>> thank you for this discussion. i am alex and i'm working for the voice of america. i question refers to the actors and specifically to the foreign actors. .. >> i think ideologically that would be very, very difficult. unless, unless they're trying to

penetrate, i guess i can't see that there would be any kind of ideological sympathy between far right groups in the west and i.s., it just doesn't -- i can't see any sympathies. >> all right. we will leave it at that. i think this has been a productive discussion, and two closing recommendations. buy joby's book and follow nelly in various social media at double i, double s, not isis, produces after she joins us next month. >> thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states, are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> my fellow americans, tonight our country faces a grave danger. we are faced by the possibility that at midnight tonight the steel industry will be shut down. therefore, i'm taking two actions tonight. first, i am directing the secretary of commerce to take possession of the steel mills and to keep them operating. >> in 1952 the united states was involved in a military conflict

with north korea, and at home a dispute between the steel are industry and its union had come to a head. >> the korean war was a hot war, and they needed steel for munitions, tanks, for jeeps, for all of those things that you needed in the second world war as well. so if the be steel industry went on an industry-wide strike, that was going to be a real problem, because it's basic to the things that an army, a navy and an air force need to fight a war. >> to avoid a disruption of steel production crucial to the military, president harry truman seized control of the mills, and as a result, a pending strike was called off and steel production continued. however, the steel companies -- led by the youngstown sheet and tube company in ohio -- disagreed with the action and took the lawsuit all the way to the supreme court. we'll examine how the court ruled in the case of youngstown sheet and tube company v. sawyer

and the impact on presidential powers. joining our discussion, michael gerhart, author of "power of presidents." and william howell, political science professor at the university of chicago and author of "the wartime president: power without persuasion" congressional checks on presidential war powers. that's coming up on the next landmark cases, live monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it's available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> and baker says to him, well, i want to be a congressman. i think you're just using this as a steppingstone to the senate. and george h.w. bush says, no,

no, i'm not using this as a steppingstone to the senate, i want to be president. [laughter] this is 1965. he is 41 years old. he has yet to win a race to be the harris county chairman. but he had a sense of destiny. >> saturday night at 10 p.m. eastern on c-span2's booktv, a conversation between pulitzer prize-winning biographer john meacham and former president george w. bush about the life of the president's father, george herbert walker bush. also on saturday it's the louisiana book festival in baton rouge with presentations including adele levine and her book, "run, don't walk." keith medley and adam rothman and his book, "beyond freedom's reach." and sunday night at nine on "after words," former congressman patrick kennedy shares his personal journey with mental illness and substance abuse.

>> i really was convinced that no one could pick up on the fact that, you know, sweaty, you know, palms, i was perspiring, i was, you know, furtive and moving around in an agitated way. i mean, i totally thought no one knew. >> he's interviewed by democratic representative jim mcdermott from washington state. booktv, television for serious readers. >> and we are live here on c-span2 for a forum on global youth engagement programs inside and outside of established political systems, and specifically why young people are skeptical of institutions, what motivates them to action and how to leverage that knowledge into successful youth organizing tactics around the globe. this is all hosted by the center for american progress. it should the get under way in just a moment here live on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hello, everyone. thank you so much for being here today. my name is ann johnson, i'm the executive director of generation progress here at the center for american progress. we are really excited about the conversation that we're starting today about young people and civic engagement and social change both here in the u.s. and

around the world. generation progress is an organization that works with the millennial generation here in the u.s. the millennials are generally defined as people born between 1980 and 2000, although, you know, sort of depends on who's defining it. but the millennial generation is the largest generation in our history. there are, in the year 2020 millennials will make up 40% of the voting age population in the u.s., and so there's a lot of conversation about what's going on with young people in the united states and their political participation. and as an organization, we really focus on engaging young people around the issues that matter to them. so we run issue-based campaigns on everything from the economy to student debt and campus sexual assault prevention. and we've had an opportunity over the past couple years to meet young people around the world who are doing similar work or who are working on engaging young people in social change in

their countries. and some of the things that we've learned in doing that is that a lot of the issues are actually very similar. the issues that are important to young people. and if you think about jobs and the economy, that makes a lot of sense. young people are unemployed and underemployed at higher rates than the rest of the population both here in the u.s. and around the world, so there's a big question about jobs and the economy. there are issues around access to high quality, affordable education for young people, obviously, in the united states student debt is a huge issue. but access to affordable higher education is an issue around the world. there are issues related to violence, to gun violence, i think in the united states one of the things that i have found is that when we -- when i talk about our problem with gun violence in the united states, it's absolutely shocking to young people in other parts of the world how bad this issue is in the u.s. there's, obviously, issues that we are dealing with with police

violence and with police killings of young people which is also something that other people around the world are dealing with, violence at the hands of the state itself. and there's also really important things about the role of government that young people are struggling with here in the u.s. and around the world. and i think one of the things that was sort of surprising to me as i was having more conversations with people is other parts of the world would say, are saying, you know, there's a corruption problem with the way that our political system works. it's actually corrupt. in the united states, we talk -- young people talk about being frustrated by money in politics. but really what you're, when you really boil it down, it's the same issue. it's issue about influence that goes to, like, the very rich and the very powerful, and it takes it away from the people at large. so there are a lot of similarities in that issue as well. so the issues are similar that young people are dealing with, but the structural challenges are also similar. so there are progressive

institutions here in the united states and around the world that are trying to figure out how to engage the millennial generation into those progressive institutions whether that is labor unions or advocacy organizations or political parties themselves or think tanks. organizations are trying to figure out how do we engage this generation and make them a part of the fabric of the progressive movement in that country. so that's an anish issue that -- an issue that people are dealing with. obviously, political participation is an issue, so actually voting. young people are not voting in the numbers of previous generations, they are not exercising their power in that way, and that's something that here and around the world political parties and candidates are trying to figure out. there's also, we were talking about this a little bit earlier with the panel before we got started, but there's also a lot of very successful social movements that are happening around the world that are trying to figure out -- the young

people leading those social movements are trying to figure out how to move that social movement organizing and activism into political power. so if you think about what happened with the occupy movement in the united states, it really was very powerful in shifting the narrative around income inequality, but i think a lot of folks in occupy movement would say actually moving into institutional power was a challenge, right? and there are other organizing efforts around the world that are experiencing similar powers. after the protests, after the arab spring, what's the next step? how do you institutionalize your power to create long-term change? so that's something that i think people are really thinking about. so with this new project, this global conversation that we want to start, we want to address some of those issues and say what are, what's the research that we need to do on this? and we're really excited to have our friends here from the foundation for european progressive studies to talk a little bit about this millennial dialogue project that they have kicked off around the world. so what's the research tell us,

and what actually, what do we know about young people in the united states and young people around the world? what are some of the issues that are engaging young people here, and what are the issues that are engaging young people in other countries? what can we learn from those issue-organizing campaigns that's replicable? what could actually work in other parts of the world? so those are the kinds of things we want to talk about with issue-organizing campaigns. we also want to think, we want to talk about what is working in electoral engagement. what are some of the models and successes that we can actually share with each other to make electoral politics more welcoming to young people around the world. and then what good public policies are actually passing. what policies are really impacting young people, and how are those policies getting through the legislative bodies that young people are engaged in? so what's working, how are we electing good candidates, how

are we getting young people to actually run for office, and how are we sort of building social movements that move into institutionalized power? these are the kinds of questions we want to ask ask over the course of the next hour and a half but, obviously, over the course of the next months and years as well as we build this millennial organization and start to connect young organizers and activists and political leaders from around the world together. because i think as we move forward, these relationships that are being built and these best practices that are being shared between this generation will impact, you know, ten years out, twenty years out, thirty years out when these young people are running their governments and running the progressive movements in their countries. so with that, i will turn it over to ernst, if you want to come on up. we're thrilled to be working with the foundation for european progressive studies on this research project. ernst has had a very busy meeting of weeks -- meetings in

d.c. this week, so thank you for joining us, and tell us a little bit about the work. >> thank you. >> >> yep. >> thank you. thank you so much, ann, giving me the opportunity also to address today's conference, and before starting, i would like to say a big thank you also that it was possible to build up this kind of common dialogue together with center for american progress and all the related institutions. i think what we discuss today is not only a timely discussion, but it's also very, very important issue of our times and the challenges we are living and the millennials are facing. not least important for today's debate is the issue of somewhat worn-out story about the younger generations, and you already mentioned that. it features disenchanted, detached or disengaged young people who have turned their back on the political system. this is at least what we can say from the european level.

people are saying that in your political appeals they distance themselves from political campaigns, and they fail to appear at ballot boxes. however, their absence within the framework of institutionalized political conversations makes them a target of political -- [inaudible] that's why we have launched, together with generation progress and center for american progress, a global initiative. ann mentioned it already, called the millennial dialogue, that seeks to shed some light to this growing phenomena of youth withdrawal. it is crucial that we as progressives take a furtive step to understand today's youth as they are very good indicator of what the future will look like and how progressives will be perceived by this generation. and in addition and, i think, most importantly we should also enable ourselves to analyze what are the real challenges for the upcoming years to reconnect with

this generation, and what are possible solutions that would bring progressives out of this malaise? i am firmly convinced that the millennial dialogue project is a steady step in this direction. this is a project that aims to give voice to today's youth, to extract what inspires them and include their demands in the progressive for -- [inaudible] with that, we have designed the project as a three -- [inaudible] being positive, being participatory and being progressive. it is to be positive because it's to change the terms -- [inaudible] it's to be participatory because -- [audio difficulty] and to support the progressive and social democratic family in acquiring new connection with the younger generation.

