they say you have the choice. you can be members-only or exclusive. so these notions of employment disruption are false. this is all about lighting the coffers of the unions and that is what the case is about. >> we are going to have to leave further argument on this to the supreme court. i hope you all join me in thanking the civic leader foundation., we talk about the e over spending. back, the supreme back, the supreme to begin court is scheduled to begin their new term on monday. earlier this year, they conducted a poll for c-span of the supreme court and the impact decisions. you can see from the poll that some of the decisions are more familiar than others to

americans, roe versus wade at the top with 67% familiar. 46% familiar with brown and the board of education and it goes on from there. here to talk more about the suprem think the poll really shows that the supreme court is relevant. it is encouraging for us in the landmark cases and it takes a look at 12 decisions over time that have currency today and eight of those decisions are listed in that poll, so i think doesows that the court play an important role in society. the genesis of this was ruth bender ginsburg was talking to the national constitution center dinner and the constitutional center to be taken look

at is not only the decisions that people involved in the cases. we wanted to take a look at not only historic supreme court decisions that really the people involved, the personal stories, the people i cared enough to take the case all the way to the supreme court. host: one of the series air? and more background about how these cases were chosen. series is a 12 part series that begins monday, october 5, this coming monday as the court comes in on the first monday in october for the new session. each monday night of 9:00 until 10:30 on c-span and c-span3, we will do 90 minute programs and they take a look at all the 12 cases. host: in the background on how these cases were chosen?

there are a lot more time, proby over 20000 and we had to know it down to 12. you could do a parlor game because we came up with 12 along with our partners at the constitution center. we talked to constitutional scholars, legal scholars on the left and the right to come up with this list. it was tough because there are a lot of great decisions and important decisions not on the list that this is a good next, different amendments to the constitution, personal stories. sometimes these cases are cases where the court got it right and set precedents followed all the way through today and some of these cases, dred scott, korematsu are cases where maybe

the court got it wrong. host: the supreme court kicks off the new term on monday. tell us which case you will be featuring monday night when the series against and why. mark: one day night, we feature library versus madison, the foundation -- ball bearing versus matzo, the c as the ultif the constitution judicial review which is still being debated today whether the court is stepping into much. ande is a debate going on this shows relevance one the court should decide issues like gay marriage. marbury versus madison establishes that but it is a great case that shows the

personal stories behind the cases. there is a battle going on in this between john adams, thomas jefferson, and john marshall, behind the scenes that is the story of this case. it has legal importance but the shows are also personal stories that are engaging and i think eliminating all the time pwe ark eliminating all the time pwe [applause] >> thank you john for that more than generous introduction. i'm honored to be here with all of you here in this very historic event and appreciate the opportunity to speak not

only on behalf of the people of utah's governor but also on behalf of the national governors association a significant bipartisan organization that is serving the public well and the great state of utah and the other 49 states and our territories. people asked me how it is that i was able to get the support of the other 49 governors to become the chair of the national governors association. i thought long and hard about that and i came to the conclusion that i'm the only governor not running for president. [laughter] has opened up an opportunity for me. i feel it's an opportunity and i'm grateful to be here with a lot of friends and the chamber of commerce tommy berg who does an excellent job with his reporting and the vice president of the national press club. for those of you who i don't know i'm a will rogers sky were

a stranger's just a friend i have never met so i look forward to meeting with u.n. chatting about things that are important to you. the national governors association has a significantly important organization and that it brings her governors of our 50 states and are five territories together where we have an opportunity to network, to really share best practices and learn about the issues of the day that are impacting our respective states in this country. it's an opportunity for us to learn from each other. people are in the trenches doing things solving problems and as i have attended i leave to go back to utah able to be a better governor than i was before so i appreciate the national governors association and what it stands for and the significant role that government plan our nation. one of the blessings of being

the chairs have an opportunity to have initiative and as john mention i'm very concerned about what i see a lack of balance. the change that has occurred over many years for a think the role of the state and the role of the federal government are a little bit out of balance the need to be changed and improved. i know as we look at some of the challenges we see in our washington d.c. government and some of the dysfunctionality i just want to let the people here know and those who listen and watch the states are performing well. they are solving problems. they are addressing the people's needs and so our initiative which we have titled called states finding solutions and improving lives i have a car that i have given the governors and anybody who wants to listen and learn about the initiative and in fact for those of you that are here we'll have them available as you go out if you would like to pick up a card.