[audio difficulty] we have conducted so far until this month more than ten countries' specific reports with expectations on what the younger generation is expecting of its politics and political system -- [inaudible] and recognize even more partners within the european union and for sure beyond -- [audio difficulty] of the european states and, indeed, to go global. we have so far -- research for sure together with you here in the u.s., in canada, in european union. it's nearly in all the european countries. we have now contracted with some countries in latin america, in chile and in brazil. we have discussed to do also surveys in africa, especially in

south africa, in kenya, nigeria and eventually in senegal, and we have had a good debate also with some indian partners to look with what respect younger generations in india also can participate to these challenges. so as you said, it's a global conversation and a global initiative that's going on, and i think it's very needed that politicians and politics are looking at this. and to conclude with four core questions which i think david lewis from our agency who is doing this research will explain more to you in details in what has come out so far. i think the first question we have to tackle is how to prove that -- [inaudible] and the approach of the millennials. a feasible program that will -- [inaudible] economy to a political rule and will make politics remain at the service of the society. the second question i think we

have to gather, have to address, how to create, you know, political project that would appeal to young people's idealistic belief that another world is possible. [audio difficulty] politics, political culture and culture itself. the fourth question, how to renew the movement so that it presents itself as a real, serious alternative and not a part of a cartel system of -- [inaudible] political consensus. if we work on this basis of such a positive -- [inaudible] that also the democratic movement in europe can convince again a lot of the younger millennial -- >> well, as you can see, we are having some technical issues with our signal from this event. we apologize. we are working to get the issue straightened out. we hope to return to live

coverage shortly here on c-span2. great honor that i'll be sharing with my international counterparts over the next few weeks. for investment to create economic growth for the middle class and to create that around the world. we need to create jobs and to create this economic growth together. these are investment strategies that we will be discussing in the same way as i did during the election campaign that we have just experienced.

>> two significant international summits, first the g20 in turkey, the second, the apec conference in the philippines. the topic, both of them, will be around inclusive growth. i'll be talking about the fact that in order to create more global growth particularly in support of the middle class around the globe, we need to be investing in our country's future, we need to be investing in the kinds of opportunities that are going to allow us to grow and continue to flourish as nations. that's going to be at the center of my discussions with my colleagues around the world. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. trudeau, two questions. first of all, on your meeting with president obama that will happen in manila, what message do you want to spend to him?

on what tangible basis do you intend to renew the relationship with him? well, first of all, there are many issues that canada and the u.s. are close allies on whether it's in terms of climate change, i know that president obama has worked a great deal to insure that the paris conference on november 30th be a great success. i know that we will be working together to encourage countries around the world to participate in that and, obviously, conversations on the economy and security will dominate our discussions. we need to work together to insure strong growth for the middle class. i believe in investment rather than austerity. and certainly, we share views on common grounds and on the needs of remaining vigilant and very active in our fight against terrorism and instability in the world.

furthermore, when you'll be at the g20, you'll be in a country that has been at the front lines of the refugee issues. they've been asking for a global solution to that for years. it's well and good to welcome 25,000 in canada, but as of now what signal are you sending to your partners on this issue? well, i think, first of all, welcoming 25,000 refugees in canada is a significant commitment that's going to make a very big difference not only for those 25,000 refugees, but also as an example to other countries as to how we can welcome people and integrate them well. and these are people who are experiencing very difficult circumstances. the international community must do better to help countries such as turkey that are in close proximity, but also jordan and others as well. and we need to do more to establish a process through which people will be able to be successful in their lives.

>> mr. trudeau, during the election campaign you were able to discover this were 26 secret orders in council that your predecessors adopted. they never told parliament or canadians what were in these. has your team had a chance to review these orders in council, and what can you tell us about them? >> our principle as we move forward is always around openness and transparency, but at the same time people understand that on issues of cabinet confidentiality and issues of security there are, there is a requirement to respect confidentiality around certain issues. in regards to those orders in council, we will take a look at them and and make the appropriate decisions in having a balance between openness and trust both for and by canadian people and also maintaining the proper functioning of a government that canadians expect. >> do you foresee either repealing or overturning any of

the 26? >> i look forward to engaging with them in a responsible way as time goes forward. [speaking french] >> translator: two questions. on refugees, earlier you were talking about the 25,000, and all of a sudden it seemed like it might not be just refugees that are sponsored by the government. so can you clarify the situation, please? well, obviously, as we all know, it will be a tremendous challenge to welcome 25,000 syrian refugees. but it's something that i have a great deal of confidence in. canadians across the country have demonstrated openness and a desire and wish to do more. i know that canada has benefited

for decades and generations from various waves of immigrants, people who are often fleeing for their lives and who have found, established good lives for themselves and have also contributed greatly to our country's success. so we've looked at various ways of bringing these people, but our promise was, indeed, to bring 25,000 government-sponsored refugees. and now a completely different question. the european union is adopting a labeling project this week so that things produced, products produced in the occupied territories -- >> [speaking french] >> translator: of israel be labeled, be clearly labeled. well, i've always spoken out against any boycott of israel, and i continue to be very concerned by initiatives that

seem destined to target israel rather than other countries. i think it's important that consumers have information on where their products come from and produce comes from but not at the expense of targeting a specific country. >> prime minister, any plans, any -- on refugees when you get to the g20, it's on the agenda in addition to the economic agenda, are you going to contemplate offering anything else beyond the 25,000 commitment you've made, funding to these other agencies, humanitarian assistance or anything -- do do you expect toe asked to do more than you already have? >> canada has committed to increasing funding and continuing to offer humanitarian support and refugee support. i think one of the things that is most important right now is for a country like canada to

demonstrate how to make accepting large numbers of refugees not just a challenge or a problem, but an opportunity. an opportunity for communities across the this country, an opportunity to create growth for the economy. this is something that is completely in keeping with what canada has always been able to do, and i think leadership on the world stage showing that this can be done and should be done and is a way of not just helping people in dire need of being helped, but also contributing to economic growth in our home countries by bringing families and individuals willing to work and build and contribute fully as members of our society. >> follow up on iran, reestablishing relations, do you have a timeline on that? >> we continue to be briefed up on a wide range of topics, but as a principle i believe that canada has an important voice on the world stage in engaging in

fulsome diplomat bic discussions with -- diplomatic discussions with a broad range of people we don't agree with is something that canada does well, and it's something we're continuing to look at. [speaking french] >> thank you. prime minister, on the climate summit in paris you'll be doing before you have a chance to meet with the premiers. so you're pretty much stuck with the targets stuck by the previous government to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030. if you don't have anything better to offer, why are you going? >> i'm pleased to be able to announce that i will be meeting with the premiers and the first ministers' meeting on the 23rd of november. we are having a climate briefing by top climate scientists for the first ministers and for my own cabinet to be followed by a working dinner with the premiers to exactly discuss the kind of strong and cohesive message we will be delivering as canadians

in paris at the very important 21 conference. .. with the ending of the air combat mission, and moving towards a different way were candidate can help militarily

and in many other ways as well. [speaking french] >> translator: good afternoon. two questions. we are waiting for decision of what you intended to do quick second as a member of parliament for the region of montréal, what do you think of this sewage being dumped into the river? first of all, the decision will be made by the minister based on the facts and recommendations. it will be based on economic reasons. so it's always tempting to make political decisions that are based on symbols, but we will base our decision on economic facts. and from the perspective of the benefit for canadians concerning what decision the minister will take. so far as, unfortunately it has

been far too long since canada invested in water treatment infrastructure. we are destined to invest $20 billion in green infrastructure over 10 years. and any decision needs to be science-based, and this is what i ask my minister of environment and climate change to make in this situation. [speaking french] >> translator: for the trans-pacific partnership, attacks has been a public or are you accepting it are you going to amend it? >> i committed a long time ago through following the ratification process by presenting a draft or the tpp text for parliament so that we can have a debate on that and

hear what the concerns are commentaries industries. there has been some positive reactions of some industries, and canadians should be able to study this text and clearly state what they think and whether or not it is in canada's interest. i continue to be committed to presenting this to parliament so that we can responsibly discuss this, and comprehensively. >> two days ago a company expressed some unhappiness about the decision to $5 million worth of shares and this is just and other wto complaint. if you gave an answer how jamaica compliance with the wto speak with the fact is we are not at that stage yet. we are still in the process of trying to decide whether or not

there's a strong business case. we will examine the proposal. the minister make a decision and we will ensure that any decision taken is in the best interest of canadians based on a strong economic case. but concerns about international impacts, i'm sure we will fold into, folded into dizzied we take in a responsible manner. >> wouldn't make a challenge to make you less willing for us to operate? >> i'm not going to hypothesize on this right now. we will take the right decision based on the interests of canadians end of economic growth. >> ivan sigal it's over. speed we all have busy schedules. i know many of you will be joining us on the some trips. i look forward to continue to engage with all of you on a regular basis in various ways. merci beaucoup. >> thank you much for having being here. [inaudible] spin that i've made a

long-standing principle in value of freedom of the press to understand how a strong and independent media is an essential component in a strong and vibrant democracy, and the issues raised are issues that we'll be looking into. it is important to make sure that we actually have a strong and free media is able to do its jobs come and that's what i continue to support. sativa. [speaking french] >> translator: obviously i deeply believe that the press, the media plays an important role in the proper functioning of any democracy, of our democracy, and i continue to want to defend freedom of the press, particularly on troubling

issues. i'm waiting to hear more about troubling issues but you can be certain that the freedom of the press is what i take graciously. thank you very much, everyone. >> and those a look at remarks on canada's new prime minister justin trudeau. he held his first news conference since these election earlier this week. we cleared the signals we will go back now to the form of global youth engagement posted by the center for progress. we joined in progress. >> we isolate to the people who said their were most interested in voting. we support a key reason for not wanting to vote? in the u.s. it was actually no interest in politics, ahead of lack of trust in politicians. that was a difference across countries because many of the countries that could be a lack of politicians was the number one factor. key factors that might encourage you as millennials to vote, if i

knew more about politics if my vote made a difference, again the contrast with other countries. quite starkly, yeah. agreeing with the status, 68% of you as millennials think about politicians ignore the views of young people. 62% of young americans deal of most politicians are more concerned with older people than younger people in the outfield most politicians want to control and restrict young people. this contribute to voting decisions in the u.s., what was interesting here come when you ask young people what to think what effect your decision of who to vote for if you're going to vote in the u.s.? et al. to do with traditional media come all the things think about, the weighty arguments, the political electoral campaigning in japan through traditional media. we will see a young person would begin to engage with their peers, it's a very different

thing from the use of social media and yeh, just conductivity. we will see that and a moment. -- connectivity. >> one significant trend becomes a is while people interested in issues that have only two politics and may want to campaign, this is in translation to party political participati participation. there is a sort of jaundiced view. they seem to be inaccessible. there seems to be, there seem to be favorable to older generations and to more hierarchical methods of governance and everything while single issue campaigns, they have a direct linear relationship from start to finish and you can perceive the success this has achieved. but there is a challenge in translating this into politics. we have used what you might

cultural campaigns as an example in this. one i is a campaign that was run out of this building and actually mobilized, using the means that millennials identified as something they would use in a campaign. the other is the marriage equality campaign in ireland which it made use of everything from the local organization and mobilization at committee level through to celebrity endorsements. so as to encourage other people to vote. there is a difficult and translating this into everyday politics. there's some speculation as to what will attract more. i'm sure you here later in the panel, justin trudeau becoming prime minister in canada pointed toward younger, charismatic

position to present a bomb is another example. but among a lot of the respondents in our survey states that specifically just these boxes that they want to after executing of a desire for authenticity and politics. there's not specifically the age of the leaders that matters. it's a projection of related build up authenticity. it's icky and translating from single issue campaigns through digital party politics. spoon in britain at the two most popular politician with young people are jeremy corbyn and boris who could be more politically a part of the both have a kind of charisma and on the civilian people just fine so they can engage because they think that they are who they say they are. and it's fascinating the young people say they are authentic, they are real.

young people into the phone cord with little structures and systems just want transparency. they want honest interest fancy. they want a two-way dialogue is possible through social media. so yes, coming on to that point, what things would be extremely useful to you as young people if you were building their own political campaign looks like a top comes social media. they're not expecting that an electoral campaigns particularly to be huge part but if they were stored at political campaign, social we would be right up there alongside power media, tv, radio, et cetera. in the quality of research we got young people building, making posters of how you would call young people to action, what kind of messaging would you use. i think what we're finding in this piece of research is the answers to engaging in people come from young people. they need to write the script and we need to get politician and called a listing and have a two-way dialogue but that needs to involve young people in terms

of calling people to political action. >> in terms of high priority for public spending of what came out of the u.s. was again very consistent with the other countries in terms of things outcome of the.com education, job creation, health care, were kind of the central issues. did you want to say something? >> this goes again to the focus on the quality of the economy and the social provision in the country and it's very much reflected in our research. it was a stable labor market people are more focused on other issues. >> again is a bit of a bleak picture. only a third of americans felt that they and their peers could make themselves heard if they wanted to add that one side and

most of the countries that we've talked to. young people generally don't feel empowered to really be heard. less than a third are saying that few if any politician encouraging people to get involved in politics. that's the feeling right across the different countries get involved in the research. what should politicians work towards and to what extent do they deliver on what they should be working towards? again in every country found that the number one thing from a young person's perspective that a politician should be doing is ensuring the best possible future for young people. you can see with all the other things that a politician should be doing is how americans perceive how well politicians are doing to the only country where that wasn't it was germany what it was more of a sort of more praise for politicians to achieve. in every other country come with lack of ensuring a good future

for young people being picky thing. the only thing right across the research is building and maintaining strong military forces and stability of its and politicians do better than what they should be doing from a young person's perspective. in terms of believing in importance of equality and gender and sexual orientation. from evelyn a perspective right across the countries we've researched there's huge support for gender and sexual inequality. in norway there was the highest the u.s. 80% in hungary being the lowest of the countries but from a young person's perspective that's a very important issue. as i said in the research we've been building communications, how would young people begin to message the importance of voting. it's not a creative actual suggestion for a captain but just a simple message in terms of the messaging that young sheep -- younger people need to vote. it's their future. again in every touch when we

looked at different strands of messaging this is the one that comes out on top of the messages. we also see in america there's a call for more women in politics, that the gender balance, fewer than half are happy with the gender balance in politics right out in america. and then finally, i really conscious of time, the fact is we would encourage more millennials to vote. first of all the billy to vote online. i know there have been problems with online voting in holland. there were lots of things tested and shelled because of security issues and lots of debates about whether it's right. from young person affected and can right across the research is just a matter of when. if there's problems they need fixing because many to be able to vote online. and that's a really consistent message. what about the billy to vote in more places? without help?

just being able to go and cast your vote more widely than the ballot box than the local schoolyard or whatever. young people are saying that's only until online voting comes in. also eligible to vote on who is registered indios, very healthy figure of 70% of young people claiming they have registered to vote. the ability to vote and events. we said what about if you could vote several weeks or months in advance? without encourage more young people to vote? we found this quite a bit of support other than in hungary for a longer period to vote but if we come when we talk about this and the quality of research, if it excluded the idea of months it would've been i. people think you should be held to vote for a couple of weeks but not for a month. should voting be compulsory by law? kathleen not, does not fit with democracy, the idea of adding compulsory so that was widely

rejected not just in america but in all countries. should 16 and 17-year-olds be given the opportunity to vote? no is the answer in every country. obligate 52% of 15-17-year-olds should be able to vote but when we talk to them even if got doubts about whether they really know enough about the experienced enough to vote and their older linda pearce i think it is too young. in the uk there's more of an appetite. it wasn't conclusive but in the uk they did research work 16 and 17 euros to vote and that got a lot of media attention. generally people feel that 16 and 17 is too young and that's really the headlines for the research. i had to rush through it very much. i think we're 10 minutes giunta schedule, so thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, guys so much. i'm going to ask our panel, i

want to introduce matt browne is going to facilitate this panel discussion. he is a senior fellow at the center for american progress and runs the global progress program which works with institutions around the world on developing progressive governance and progressive infrastructure of think tanks. but thank you for doing this do i also have to say that has been a thought partner in the process and really appreciate your guidance as we go through this. and i will turn it over to you. >> thank you, david and david for the fascinating presentation. i will quickly introduce three new panelists that we have joining us. we have lia quartapelle, a member of parliament from malone, one of the youngest members of the democratic party in italy. also a member of the foreign affairs committee. we have hilary leftick who was the lead for the volunteer

mobilization in the liberal party candidates recent election campaign, one of the lead figures that help the new prime minister trudeau get elected. and we have layla zaidane who is taking vacations director at generation progress at least a variety of campaigns, including the very successful campaign. i think those to this panel by coming to you and sort of ask you, it's been is usually successful campaign and it to continue coordinated strongly with the white house, yet is not a political campaign. if you could it's going to is what is the source of that success, how to run a campaign that involves high level politicians, yet transcend political divides? what's the secret to the success? >> so thank you, matt. and i think that we can all agree everybody in this room kind of knows the number but the issue of campus sexual assault is a tremendous problem.