his finding solutions and states are doing that. states are the laboratories of democracy out there doing very good work in addressing the needs of the people in states have to find solutions. governors are leading in many ways with the help of their own government. i want to assure you it's not a fluke. it's not just a coincidence. it's how the system was designed to be. when we created this great miracle here of america and our constitution and the miracle of the philadelphia that was the beginning of an opportunity to have a relationship between the states and the centralized stronger federal government which was going to be able to have a sample we needed for the big needs of the overall and the needs that are unique to the states. james madison when he was trying to encourage the states to

ratify the constitution and newspaper called federalist 45 said this. the power is delegated by the proposed constitution of the federal government are few and defined. those which are germane with the state governments are numerous and indefinite so states you have been used in independence and a little more autonomy under the articles of confederation. that will change some of this new stronger federal government but let me assure you you are going to be okay because the powers given are very few in the powers remain with the states numerous and indefinite. that mirrors her 10th amendment of the constitution where it says powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited to the states or birds -- referred to states or the people.

that's how was designed to be. states having more proactive roles in solving problems. again we don't have the stagnation that we see in washington today. we see leaders on both sides of the aisle solving many of the people's problems. my initiative is designed to infect showcase those successes. people need to understand things are working well in the states and hopefully change the paradigm from the people saying let's have washington solve all the problems to saying let's first talk to her governors. let's talk to her legislature, to our local communities and see if we can address these things a little closer to home. my initiative has three objectives. one, to enhance or improve our collective partnerships which i think needs to happen. we can do better and our relationships with states that

federal government and to highlight some of the state solutions. we are going to try to compile over the next six to eight months some of the great success stories and put them into a book so we have something to document what's taking place and distribute that to the public for their enlightenment and understanding. we will highlight republican democratic independent success is taking place in our states and also to talk about and share best practices. those are the objectives. i think we are going to be able to highlight a lot of things and i think the list is going to be significantly long. the characteristics of these will be the successes are innovative and we are breaking new ground in territory and ways of doing things. they will be relevant to the times and put the need to find an address today. also they will be good for the public. there's a positive result that comes and we will highlight those and the governors will

submit the suggestion so we can compile this list. let me take a moment to address the idea of our first objective which is enhancing and improving the collaboratives date and federal partnership. i think we have an historic opportunity to do that. again with the challenge we face here in the frustration of public shows congresses at all all-time historic low in its approval rating. an opportunity to strength and the state and federal partnerships as intended by our founding fathers. governors have long held the understanding that there's a significant role for the federal government but a very significant role for the states to. we are concerned as governors on both sides of the aisle is constant federal over. no governor, and no state likes to have the federal government tell them how and what to do in

managing the running of their own states. that's not a partisan issue. we all wanted in fact to appreciate the understanding that there's a role for the federal government to play and to have to work in close harmony in relationship with the states. that was concept of federalism and unfortunately we have gotten away from that sharing coequal responsibilities between the state in the federal government. we support the federal's role. we know there some things that the states can't do protecting the basic rights of all of our citizens is certainly one of the basic rules we have from the federal government and many issues that are beyond the capacity of the individual states. at the same time we believe the federal government must recognize that most of the problems are best addressed at that state level. whatever the issues of the population as a community and as americans are better addressed most times at the local levels

on the state level. a balance of power between the states and the federal government is not only right thing to do but i would submit to you that it's essential to have happen if we are going to have some of the challenges we face as americans. this is not about ideology. this is about result in getting positive results that we have for the citizens of this great country. federal agencies they find are not equipped. the mentality tends to be a one-size-fits-all approach. uniform standardization. when we as governors note the uniqueness of this country and the reasons of the states have different cultures, different jabber face, different politics and different ways of doing things that are not only laboratories of democracy that pilot programs that are going on all over this country which gives us an opportunity to experiment and test theories.

as we learn from other governors and other states we have a chance to emulate and revise and improve or reject altogether as individual states. we see that happening all the time. again let me just give you this stunning fact and statistic. remember we talked about james madison said the federal government has few powers that are significantly defined. the states are numerous and indefinite and let's look at the comparison of our budgets between the states and the federal government. how you spend your money demonstrates -- demonstrates a priority on what you think is important. i've done the math here with the help of the office of management budget at the nga. if you combine all the budgets of all the states in the aggregate we are spending today at collective amounts run our states of 1.7 trillion dollars.