we have one in five women will be sexual assaulted by the time she graduates. one in 15 and most of the time it's by somebody that they know. and so i think the scope of the problem is huge, which is why the white house launched a task force to investigate this growing number of incidents on campus. one of the things the task force that was this idea of bystander intervention, training people to feel empowered to step into something if they see something happening. so we partnered with them along with a variety of other people to launch the campaign which really is about that, really empowering people to think about campus sexual assault at something they have a responsibility to do something about. you know, if you see something happening and you don't do anything to stop it, then you're part of the problem as well. we want to make sure we're giving you the tools to be part of the solution. so we are fortunate to work with

the white house on this, but it is very much a cultural change campaign and not something with a very specific legislative agenda, but more again trying to reframe this idea of making it your responsibility to do something about campus sexual assault. >> isn't a -- >> absolutely. i think that we reached out to a lot of cultural influencers the kind of first broadcast that message, and so anyone from kerry washington to josh, do we have the president and vice president are supporters of the campaign. we fed billions of impressions on twitter, millions of views on our psa. so to say the reach has been huge, but we also really have an intense focus on making sure people are embracing the message and as such is a psa campaign but something we want people to be able to take and use and

implement on their campus in terms of having the real conversation to empower each other to step in and do something about it. i think working with these kind of cultural influencers has allowed us to spread the message far and wide, but the brand itself is so customizable. we put the toolkit online to have events. we made the logo downloadable. we get the tools to the people we want to run campaigns on the campus and we entrusted them with the tools everything giving the trust to the young people has empowered them to take the campaign and run with a. i think that's what made it so successful. >> what is the definition of successful? how do you measure success if it's a cultural change speak with to be honest it's very hard to measure the success of cultural change. obviously we really great numbers i tensions of how far te message has been reaching, but i think at the end of the day the campaign is a stopping campus

sexual assaults. if nobody ever gets raped again like that, we succeeded and it's great. but i think about the fact that it we would love to normalize bystander intervention and make sure that it's something that is just a given on college campuses, and outside of college campuses as well. i can think of the example as a designated driver, whereas 20, 30 years ago that was the thing that people thought about if you're going to go out and have drinks with friends and socialize. he had this idea of having a designated driver and if so a lot of work and advocacy and campaigning, there's been a shift to like that's just a given that if you're going to have come if you go to be drinking with differen with a fe a designated driver. i think that's a similar parallel to what would try to do with bystander intervention and empowering people to reframe the issue of campus sexual assault in the first place. and then secondly i think that

kind of working with people to continue this grassroots movement as they continue the conversation on their campuses and engaged each other, making sure that the schools are responding well and institutionalizing that from a university level. i think we would say it is definitely would be a success. >> thank you very much. moving from the cultural and issue campaigns towards partisan, party political campaigns, the research shows people, the younger generation millennials are becoming much less affiliated anti-to a political party. when you're looking at this, i remember a poll that came out just before the election which said if young people vote, justin trudeau wins. of essentially the core message. what technique is used in canada to encourage people to come out and vote and in particular vote

for justin trudeau speak with a lot of what was in the presentation at a lot of what was just said is what we government relied upon. i mean, it was more of the issues and about identity your people were coming to liberal party and supporting liberal party because of the platform policies that that laid out, doesn't we use to used to connect with people. one of the things, i think it's important to take away is that you are not a special interest group. they are very diverse. to our youth that are very highly successful, you that have young families to you that are in school and is the secret sauce to mobilizing youth. is based on real relationships, not transactional relationships that of a cover-up once an election is called our has started we started building for our campaign about a year and half out, and we really mobilized people around issues that matter to the mix was started by talking to people, finding out what people were

interested in, what issues concern them, and then talking about how different policies could impact their lives. i think one of the things that also made it a lot come and initiative by elections canada they opened up on campus colleges during the advance polls are just before the advance polls for early voting and it made it a lot easier for young people. they are most on university campuses but also friendship centers and these are two groups that you have low participation in the polls. so i think making it does much i'm a liberal, i'm a conservative, i'm a new democrat but making it about i care about this, what do you care about, and using personal stories and making, giving people tools to sort of mobilize their own communities. >> can you dig a little deeper into the last point you made?

are there strategies, techniques, techniques our particular forms of camping tools that allow young people to organize better than others? or can you generalize? >> i don't think so. i think it's about doing the real work and having conversations with people and being authentic and honest. also being in places where young people are. so i mean, prime minister trudeau did a talk to sort of an open talk and i think that was something that a lot of people were interested in. they went to the source for a lot of the news and their interest. i don't think you can generalize because i think it's a diverse audience and i think it is just really about making the candidates, usher they were accessible and open and not having conversations just when they were called a month

beforehand. >> just from the candidate point, david kitching, that a lot of people who are successful are the young charismatic leaders. you had obama in '08. we have trudeau does the do you think that's a factor that poorly defined your success with the think it's more the authenticity speak with i think people like to see themselves reflected in the leadership so that's for sure that that plays the part. but i think if people are not within it and they don't believe that this person is going to do what they say or isn't a real person, that trickle down all the way to the candidate of the volunteers and also the people that are doing organizing. everybody has to find their own voice and their own reason for becoming involved in politics. i think that authenticity says if the person cares, why do i care? maybe i should care and this is what i care about. >> you're a real person and a politician. at least he seemed be from where

i sit. what's it like from inside? how does it feel to run? >> well, i think that kind of expense is a bit different from what we spoke to now, because we were elected with a strong mandate from all people, to clash bold politics. so we were not elected by young people, i have to say. when we campaigned, we have to be honest. i mean, when we are campaigning in 2013, we had lots of gray heads in rule and the meetings. young people did not vote traditional party like democratic party. ..

>> >> and we did a lot of work but we strongly felt it is our mandate for the legislation because we have a problem in italy's search

of the but that is not enough because young people did not vote on the government delivers. ed is the second part of what is more challenging to involved in politics which is what we're talking about. one complains the other is how to get people involved for their responsibilities. first of all, you have set an example to involve people your age for what they are requested to do.

my personal experience to open a shop in the middle of my constituency in italy be open to that up ted years ago. and in 2011 i was the most coated% for their primary elections so yes we made it but we did set example in this really paid off with to do what you ask the young people to do. they don't want to speak a lot.

tuesday i don't want to go around. and politics is not dead. the good thing of politics is you put yourself into a position so no party will ask you to live for us. they are asked to lie. so that is the second lesson so the young people of rage

to cry out what they are passionate about. it is not the right message or the wrong message. >> one last point. with the shift to campaigning that that was the disappointment are you thinking about this? with that momentum and how you keep that going? >> we mobilize probably more to get involved in politics than ever before so how do we go forward with that?

soviet will help the democratic process. if people think we all they wanted to engage with them a lot of the idea is is successful because we learn from each other. every will learn from each other and have a lot to learn with a grass-roots community use talk about how redo that moving forward natalie constituents but other areas that we gauge with people of the party in the process. >> with the millenials are

so with that genuine dialogue to talk about the need of the 21st century to use as another form of lecturing you have to do a properly that is why we need young people on both sides of the discussion. and when you ask questions you cannot just leave it to a few months. and you have to use what is more possible as an initiative rather than a campaign.

campaign. so there needs to be a lot more people with very genuine the engagement. there up of the political spectrum. >> i will open this up in the second but i want to go back to something that you said earlier the fact that you and your young colleagues have worked together with employment opportunities. has said chavis to collaborate with different

members? it is a way that people feel about you by showing you can work together? >> those coming from a grass-roots movement but we thought it would be worth a try and we did engaged them on a specific issue. the issue of youth unemployment is so terrible. 40% of young people so we

had to give a response to that. so i have to be honest on this. >> do we have a microphone? >> and what is lacking is climate change. >> i definitely think it is an issue to not use the of messaging but it is a scoreboard to lead these movements of their want to have a conversation it is a

productive conversation speaking from the but it's on us campaign because we have structured a model outside of the political system. to where they are the agents of change. of change. with any number of issues. >> it is certainly up there and a hugely important issue. >> i am a junior studying here in the washington program. given that we have

representatives from the transatlantic policy perspective what do you say we need to do to move the needle? [laughter] >> even with different countries we do have challenges with what we speak about and what is really felt by young people. with a very big attempt and a grass-roots movement to

revise the whole idea of the process with the french european countries but that process is meaningful today. one is climate change and second is how to face issues like immigration ed to require more progressive policies. with the human rights at least did my country. >> how are people feeling

about the refugee crisis and how does that about in the research? >> to help out in the streets when the people arrive that we need to set the example with those instances and we should be there with them to help to deliver food or water and with the institution if you could do much -- much more. >> what's interesting about what you just said but to

deliver food and but it is using your position and giant microphone to make a real social change. >> as this has unfolded we're finding a very consistent picture with paramount of multi-cultural society. and as you would expect but in general what we pickup they are more frustrated with the government that is very humanitarian and to affect the change.

and there is less problems because we have found more resistance. >> but to be on the beaches in turkey. >> it was actually the ogles family -- uncles family but it did play into the election and that is at one point for a couple of days it is nice to see and that was a campaign promise before the end of this year.

but the news we have seen out the last couple days that this is real if you look at the opportunity and now the government tries to push forward. >> hello i of a policy advisor. what we are experiencing and of course, this is the right way to go to say you have to think in the long-term but what we see more and more is in europe is the populism

did with disserting countries so politicians in engaged in a tender people as day engaged in a tender people as day populist to be popular with the younger generations as well. i want to hear how difficult it is to not go down this road of populism to appear authentic is definitely popular.