a fairly large number. $1.7 trillion in all 50 states. as you know the budget proposal is before the congress today is $3.99 trillion almost $4 trillion. so more than double the additional $5 billion in washington d.c. is posed to the combined spending of the 50 states. unless we have some double counting we find a federal taxes do we extract from the states and our citizens to come to washington d.c. and are redirected back to the states for shared responsibility and additional programs is a 500 billion-dollar price tag. so we don't double account you would take that off from the state budget which means the state is spending $1.2 trillion. the ratio is really about three times more money being spent and

extracted from our taxpayers as opposed to the fined 50 states. whatever james madison envisioned when he was talking about few and defined compared to numerous and indefinite most people say we have gotten away from that concept. it's more compensated than that i don't want to oversimplify the situation but it does give us an indication of what i would consider this lack of balance of federalism. i'm proud to say we have a lot of success is going on and for the sake of time i won't spend a lot of time. i'm anxious to see what's going to be submitted by the governors has the compiled this book but the truth of the matter is there's a lot of innovation going on in many places in this country. let me mention a few brief ones. we all know the challenge we are having today and the dynamic

change in society particularly when it comes to antidiscrimination litigation. that's been an emotionally charged and i'm proud to see utah has taken that issue head-on and us come together to come to a balance point to provide an opportunity for us to protect religious liberty and make sure there's not discrimination in housing and employment and other issues. it has not been an easy thing to do but we were able to do it. it's become a model for many states. i've had many governors call me. an example coming together and finding unique ways to solve current issues and problems. we see examples in texas and north dakota of innovative ways to improve the economy. texas tort reform helping us

with health care costs and find horrible ways to reduce health and access to good health care and help boost the economy and not be a drag on the economy. we see in education, we have significant examples in arkansas where we are directing monies to medicaid reform. we were just in new york recently and we looked at a new school there in new york city in the great state of new york, where we have a corporate sponsor. ibm is stepping forward and saying that's helped somebody at risk kids here. from ninth grade for the next six years and have them attend the school, gets six years of education, graduate not with just a high school diploma but with an associate degree and be the first in line to get a job at ibm with salary starting at the $2000 plus benefits. this is what remarkably well and

outside the box thinking coming from the state of new york on how we can do a better job with education. welfare reform. the constant issue of government assistance is a challenge that we address in this country and i hearken back to 1996 when president bill clinton signed a welfare reform bill that revolutionized welfare. that came from the states of michigan and wyoming, wisconsin and utah. again led by the governors and the governors and the nga help the congress write the bill. again a great example of what can do if we combined our thinking and help the congress solves the challenges of the day one of the areas where i'm proud of utah again it's in our innovation for transportation. transportation takes the budget

we have as we build infrastructure in the fast-growing state like utah across the country. and how we spend it by having regulation reform streamlining the process allows this and that to save money to build roads. one of the innovations we have had in utah is when they come to intersections and have to build bridges the traditional way is to have construction going on to build the bridge in place and it might take six months or a year and have disruption of traffic flow. we found a way to in fact build the bridge to the side of the road so it does not disrupt traffic flow and with mechanical devices and transportation with the little joystick you put on your person at the large tract or a flat platform. wrap that into place and bolted down and put in place and do it in less than 24 hours. so what was taking six months or a year to do now we can do in less than 24 hours.

we have people come from not only all over the country but around the world to observe our department of transportation and how we go bridges and a a unique way saving time and money is being emulated around the world. we are scratching the surface of all the things going on but the point is states are solving problems and innovative ways and we don't have the dysfunction we understand is taking place in washington d.c.. let me conclude by saying i know it's difficult for all of us and i think there's frustration with politics in general. we get things done and we don't have good people running for office. i think in many cases particularly here in the city and washington is because we the people are asking them to do more than the constitution ever stood them to do. we are asking for washington to

do too many things for too many people when the founders envisioned most of this work could be done in the states. we have different roles and we believe in improving people's lives and finding solutions is not a partisan issue. i think an issue we have here today is an opportunity to bring the discussion to the forefront, reset the balancing point and see if we can't anymore collaboratively work with our federal partners and really showcase what's being done and reminded people of america the states are finding solutions in improving people's lives. that's going to be at the can of bipartisanship. it's going to be a new way for us and i really do believe the best hope for america is that we can get this balance back in place in this dates have an appropriate role and visions under our constitution. thank you for being here today. i'm honored to be with you and

the states are doing it. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much governor. here in washington we are talking about a fiscal cliff again, possibly december 11 is the new date and now i guess it's been moved up. the treasury secretary said congress has -- but there's question on whether congress will act or whether we will have another shutdown situation. was talking with the gentleman on my left about a highway bill and he was saying how congress can't seem to get a highway bill what can congress learn from the lessons you are talking about? how can congress bridge the divides and start working together and get that balance?