>> and we do have a stronger crisis with the ground the request. maybe there rate of savings is lower. we do have the responsibility but they're not doing that. is under but they're not doing it productively the answers they give for not true answers.

to show they are less political dave ideologically motivated. it is up to whoever is in the institutions to make this a jubal answer. >> we have populist in america. [laughter] that is with a new generation? >> on your point of having a responsibility to be authentic i take what is important is the end goal

the campaign which is different rather than a candidate running for office that is that disillusionment to be outside of the normal legislative process to make a change so that it is realistic to have answered to the problem but to organize around this issue what i found valuable was not just one populist answer but it is that mosaic tapestry of different voices

that increases the likelihood you will relate to one of them. but to bring in more people to have different perspectives breaks and a wider swath of people. >> this is a fabulous panel. we're focused on intergenerational all engagement to bring people together in the of the vigor with a two-way dialogue. this was created of a lot of fears in washington to feel we need to do a much better job as a listening i have

never heard you talk about our entreprenuership but my son said those for all sectors and millenials from a the hierarchy to be action oriented. so my question is where is this social entrepreneurship in this equation? i think the government and the politician is behind the curve. and do more collaborative ways to be led by younker people a lot of communities are trying to stay at.

>> does that come through the research statement? >> yes. we should be encouraging systems. >> but 80 percent of young people would like to start their own business. but that is rather they're just a specific sector but of those more stirring attitudes and it is more

post-modern and part of that institution to make it more flexible for these individuals to be more powered in the sherry way. >> that one of the things with the electoral campaign to empower people this is

what i care about. but i want to help bring about change maybe they did not identify as a party but the policy we were pushing forward. so now to continue that dialogue we said we will do this so we will do this but things happen and things change this is what we need to focus on. >> one of the things in the data to take the life challenges so how do we

support that kind of initiative? is still working towards engaging people wore but also with a broken system. >> the young people don't like to be in the hierarchy. with these industry sectors. and very often it is the millennial in the society that can we do this? so of my have such an image

to be involved in that. will actually be engaged eridu i have to start to the hierarchical system? so those young people to consider being a politician. because 30 years ago it would have said much more exciting. >> we ran a data center campaign in terms of management to take that hierarchy out of things to be more technologically savvy and then tell you

where to do things with what we were trying to do it is applicable when an the other people seem to take to that more quickly. >> we are running out of time. >> the magnitude of this crisis it europe demands for sure that this is absolutely needed. to help the refugees when they come to america for politics and what has to be done for example, we have the last three months in my country more than 800,000 people coming.

there is space any more. so it is the magnitude of a crisis it is wonderful the young generation is doing so much commitment. >> and i will give the closing statements. >> eight you again. with the beginning of a conversation we are excited thinking about how we can push the institutions that

we work with to be more receptive to our generation and have a responsibility how we push institutes of politics and politicians to be a great equalizer instead of i have already done it this way so what are the tactics and the tools we can share with people who are engaging in the political process from the inside and from the outside. i'd think that pressure from the outside we can get to of place so i look forward to working with you with your support and leadership in this project.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

we had technical issues that interrupted our programming be you could watch the entire event on line from our web site c-span.org. a live picture from orlando as candidates are gathering today and tomorrow for the g.o.p. debate called the sunshine said it. to route the day you will hear from senators rubio ted cruz lindsey graham and donald trump and jeb bush of ben carson and mike huckabee and other florida officials. coverage continues to grow with rick santorum, chris krispy rand paul john kasich and carly fiorina. live coverage right now there's 7:00 p.m. eastern continuing to borrow 10:00 a.m. eastern also on c-span.

live coverage this afternoon ahead of the world gathering in paris with global climate change negotiations. .org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in your new book "sold out

," what happened at disney? guest: workers were funneled into a room. a lot of them assumed that they were going to be a -- rewarded. it was a horror story that no hollywood writer could conjure up. the reality was so much worse than anything they could have imagined. they were informed that they were going to be laid off, but even worse -- and this is something that has been repeated over and over again in american companies over the last couple of decades. this was like a dirty little open secret of the information technology industry. they were told they were going to be forced to train their cheap foreign replacements from india as a condition of receiving any kind of severance pay. this is not some sort of aberrant outcome of our current immigration policy.

it is actually built into the h-1bhat created the specialty worker program. i,n miano, my co-author and the timing ofk -- the book is very fortuitous. i think in some ways profit -- providential. at a time during an election cycle where these issues are finally coming to the four and where there is now a growing ever -- knowledge of this practice and the devastating impact that these policies are having on the best and brightest workers in america. host: your coworker -- co-author john miano is also with us. guestworker h-1b process work? guest: it is a three-step process. the employer has to make

out a labor condition saying that they will pay the so-called prevailing wage and that they will not be violating certain roles. a papersentially shuffling exercise because once it is submitted they are required to be approved as long as the form is filled out correctly. when that is approved you can get it automatically approved -- they submit the actual petition. and if they approve it then they go to the state department to get the actual visa. host: how many workers are coming to the u.s. and where are they going? 120,000here are about to 130000 and year. captainthought it was 65,000. guest: it's a little misleading. ,here is a base cap a 65,000

and an additional cap of 20,000. it is unlimited for academia and research. if reason you do it that way you can say there has been a cap for all these years. in reality the visas have more than doubled since the 1990's. , the in the book you write manufacturing of a crisis. there is no stem shortage. stem of course being science, technology, engineering, and math. guest: this is one of the of the entires debate over the last 25 years. this month actually marks the 25th anniversary of the creation of the h-1b program. all along there has been this underlying premise on the part of both big business and big government cheerleaders for the program that we need to bring in

these -- we need to have this huge pipeline and it needs to be increased. in some cases many of these wease in ingt whcut all the back room deals to do things like what john says unlimited number of people coming in under the h-1b program who are hired by academics and research institutions. presumptionthis that there are not enough american high skilled workers doing this job. we traced the history of a lot of the advocacy research. much of it was born inside the government battles -- that will -- bowels to post your -- bolster this claim that there

were not enough legal residents already here to fill these jobs. it is not true. the fact is that outside the d.c. front groups of lobbyists that masquerade by these patriotic names -- we have a chapter in the book called "legion of doom." we catalog ready for the coming from, where the money is coming from, and we highlight a lot of the shoddy research they are doing. but when you look at independent havemics, people who don't a vested interest, people who are nonpartisan. it is clear from all the economic evidence -- just looking at wages in this country in these particular sectors, that there is no shortage. in fact we had a lot of data come in over the last couple of years that indicated that we have gotten millions, millions of americans who have these

so-called degrees who are not able to find work because they are underpriced by these visa holders. are going tobers be up on the screen. if you would like to debate in the conversation. michelle malkin and john miano, howuthors of "sold out," big business and big government weasels are screwing americans out of jobs. what is a crap weasel? guest: it represents his creature in washington. an official who says one thing to get elected and then turns around and not just does another thing but completely betrays the base of voters who got them there in the first place. well, that pretty much covers 99.99% of washington. upt: how they cooked

comprehensive immigration reform. everyone in washington pretends to agree america's immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. john miano? guest: it's interesting you mention it, because somehow we have been sold that this deal would actually reform the immigration system. in reality copper reform did not reform anything. that is essentially how washington works. this distracted public by creating a bill that does not reform immigration, and calling it immigration reform. there is actually nothing there to reform immigration. one of the obvious examples of this is the building created the current immigration system in 1952 was 120 pages long. from 2013ive reform was 1198 pages. on top of198 pages the 120 pages and on top of everything added over the

decades. host: ok. i have two articles here that i want to push back just a little and get your views as an immigration lawyer and someone who is with the center for immigration studies. bucking the method that immigration harm to america. this was put out by several groups. facebook.by the consumer electronic association, etc.. myth. lowering the number of immigrants would free jobs for american workers. , immigration helps create jobs for american workers. guest: where's the evidence? anyone can just say that. immigration itself does not create a job. to be other factors are it -- factors. host: which are?

guest: what is the type of immigrants? if you import someone who is a panhandler as an immigrant that person is not going to create a job. youe have to be certain -- have to qualify more than just immigrant creates jobs. guest: the other thing i think is important in the book, one of my core missions as a journalist over the last 25 years is to help people synthesize information. the synergy that john and i had in writing this book came from my journalism background and being able to tell stories, and john, with his analytical skills and of course the depth of knowledge that he has about how -- about the immigration reform sausage making in this town. part of that entire kabuki theater involves these advocacy groups that pose as neutral

number crunchers. we have what i think is a very important and enlightening section on one of these very prominent groups. it is the partnership for a new with notin conjunction just -- from my perspective as a conservative journalist, people on the left, but people on the so-called right. big business interests. conservative think tanks. they just pull the figures out and then have them regurgitated by bill gates or mark dr. berg and they mark -- mark zuckerberg. not only do they claim there is a tech worker shortage but they actually claim that h-1b magically create some random multiplier of jobs. 10, 20, 50 times. he really takes just a basic

knowledge of things like regression analysis. i know your eyes are glazing over, but it is important to understand how they cook the books. host: some of these groups names include compete america, counsel for global immigration, information technology industry council, things like that. left-ish side of the spectrum is the american immigration counsel, and they say -- before the employer can fire a -- file a petition with immigration service, the employer must attempt -- must attest that the employer it meant -- employment of a foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages of american workers. guest: they are quoting a different statute.

the government claims that does not apply, and in fact they said -- when they make those as a stations the department of labor is required to approve them. of thethis is just part entire smokescreen that goes on, because they assume that your average ordinary american does not have time and is not interested in knowing the distinctions between a labor certification application and a labor condition application. it is part of the big fat lie. we debunk all of these myths in the chapter on all the talking points you always hear. somehow american workers are protected not only with regard to displacement problems but with recruitment conditions as well. thesens out that many of things that they claim protect the entire class of american workers only apply to i -- a tiny amount of businesses in

this country. for the businesses that they do apply to, you have the lobby in the back room trying to make sure that their special loophole is built into the gang of eight bill and its 6000 pages. host: let's take some calls. michelle malkin and john miano are the cold -- co-authors. stevens calling from phoenix on our democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. .y question is to both guest i'm not trying to beat up anybody, but the question is, what is the surprise? it is all about capitalism. capitalism is about gathering market shares. it only seems reasonable to me that in the desire to lower the prices we are going to get the lowest priced labor. good withso

agricultural workers. what's the problem? it works so good with down below, why not up above? that theat you see is big business is coming at the american worker from all sides. we have seen it as you are describing. most of public debate is on the low wage. low-wage immigration. in the problems of americans tech industries, they were fired and replaced by foreign workers and it really has not hit the news until recently. guest: everything i would add is that this comes up a lot. onre are a lot of features the right side of the aisle between the riparian's to join with open borders folks on the left -- this is all in the headlines of the papers today. theink our feeling about h-1b program is that this is not

capitalism. this is cronyism. businessesrican using the power of government to rig the game. appendix of the book we reprint the e-mails between google and apple fixing wages. they want to fix wages and they want to fix their pipelines for cheap foreign labor supply that is undercutting americans. host: this headline came from this morning. more cheap workers might come to the u.s.. congress is considering legislation to allow u.s. employers to bring in thousand moores -- thousands more unskilled workers for seasonal jobs that will last as long as 10 months at a time. i know that is not what your , it is not about the h-1b program. but what about the issue of unskilled workers? guest: again, precisely the same problem as the tech workers.

the reality is not everybody in the united states has the skill to become a computer programmer, and so there are going to be people who are going to be doing manual labor type jobs. if we are going to do anything about poverty we have to improve the conditions for them. in theory a free market should allow that to happen but congress is not allowing a free market to work by bringing in more foreign labor. we only have 56,000 these v workers for non--- jesus -- isas issued for nonagricultural workers. in the same way that these tech companies are always cackling about a shortage you will also hear that in the agricultural industry as well. guest: i saw an article just recently where the writer was someone $13paying

was an absurdly high wage. kerry is in canton, north carolina. republican. is that in raleigh durham area? caller: no it is a national area. my best friend would be so jealous. because i get to talk to you this morning. host: good morning. i have pros and cons on both side of this. i can listen to the democratic party and the latino groups and they say they are trying to blackmail the country into accepting amnesty. but on the other hand i can see a man from san salvador having to walk 2000 miles because he knows when he gets to this country he has a job.

when he looks at our inner where people won't walk across the street to get a job, i can see why he wants to come. i am poor. i grew up taking tobacco, tomatoes, beans on the farm. that is how i worked my way up to get a skilled trade job. . am a transmission mechanic they said the average age of a mechanic today is 46 years old. mizzou and the average university's out there today and see where the government has failed. not only us but our children. host: we will leave it there and get a response. michelle malkin there is a lot there -- guest: there is a lot there. i would put it this way. as the child of legal immigrants

to this country i understand what you are saying about the good -- about america as a beacon. but we are ready have many processes in place to bring people here who have something to contribute, whatever part of the pay scale we are talking about. the fact is that the number one problem in terms of immigration enforcement that this federal government faces is that they are completely overwhelmed. detail.to great deal -- in inspector general reports and every single agency of immigration enforcement bureaucracy. they are creaking. they cannot even enforce these days ago american worker protections. b1 and theand program selling green cards to the highest bidder, let alone the ongoing program of illegal immigration.

not only do we have to fight this compulsion that both parties have -- i think that is one thing that is really distinctive. we go after republicans probably even harder than the democrats. it really does transcend all of these party lines. the inability of the federal government to do with basic duty. everything the one of these immigration programs should put american workers and american citizens first. their public safety, national security, and economic security. host: i want to show some charts from bloomberg. here is a cluster of skilled foreigners. it says that total employment, 22% in the raleigh-durham north carolina area is for skilled workers, held by h-1b visa holders. it says that most of these folks come from india.

you can see that the vast majority of h-1b employees come from india, and then china is next in line. and then who is employing them? maybeare some groups that we have not heard of. it begins with tata consultancy services limited and cognizant tech solutions. the two biggest employers of these h-1b. i want you to address that. we have one more chart? ok. this is jobs this steve jobs the h-1bders aol peso holders are holding. that the university education. but what is that consult consultancy? it is divis >>guest: it is like eds's mitsubishi but there in the business to move jobs out of

the united states to india. so what you see with the h-1b program is to move jobs of overseas. wantso dota will do is bring a few people in to thees d united states then send 30sent jobs overseas. then there will be 30then americans that use theirill be o jobs that go to india. >>host: minneapolis independent line's cont >> caller: michele, i have to agree with you on this. of up in minneapolis be haveea

target corporation and best buy and all employees in all their'' un'' engineering because it is all india. home. and they never go home. aut is e to talk about the illegal immig immigrants that come up with ang that h-1b visa with thoses likeb corporations although i don't thank you are aware of then they overstay. >>host: we have your point.f course >>guest: in i minnesota youenate have senator called char who is a co-sponsor of legislation on capitol hill to expand the number ofvisas.

these h-1b visa with thebook. theme of the introduction of the book there is a flaw in much of the reporting that even "the new york times" is playing catch-up as we have emphasized making american workers trade then toatch them go back to their homese peop at wtries with all that knowledge as a condition ited h happen did disney southern california california, harley-davidson, dan cargill, the fact that the stoi caller disagrees with me on but th we cabut to come together on this is showsing fae there are interesting fault lines.