>> while it's not going to be easy because of what we have been doing for too many years. but don't seem to believe in balanced budgets. states really do live within their means and don't spend more than they take in and don't have unreasonable that at least the vast majority of us live with the tight fiscal responsibility and type budget. utah for example is a aaa bond rating. our rating is better than the united states. we need to have people in congress on both sides of the aisle understand they need to be fiscally prudent and live within the budget and it should be balance. if that was the case we wouldn't be facing a fiscal cliff. we have got budget and come away with the budget and move on. the fact that we do have regular order in our senate and congress and the fact that we have a continuing resolution is a formula for failure and causes

frustration and anxiety. for those of us in the states it gives us a lot of uncertainty subs not just harming what's happening in washington d.c. but for the states we don't know when the money is coming. and the uncertainty causes us pause on medicaid expansion. is the money going to be there tomorrow? it's here today but it isn't going to be there tomorrow? i know it's been tried and we have had a proposed a number of times a balanced budget amendment. there ought to be some ability for leadership and the white house and the senate and the house and say no more. we are going to have a balanced budget. if we need to cover slow the rate of growth over period of time we can balanced budget. we have done it before but there ought to be the ability to debate issues on the budget vote them up or down and get back to regular order.

that's the council i would give to the congress. [applause] he talked about the need to achieve that state and federal balance. where is the best example of achieving that balance or from another state where you think balance is achieved in the way described? >> i don't know that it's balanced anywhere in our country right now because i think we are out of balance. there probably examples of where we have worked harmoniously with the states and the federal government so it's not all bad. it just isn't all good. i come from the west and some of the challenges we face working with the federal government the department of interior and how we manage our public lands. for example we have lost an entire industry in lumber and it's not unique just to utah but a number of the western states and others because we have not been allowed to spray for the

bark beetle. that's just common sense. we have a destructive species knowing away at our trees and it kills the forest and leaves them as a fire hazard. there's a better way to manage that. sometimes we have areas of wilderness that have undergrowth that grows up and they want to be able to in fact be good stewards of the forest but yet they can't go in and start a fire. we have to wait for a lightning strike to calm and let it burn because that would be healthy for the forest. we are in charge and we ought to allow modifications so we can in fact tend to the forest and the public lands in a more rational way. one last example again we have the clean air act. it was passed 1990. we have unique problem now trying to clean up our air and

ozone and other issues in many parts of our country but for example in utah are industry people are not giving credit when they pay for the best available technology. we are going to process natural resource extraction or natural development. they will spend hundreds of millions of dollars for technology to have a cleaner process but get no credit for it. the only credit the regis nonattainment so the first incentive is to have dirty air before we can get clean air. there's something wrong with the rules and regulations. we need to build common sense in this relationship and it really benefits the public if they can do that. >> marriage has been a contentious issue and we recently saw the county clerk spent time in jail after she refused to issue a license to a couple and you say in utah you

were able to bring religious groups in common ring groups in, reach some kind of accommodation understanding. tell us about what happened in utah and exactly how that's working there. >> as everybody knows, it gets an emotional issue on all sides. it's probably not just both sides. there are different variations of both sides out there so how do you bring people together better in some ways diametrically opposing each other because of religious belief? most people believe in equal opportunity and nondiscrimination but they want to be able to worship or express their religious beliefs they want to without fear of someone calling them a bigot or some other kind of bad name. so in coming together at least would have been in utah was we had all the parties that came to the table.

there has to be a willingness to say what is the compromise? if you can get people to come to the table that's the first step that has to happen to say let's discuss things in an honest and frank way. we were able to have the leadership, and we have the leadership in the different religious persuasions in utah they came to the table and sat down and said we can do better than what we currently have in the marketplace. i ended up saying to both sides don't bring me one bill that protects religious discrimination and one bill that protects it ends discrimination because then we will have competing bills. i said if you bring one bill i will veto it but if you combine them into one bill sold those sites are being addressed i know what you'll bring to me and pass in the legislature something that the compromise that both sides will feel like it's a step toward. that's exactly what happened.

the competing interests were combined into one bill and is dressed in a forthright and frank manner and they didn't get everything they wanted but they got most of what they wanted and it's a workable solution for utah where we feel good about where we are at. the clerk issue those who have been tasked to perform marriages that feel like it's against their religious beliefs, they found themselves is a unique place because some of the elected those positions as clerks. before the law changed and now they have been compelled to do something they didn't sign up for it. we put an exclusion in their for elected officials that are required to perform marriage with it provides is that if they don't want to do if they need to have somebody else in the clerk's office for example who will do it so if you don't want to do it we will let you have a pass at the clerk's office has to provide a substitute of somebody who will be willing to

perform the marriage. so far that is working out very well and i think it's a bit good example of how people can come together under very difficult circumstances. >> you have been trying to push the utah legislature into an alternative plan for expanding medicaid and now there's a new proposal that appears to have received a lukewarm reception in the house. do you think you can get enough support among your fellow party members to pass it? >> we just had the passing of yogi berra one of the great philosophers of all time and i know he said i hate to make predictions particularly about the future. [laughter] so who knows? i don't know what's going to happen but the legislature. i believe there's an effort there an attempt to infect find a compromise. i provided to our state my

proposal which was held in utah designed to in fact have access to those most vulnerable in our society up to 138% of poverty and jot down money that we have sent to washington. in the state of utah we sent $800,000 a year under the affordable care act. they don't come back to utah unless we activate that. healthy utah was designed to bring us back in to put the money into private insurance to address those issues in a unique way with opportunities to give them works of the people are getting a better job with education and skills. also increased the co-pay which hasn't been increased for many years. also to help redirect from the emergency room to see a doctor.

it's a sound concept. it's a commonsense concept. it's created because of some of the flaws in what i would consider flaws in the affordable care act coupled with the supreme court decision which puts the states in somewhat of a unique situation and if the taxes are mandatory the expansion is voluntary. and reconcile that and get the best bang for the buck. some of the legitimate concerns that the legislature has raised in being discussed around the country in all the states is will the money be there as promised by the federal government? there is some apprehension and angst is the affordable care act going to stay? is going to be repealed? a lot of those things are being discussed. we have benefits that come back to providers and another

legislature is trying to find a way for them to participate to help take care of the match requirements in utah and other states in 2020 and 2021. based on fairness and proportionality, it will be up to the legislature to see if they can take the compromise we are trying to make for my proposal that they can get it passed. and i'm optimistic to hope to call a special session to have it passed by the latter part of october and i think the leadership of the house and senate will find some way to get through and at least that's my hope. >> what would you say to governors and other states who have yet to expand medicaid? are they missing an opportunity or does that fit into what you were saying earlier each state should make up their own mind

that they can have a particularly good reason for not doing it? >> we talk a little bit about the founding fathers and one of the founding fathers was benjamin franklin. he said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. i take that to mean if we would do a write in first place we would not have the problem of having to fix the problem again. unfortunately i think the affordable care act republicans and democrats alike are disappointed that it has become such a partisan issue. it would have been nice if the congress and in the efforts to put forthwith good intentions the affordable care act and had more republican participation. my disappointment as a newly-elected governor was coming to the table and asking the question when are we going to be invited the states to weigh in on this affordable care act? we will be on the front lines of

this and i was told we have not been invited. that was a disappointment to me. i said just while we should have invited our selves i came on the scene a little bit late but again i think we would have had a better affordable care act if we have governors participate and let me tell you what's going to happen in my state who might well be a challenge in here are suggestions to make it better. i think we would have a better bipartisan effort if we would have think it's the states and the governors. that being said we have on the republican side of the legislature raid a desire to repeal and replace, repeal and replace it with something else. on the other side on a number of occasions we know the affordable care act can be modified and improved. modify and improve if you work

on it can come close together. there ought to be the ability for us to sit down in a more bipartisan way and say how can we in fact improve but we have? we have to repeal and replace or can we modify and improve? again i think it needs leadership and leadership in the congress as well as the white house to find a resolution. otherwise this is going to continue to fester and provide the country. that is what you see taking place. we have stayed to say i don't want to engage because i don't trust what's going to happen. there's uncertainty. the debt, will i get the money and some say it don't support the affordable care act template and it becomes difficult because people accuse me of supporting obamacare when in fact i oppose it. i'm saying we have to deal with the cards we have been dealt. it's the law of the land and if

we can rip you and replace, find, replace. if we can modify and improve that certainly workable but until it happens our taxpayers are spending a lot of money. they get no benefit and i will start where i began. the requirement to pay the taxes, the new taxes under the affordable care act are mandatory. expansion is voluntary and that's the conundrum we find ourselves than in the states. >> the federal gasoline tax hasn't been increased since the lenten administration. how do you get -- how did you get a gasoline tax increase to republican legislature in a republican state and how did you also get the legislature to agree to a bond issue to fund the eye 15 rebuild? aren't republicans supposed to

be the party of no taxes and no borrowing? >> well know. we are speaking as a partisan responsible for spending taxpayers dollars. if we had no taxes there would be no way around the government so clearly how we extract money from the population is a key issue. we in utah are trying to find a balance approach. recall is a three-legged stool of property tax sales tax. every state has a different mechanism depending on what what their strings are and what their weaknesses are and what they're policy and philosophy is so what works in utah may not work in other states and that's something they need to find. we are able to get something done because we have good leadership and it's not just the executive branch. certainly we are a part of that but we have good leadership in the house and the senate. we have good leadership in our private sector. we have great chamber of

commerce members who say for us to be successful in business we have to have an infrastructure that works. we heard loud and clear from the business community that we have got to have a transportation system that gets us from point a 2. e with little discomforting congestion so we try to be proactive when it comes to transportation. it's an economic benefit. it's an economic generator and a facilitator. we found after 18 years of not having any adjustment in the gasoline tax what we have lost to inflation the purchasing power significant. compounding the problem is cars and automobiles and trucks are much more efficient so we have more miles being traveled and less revenue that comes than proportionally because more efficiency in automotive does predict that to make some adjustment just to break even just to keep keep where your ads