. .brought tata to buffalo as pt of this government deal. they said they were going to create american jobs. they created 10. meanwhile they were petitioning for 1600 h-1b visas. where is the democratic outrage about that? the party of the workers. host: from the new york times, large companies game h-1b visa program costing u.s. jobs. she says that many of the visas are given out on a lottery to a small number of global outsourcing companies which has flooded the system with applications, significantly increasing their chances of success. john in virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that i live in anginia and i worked

area. i am shocked at how many immigrants that are living in this area. we haves to me that seen a lot of young students graduating university, working at costco, and they can't get a job. they have an $80,000 loan on their backs. it really bothers me that when someone tells me that we don't have enough employees we give the job that we are bringing overseas. re'e thing. here's the thing. most of the companies, they care about the money. is just thing the americans 80,000 or 90,000. they would rather pay indians 40,000 so they can save a few thousand four their pockets. most of all, i don't know if this is true or not. there's a lot of bribery going on, corruption. it's not only here. the people that they are bringing are not qualified.

they have to retrain all over again. when these guys get into the system, guess what they're going to say? can i bring my friend? it's amazing what's going on with our children. >> host: we got the point. a salary. is he right about the salary differential? >> guest: he's correct. the h-1b program allows the employer to play -- pay a 17%, to 70% of the meeting which. what we normally call the prevailing wage. one thing i would like to say that he's focused on the indian aspect of this which is sort of problem but the problem with h-1b program is an indie. it's right over there on capitol hill with americans who are largely european americans, not indians. they are the problem, not the indian companies. >> host: is he right about corruption or is a gaming of the

system directory it's not even a gaming of the system. the h-1b program is working exactly as it is designed to be. that's one of my issues. i'm glad to see the "new york times" covering this issue but i think, my biggest objection to the new york times coverage other than it being new is that it is portrayed as exceptional. this is exactly how congress has set the system up and now it's working to do anything that's not working as it is designed is that the news media starting to cover it now and have been doing in the past. >> host: we are talking with the authors of "sold out" about the h-1b program. >> caller: i want to thank you so much, john and michelle for writing this book. it's about time the word gets out ther that i'd like you to ds how these trade deals as part of

-- whether it's immigration chapter in tpp or the fact that we are baked into 6000 h-1b every year because the wto. discuss the executive actions the bomb administration wants to do in terms of spouses of h-1b work permits, the fast track green card if you could do that. and the total number of h-1b host a lot of acronyms. we will get john miano o on and just a second or what kind of tech work do you? >> caller: i do data center network cloud, cybersecurity. so i'm very skilled, well very skilled, well-trained at making wages i was making 20 years ago because of the wage suppression. wages have been flat for tech workers since about 2000. we know there's no shortage because it was a shortage of stem workers' wages would be going a. that's the argument for paying executives high compensation because there's not enough talent. if that were the case for tech

workers, wages would be going up like they did in the '90s but, in fact, they are not. >> host: we got it. john miano? >> guest: one thing david is raising is the h-1b is just the tip of the iceberg here there are other ways that foreign labor is coming in in this area of technical workers. one of the issues he raised his trade deals, once the inside lobbyists are using trade deals as a means to bring foreign labor in, that the u.s. is locked into giving at least 65,000 h-1b visas every year under the treaty. and now under this new trans-pacific partnership they are also trying to slip in more foreign labor. then, just going to list, the other thing we could add is that there are executive actions

going on. obama this year started our spouses of h-1b workers to work. industry lobbyists have thought that in the hopes that they can eventually turn h-1b into a twofer where they can get a spouse and get, both spouses to work on a single visa. another one we have is what's called an optional track training program which is a student visa. in 2008, microsoft came to the department of homeland security secretary at a dinner party with the idea of using student visas as a means to get around the h-1b quota. dhs work in absolute secrecy to produce the regulations, and the public didn't even know that these were being considered until dhs put that out without notice and comment. so essentially we had a situation where microsoft was telling dhs. they just did it and drop it in. i've been involved with that because i had a court case that count those regulation set

aside. the obama administration's response to that was, let's just make the student put a new regular should, then work even longer. i did on several and i haven't even had all the giveaways that are being used to admit foreign labor. >> host: but they are detailed in "sold out." gene is in virginia, democrat. >> caller: thanks for these been. i would like to relate to things and get a comment. the first one is, i'm a refugee from the big blue oval up in dearborn, and when i was looking for a new engineer for y group i went to my h.r. person and all i got was h-1b visa people. now, i've worked internationally most of my life. effective are still working i would be in brazil this weekend, but i went from far from being xenophobic. i went to the h.r. person i said hey, in dearborn we are

surrounded by university that turning out good engineers. can find at least one american? to which i was told quote, h-1b visa -- h-1b visa people were between nine and $14,000 a year cheaper so that's who we hire. the other issue is on health graduate students who wish when e-mails from ig companies that are literally based within miles of where you guys are sitting to one of sending tysons corner. and then e-mail it says quote, come to work for my company and i guarantee you'll be accepted at one of these two universities. and not one of them is based also in tysons corner and if you look at them they are unaccredited universities. basically what they're doing is using the student visa system as a scam to get around the immigration workers to get it workers in the company. and by the way, despite the company, i did a little research because of the policy were, my

undergrad is engineering but i do policy work. this company has government contracts. >> host: we got the point. tysons corner of courses in the washington suburbs, high-tech area thank you we have an entire chapter on how the student visa program has been exploited as another one of these alternative channels to bring in all of these cheaper for students to the training program. i think it's interesting again to note that these calls are coming from the democratic line and independent line and the republican line. we really think that we have struck a nerve because if we do come if all the conservative is amplified these voices of america's best and brightest, this is not news to them. but what this is is what a wakeup call to the beltway, to those crap weasels. i will say one more time on

c-span. to talk about this collusion. and i think that this is really one of the key issues that is a breakout issue for this presidential campaign cycle. because it's talking about how the donor class has brought both parties, and the testimony on the ground from workers like this engineer showed two things. not only are these american workers being devastated, but, of course, all of the h-1b visa holders who are used essential as indentured servants and are being exploited as well needs to be shown. when the whole chapter on that. very perverse practice and they call them names like handcuffing and body shopping, and really of course sabotaging the original intent of the program in the first place. >> host: is there any relationship between this book and your earlier book this year, which was on innovators and

american manufacturers? >> guest: that is a really good question, and the answer is yes. in part i've been thinking about delving into this issue were a long time because of course my first book was in 2002, invasion, about illegal immigration aspect. all along i wanted to get your everybody was providential that the two of us were able to get together on this. but wha when i talk to anthony, ahead of mag light flashlight and we talked about this back in may, he was such a fierce proponent of american companies hiring american workers. this is an immigrant who came there from croatia for the american dream. he refused to outsource picking the best and brightest were right in southern california. include desperately to tell the other side of the story. these two books i think are flip sides of the same coin. >> host: jenny, springfield, virginia, here in the suburbs. >> caller: i'm really, really glad i have a chance to speak to both of you come into the host.

please don't copy off. we just went through an election cycle, and the phone calling from the different candidates, and one of the things that was really stressed about how our american students are so under educated and that we really need to compete with india and china. i'm talking about the democratic party telling me how our students are not really getting a math education early enough. well, you know, then they go ahead and say out loud, they can't compete in the work and partly because of their lack of education. i happen to know because i have children who actually are educated as engineers, and really the real world of what they go through. what i saw was they are saying

that we have to compete come and unlike what about the kids who are graduating from the top universities in the state of virginia? why don't you take a message about how under educated these kids are asked to graduate and go on to graduate school in degrees engineering and in physics? and they can't get jobs, but yet you've got people being brought in. we have -- post but there's a lot on the table. michelle malkin, any response? >> guest: that ask entrenching tachometer as i've heard on this issue. more tense and, of course, ending you here for most of these candidates who continue to buy into the myth of american tech workers shortage and at the same time are doing the bidding of these companies who want to staple green card to every foreign student visa. even among the candidates who are sounding on this, donald

trump for example. we point out he's got a terrific immigration reform plan, not only on illegal immigration and the southern border but also with regard to h-1b, the most detailed we've seen. he consulted with someone who we think has their head screwed on straight more than any other on capitol hill, jam session. but even donald trump a sort of paid lipservice to this american tech workers sure to talk about the need to import untold numbers of these foreign students. there's another aspect of the education part of this that we delve into in the donor chapter. because you bill gates wanted to open up the floodgates to h-1b, and another side of his tongue talking about how we need common core. and common core of course support the myth that there's an american tech work shortage. what is a delinquent a lot of

the independent academics who are behind the scenes in d.c. where all the backroom deals were cut on that bracket say that all it will do is lower standards, particularly now in math and science, which they're working on. so in essence he would take this common core scheme which is put hundreds of minutes of the into and put american students at a disadvantage that they are not that now. >> host: from your book, clinton foundation donor and corporate mogul donald trump vaulted to the front of the gop pack -- brutal crimes by illegal aliens against americans. but while battling to build a hel on the southern border also found a path to legalization for illegal aliens. in other words, it sounds a lot like the amnesty passed of his

rivals. lynn is calng - linda is going in from knoxville, democrat. >> caller: i'm another liberal democrat who never thought i would be agreeing with michelle malkin about anything, but on this one we do. there was an episode of the west wing about this in the mid-2000 that dealt with h-1b visas edit also fingered congress as the villain. there's so many things here. i'm a high-tech worker. these people who are coming in on the thesis are victims, too. you mentioned that a little earlier right after i called. and these people, what they want more than anything is to stay. -- >> just a few moments left in this discussion from this morning's "washington journal." you can see the rest of it on our website. we believe it here and go live now to a discussion on the criminal justice system, what works and what doesn't in the world of policing and its use of

force. it is hosted by the federalist society in washington, d.c. just getting under way. >> an important policy question. today's session is entitled ferguson, baltimore and criminal justice reform. we have great panelists who will be introduced by our moderators. allow me to simply introduce that moderator. the honorable david stras, associate justice of the supreme court of minnesota. you might think that this former clarence thomas clerk, this former austin lawyer, this former law professor from the university of minnesota looks a little young to be a five year veteran of the minnesota supreme court. well, ladies and gentlemen, that's because he was sworn in at the right old age of 35.