and that's just to maintain the capacity. we happen to be the third fastest growing state in the nation so it's not just a matter of maintaining. it's also a matter of increasing capacity and i believe in the people. i believe the people understand the facts and all the details regarding why you need to have an increase in the gasoline tax for transportation purposes and economic development. that's part of leadership. you have to explain the details and let the public understand why this is important to let them weigh in on it. we have a private sector win strongly and effectively needed to need to make an adjustment on transportation and did so. made it easier for the legislature to do it with the support of the business community, chambers of commerce education and others to make a commonsense adjustment in our

taxation for transportation. frankly it has worked and other than a few extreme voices out there we have not had really much discussion. it's not something we have sprung on the public and we were able to in fact get the public to weigh in and they wade in and we did it. >> i received a couple of questions about the mass shooting in oregon yesterday. president barack obama yesterday responded to the shooting by calling for reasonable gun control. he said quote, i've got to have a congress and i've got to have state legislatures and governors who are willing to work with me on this end quote. what can the governors do to help stem the recurring problem of mass gun violence? ..

background checks to make sure that they are able to handle a gun. we think there opportunities for awareness and education, not that it is mandatory, an opportunity for people to know how to handle weapons. we think there needs to be

better education in our schools, big effort we have in our education system is to make sure we don't have bullying that goes on. violence starts at a younger age when we see bullying that is uncontained. teaching goodteaching good values and good principles is a very significant part of the issue. it is not necessary, just new rules and regulations. my wife, the 1st lady, as a conference every year called up the families. families of all kinds can come in and be taught parenting skills.skills. if we teach our children is good values and good principles to reduce crime late and violence.

that's where i would start. the short-term and long-term. creating some some kind of a law prohibiting the procuring weapons. you were in the news recently when a federal judge issued an injunction issued an order to hold funds for planned parenthood of utah. you have vowed to fight that really is a presumptuous to call before planned parenthood? i don't think it's presumptuous because we know the parent organization has caused some controversy. anyone has seen the videos. some kind of assumption that they were colleagues in medicine and science and we didn't know that is why we have a moment of candor.

that should cause us all a little bit applause. i do do not discount the fact that planned parenthood does some good things. but that is not to paint over the concerns we have with what we viewed on the videos. that beingvideos. that being said, the more important issue is to make sure we were able to provide for women's healthcare and what ever form of fashion we think is important in our states. we have 41 different locations41 different locations in the state of utah were women's healthcare issues are being addressed. most all of them provide the word mammograms. i just believei just believe that we have not a lot of money in the state of utah, less than $275,000 toward an $8 million budget that planned parenthood has come

and they have already vowed that we will continue business as usual. can make that better. spread and more convenient locations. all those issues that you're talking about, an organization that is performing abortions. it's just a better way to spend the taxpayers dollars if we are concerned really about with itself. >> you have not said which republican president you would endorse frompresident the tell us what you think of the campaign so far, and is donald trump helping or hurting the gop brand? >> i don't want donald trump's calling the uglier stupid. i will be very kind.

i think it is an interesting time and presidential elections. we all say this. the most important election in the history, and maybe every election,election, it becomes the most important election in the history of our country. i think there are great candidates that have a lot of substance and a lot to offer. every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. we will have to let that filtered through the process and see what the public wants to see in the oval office. i think that some are certainly tying in to the frustration that we have talked about a little bit today of the dysfunctionality in washington. the propensity to kick the can down the road, to not address anything. the joke is that congress is going to do two things, one is nothing, and the 2nd one is overreact.

so again, the low esteem that the public holds for what is taking place is indicative of frustration. outside candidates are able to comment say, hey, i'm going to come and clean house, sweep up. that resonates with the public. i like governors, it probably would not surprise anyone. i have a little bit of bias over those that have significant experience. they run something that really is similar to being a president.a president. the executive branch in their state, know-how the pieces fit together and why it's important to work with your legislature, how to put together education, all those things that sometimes we ask of the president. they already have some internship, some experience, working know-how command i think that is nothing but an asset.

ii like the governors that are running. they have the experience necessary. and in many ways nerve can be outsiders with experience. i am not prepared to endorse anybody yet. i know most of the candidates. i like them. they are good friends. i doi do like the idea of a governor being in the white house which by the way history shows the americans agree with. the last few generations have been the majority governors. >> breaking news according to my colleagues, politico is reporting that congressman jason of utah has just announced a campaign for house speaker, and they wonder if you could react to that news, governor

>> welcome i'm glad to hear he was running for house speaker enough for governor. lebanon congressman chases for a long time. have known jason for a long time really is willing to engage in the discussion and a frank manner. so having him as a speaker of the house would be a blessing for the house. it would be nice for utah but more importantly it's what's good for the country. i had not heard about this. i saw him just the other day and he didn't mention it to me. he said hey, jason.

>> well, here on the east coast we are getting pounded by rain. on the west coast there is a serious concern about the ongoing drought. what whatdrought. what do you think about the future of water in the west? >> that really is an advanced question. getting too much water. conservative we havehaven't make a stretch farther and develop what we need from the future.

we created what's called your utah your future and had people weigh in, the largest grassroots efforts, near 60,000 people have weighed in on our surveys. help us with this issue. the growth pressures of utah and when you want to see utah become. the colorado compact which was put together back in 1922 by the intermountain station, utah happens to be in both basins. if we had to do it over in today it would probably be different than what was done in 1922. california got a certain amount and the rest got the percentage of the flow. your amount of water volume goes down where is the guarantee keeps continuing on. you can see some inherent

inequities. our native american and sorrow reservations have access and ownership in the water and yet can't access it. the challenge of how to make that work for everybody is an ongoing challenge. the continues to work well. that being said, water issues are big thing. an impact not only our ability to grow that are ski industry which is the greatest no one are. addressing them by conservation efforts.

before i asked the final question i want to remind our audience of upcoming events. republican presidential candidate and neurosurgeon doctor ben carson will address a luncheon. i would now like to present our speaker with the honorary national press club mug, and final question, if you spend any time with reality tv or pop-culture, you think utah is all about sister wives and singing book of mormon musical missionaries. what would you like the rest of america to know about your state? >> well, there are the

stereotypes are probably every state not just you need to utah. utah is a wonderful state with wonderful people. we speak 130 languages, very cosmopolitan. our, very cosmopolitan. our symphony has been rated as the 7th best in america we venerate the arts. as pioneers came and said this was the right place, the 1st thing they built was not a temple, people did not have houses so they started building a performing arts center. it's improve people's lives by bringing culture utah is not a wild and woolly west. it is a very cosmopolitan urbanized area. we have 3 million people in utah that are mainly headquartered in about ten regions of the state that are very urbanized. a lot of wide-open spaces,

land and natural resources, tourism, travel. it is a beautiful place to come and visit. we have vistas and venues, landscapes that are just stunning and people of visit and say we need to come back. not only do we have great vistas and venues to migrate people that really are friendly and optimistic and wholesome, but all of that combined makes utah i great place to live, to raise a family, and as forbes has said four times out of the last five years, the best place to do business. we have a lot going for us. he argued example. other states are doing well. i am hopeful that they will listen to the states and

>> good morning, everybody. imorning, everybody. i had the pleasure of meeting a great many of yesterday. it is my great, great honor to stand here before you this morning to introduce

the man of the hour, the great, the one and only. i was saying yesterday the future as defined in that movie, this month october 2015 is supposedly the future. they seem to be working.

still a couple. among the not so great things are last 30 years as we all no, in your states, right around the time the back to the future was originally released in theaters a number of folks on the right got together and decided that they wanted to write their version of the future. in giving credit where it is due, it is hard to deny standing here today as we look at the landscape 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 read the next

chapter in the american story command we want it to be our chapter. [applause] and to do that six has articulated a long-term vision to when winning progressive infrastructure in the state and of course given the state of play you might ask, who is that person who is bold enough and audacious nothing crazy enough to say that in 2015 we can start to tell the story, build that winning progressive infrastructure in the state your about to meet the future of this

country. standing to my right, sitting to my right is a born organizer, natural leader, coalition builder's, guy from nebraska and nobody can explain what that chapter that we want to write looks like because he is loved it. the greatest estimate testament asked why he is the right leader this moment's vision is one where all of you feel that your not alone.

as we know the other side is doing. he ishe is the one who's going to carry that out. very proud that nick is at the helm. i know you will if you don't already command i am very proud of all of you who support the audacious goal. [applause] >> thank you so much. that was a very kind and generous welcome. i hope you'll remember the name is obviously going to

be president of the united states sunday. welcome to that 2nd annual legislative conference so many difficult places. some new faces from all of our travels from this year which is very, very exciting in fact, this year we have nearly 250 state legislators representing all 50 states attendance. give yourself around applause. we have grown our network to over a thousand now which is amazing. to put that in context, they have a predecessor organizations they gathered between 5250 nine months of our existence they almost double that which speaks to the enthusiasm and

excitement currently happening so much great work that he came out of last year's conference in relationships that were forged that i'm excited to see what happens. just a few quick housekeeping things. the two pending hurricane we had a few cancellations. and deblasio had to be back in new york my friend chuck d, had to go to atlanta. and so you plan for a conference for months and the one thing we didn't plan for was a hurricane heading west. in spite of those cancellations i think we have a great lineup for y'all having the opportunity to be at the white house,

administration officials. this morning we will hear from a number of great leaders. the air from planned parenthood, congressman keith ellison, the legislative session, looking in the 2016, leaders from the movement for black lives how to engage with the movement and this afternoon we will have a series of breakout sessions on a host of different issues. we will do legislator only training, briefings. one last peemack, wepoint, we encourage all of you take social media and tweet about

the conference using #six. i also want to thank a few people. we have an amazing staff john, patty, anthony, sean. please give a round of applause. and for those of you don't no me, i am the executive director. i've been working in state and local government for over six years. i started my time in the nebraska in a camp. i was a committee lawyer and organize here in dc. i worked for governor eliot spitzer until i fell apart.

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

the progressive infrastructure, donor class, and establishment. i'm not saying it's not important. it is for a number of different reasons, but only focusing there is a recipe for disaster. frankly, progressives it has if you takeif you take a look at the map of legislative control in this country it is currently nearly all read. thatthat is because right now in america conservatives control were state legislative chambers system acting hundreds. in fact, in the time the president obama has taken office alone republicans have gained over 900 state legislators, 11 governorships, and the majorities and 30 state legislative chambers. none of this by accident or just happened overnight. since the 1970s conservatives have been methodically investing in the development of coordinated state infrastructure the focus is onon elections, ideas promotion, training, and

grassroots organizing. "cbs evening news" they have a combined budget of $60 million however taking a deeper look at public disclosure reports in an estimates of internal corporate spending we have to make the constellation of groups closer to $250 million to this network to advance their policies, coordinate message, organize, train and influence legislators. i can say progressives are

nowhere near that. there are of course a number of different consequences to all of this. each of you on a daily basis are facing. for one, the progressives do not control legislative chambers in the vast majorities of state and they do not control the redistricting process. you effectively will not have control over united states house of representatives. that is where we are today. after the losses in legislative races in 2010 we effectively gave away the house of representatives for a decade. in addition gerrymandering these districts have also incentivized ideologues because districts are often drawn around a narrow group of similarly minded individuals leaving no reason for neglected officials to compromise compromise. that compromise has become a dirty word in washington. and you have seen the effects of that.

the inmates currently running an 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 the conservative base but the sacrifice of nothing for the country and in fact we should be scared of this extreme governing but again there's nothing we can do about it because they controlled the legislative chamber. progressive negligence has left legislators and state elected officials in a position to have to fend for themselves. up until now there is not the miniseries organized effort to identify rising stars, nurture and train elected officials or build a farm team. each of you in this room may need in this room have told us last summer as we were building the organization we had one-on-one conversations with

hundreds of legislators around the country. the word literally hundreds of times consistently the same thing. legislators feel like they are on an island. they feel like they are a long. they don't feel connected to one another. national leaders are a common program. they don't have a central place to go to find information and they sometimes get trained when they're running for office but when they are in office. take a look at the presidential candidates running for office on the right. most of them are governors and in the case of state legislators they are relatively diverse. they have a farm team in a way that we do not. finally power and legislatures allows for the ability to have power over policymaking and the movement of issues state-by-state. let's take gunzburg sample. later today we are going to have a moment of silence for the victims of the oregon shooting.

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

program lobby when after legislators hard and begin recall efforts against those who voted for simple background check legislation. in colorado to legislators were recalled and lost their jobs as a result. and look what alec in partnership with the nra was able to do was stand your ground. version said that the move from florida to 17 states in one year and is now in 26 states. when i talk about infrastructure and mechanisms to actively and quickly influence policymaking in the states this is what i'm talking about. we all get frustrated seeing another mass shooting happened. we ask ourselves how can this happen? how and oregon to ... happen? how when charleston do we let this happen? how in newtown do we let that happen? how was that public opinion even amongst gun owners at the very least simple fact round checks

and still nothing has happened? in my opinion one of the major reasons for this is if that they have built this infrastructure that rapidly deploys information can stand up in legislative offices, can crash and discriminate -- disseminate to move those quickly across states and build public opinion. you couple that with the fact that until now, there has not been a real alternative for countervailing forces 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 economic policy where there is to an assault on the 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 the people that i grew up when -- with the nebraska

many people i meet when traveling across the country would never know that because so much of the wealth is concentrated at the 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 one tenth of 1% of this country, not just the 1%, but one tenth of 1% of this country owns almost as much wealth as the 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 was talking to my brother who is a lawyer in d.c.. he mentioned line he had. this woman worked at a restaurant in north carolina. the e