so with that, david stras. [applause] >> thank you for the kind introduction. good afternoon. welcome to the panel entitled ferguson, baltimore, and criminal justice reform. as you heard my name is david stras. a growing number of minnesota supreme court englishwoman and law professor at the university of minnesota law school breithaupt among other classes criminal law to force you law students so this is a longtime interest of mine as well. i've been asked to moderate the panel which is very time in light of recent developments. ashworth yesterday the current administration is actively engaged in pushing criminal justice reform agenda that includes among many other things greater cooperation among law enforcement agencies, reforms

related to drug and substance abuse and changes in to punitive policing as a result of the incidents in baltimore and ferguson. as you heard last night at the dinner from the panel of governors, criminal justice reform is also an important issue at the state level. this seems to be a timely debate going on about whether criminal justice reforms are better implemented at the state level and the local level or whether a top down approach is needed. our five panels which were fortunate to have with us today are experts in the field of law enforcement and community relations, crime policy and recent developers of the criminal justice field. chief among the topics we plan to cover is what type of reform, if any, is needed and what it should look like. will also cover the empirical evidence on policing and whether the evidence squares with media accounts. we also hope to address the most

effective methods of policing, and how they can be promoted and whether the threat of personal liability is the best way to vote good law enforcement practices. now without further ado we'll begin with david muhlhausen was a leading expert on the need for evaluating the effectiveness of federal social programs if the heritage foundation center for data analysis. yes testified frequently before congress on the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs and has worked on community oriented policing services, as noteworthy for many reasons including it fits nicely within the topic of this panel. in 2000 when he published an analysis showing the highly touted c.o.p.s. program to be a waste of taxpayer dollars. his research illustrate that cops neither had put one of those police officers on the street nor had reduced violent crime. it's also interesting serve as a manager at a juvenile correctional facility in baltimore. so please welcome mr. mulhouse

and -- david muhlhausen. [applause] >> all right. judge stras, i want to thank for those kind remarks and i would like to thank the federalist society for opportunity to speak today. what i'm going to talk about today is a research technique called the veil of darkness and it gives us good insight into whether or not the police are discriminatory in traffic stops. is, are cops racist? to the drivers race includes police officers to do a traffic stop with this question is difficult to do. bottle and you have to control for neighborhood characteristics but you to control for what's going on in the offices mind.

why does he officer believes he or she need to go over the individual for a stop? one of the things that many studies do that i think is very questionable is compare the racial composition of those stopped to the racial composition of the neighborhood with the individual to stop. that does not account for individual driving patterns. it an adequate benchmark had a lot of researchers are beginning to realize that just comparing percentage of those stopped by police to community demographics as a highly flawed approach. so the veil of darkness is basically a term, a nifty term, to describe a natural experiment where we export changes in daylight to assess whether or not police are treating different groups unfairly, or fairly. so what happens is it works under the assumption that police

are less likely to identify the race of a driver at nighttime but more likely to identify the race of a driver or in the daytime. so if you can take advantage of a natural experiment of abrupt shift between daylight and night, you would assume the police are not purely targeting minorities and stopped during the day when the race of the drive is more usually identified, would be higher to stop at night. one of the things that several studies i'm going to go through tonight is taking offense at daylight savings time. as you all know we recently had a change in our clocks. i guess we gain an extra hour of sleep, and by looking at this we can control for patterns of driving. i usually leave work at 5:30 p.m. now it's pitch dark -- pitch black, dark. it's very hard to tell the race of the people you are commuting home with in other cars.

but right before the change it was light out. you could more easily identify the drivers race. and so by doing this by controlling for the time of day and abrupt shift in time we control for driver patterns, driver behavior, and please deployment assume that if you look at the difference between daylight savings time and its effect on whether it's night or day, that shouldn't affect police behavior of police deployment. so this research methodology is a superior to using community demographics as a benchmark. so if there are five studies in this area, and examined for cities were examined for the first was oakland. i'm going to concentrate on ridgeway 2006 fatty because the results are the same as they were in 2004. just trying to be brief.

in cincinnati, syracuse and minneapolis. three of four of these cities the research shows there is no difference in, there's no racial disparity going on. the one exception is minneapolis. so if you look at oakland, what they did was they look at the end of twilight. goodbyit by in the twilight i mn five to 9 p.m. they control the windows subsystem when it's completely dark. they look at police stops from june to december 2003. they had over 1100 traffic stops. in the study they controlled for the time of day and also the police patrol area. and controlling for the police patrol area, essentially controls the neighborhood. if there's higher crime and higher police presence you may should ask a control that because that may affect your results on who is being stop. what they found was that officers were less likely to

stop minority's during the day compared to the day. opposite of what many people suppose the police that they are unfairly targeting minorities. what they did, they look at minority drivers, percent those stopped during the day compared tonight and have to control the time of day and the police patrol area, less likely to be stopped when there were more easily identified. the next study was done in cincinnati and is a more conference of study that looked over 60 years. it exploited not only the difference during the end of twilight period but look at 30 days before and after daylight savings time. it looked at over 3700 traffic cases, they can to control for time of day, day of week and the neighborhood. what they found that police officers were more -- were no more or less likely to stop blacks during the day compared to the night.

in syracuse, another well done study that looked at four years of data and also looked at 30 days before and after daylight savings time. they also analyzed stops by regular traffic control and a crime reduction teen. the crime reduction team was a division of police officers that were assigned in high crime areas to do project is to decry. the suspicion was that if they're going to have sort of racial pride, profiling or some bias, you would find it among the crime reduction team. the study controlled for the day and week and the police patrol area. and over for years they found that blacks were no more or less likely to be stopped. except for in 2008. for that single year they found that blacks were 54% more likely

to be stopped during the day. and that was significant that the authors, they offer caution in interpreting that result because it is abrupt difference of all the other years and the pattern doesn't open everything is analyzed together. they couldn't identify any change in police and policy or behavior that could account for that single year. they are a little cautious in interpreting that as being unfair treatment. then what they did was they parsed the data by, parsed the data but traffic control and crime reduction team. and they found there was no effect, no disparity at all. and the long study done in minneapolis was one year updated, just look at 2002 and to look at the end of twilight period between 5:00 and 9 p.m., and also daylight savings time.

it look at over 29,000 cases of stops, a huge data set. but it only controlled for time of day. didn't control for day of the week or the police beat our neighborhood which i think is an important limitation. so for the end of twilight findings, they found that blacks were 7% less likely to be stopped at night than during the day, or 7% more likely to stop during the night and during the day. hispanic for 5.1% less likely. when did you daylight savings time, i can look at that shift because of artificial change that we have when it's day and night. compared to whites, blacks are no more or less likely to be stopped. blacks are less likely to be stopped. however, hispanics were more likely to be stopped. but the percentage of decreased for blacks been stopped wasn't

-- didn't go into detail. they just sort of site we did this analysis they don't go into much detail. so that's sort of unfortunate. now just to conclude, as a national experiment, available darkness, what i did was when i start to read up on this topic if you know what i want to present you tonight i didn't pick studies that have a particular findability was i pick studies that had what i considered to be the strongest methodology for trying to determine if there's a disparity. just by doing that we only have five studies to look at and only one of them finds a disparity, consistent disparity. and so i also want a word of caution in this day. these results unfortunately do not generalize beyond other cities. i'm only talking about these studies, these cities that have been studied. so it's very hard to generalize

and see what's going on in dallas for washington, d.c., let's say. but also this research doesn't generalize beyond traffic stops. and so the message i want to say is that most of the studies at least what i consider to be superior to other studies tend to find that there are no disparity is in traffic stops. so that's how i complete my presentation. [applause] >> thank you, mr. muhlhausen get our next analyst can ever have a wide variety of backgrounds understand what you think is to our benefit. our next analyst is arthur loevy who graduate from users the michigan law school in 1963 and has been a member of illinois bar for more than 4 40 years. although he is serving a variety

of different capacities, including some outside of the law, he resumed practicing law on a full-time basis in 1997. he's a lawyer who has litigated a variety of civil rights claims, including those arising under 42 usc section 1983. please welcome arthur loevy. [applause] >> thank you, judge. and thank you to the society for including me in this panel. i'm going to beef up my resume just slightly, judge, if i may because i think it's important for the participants to have an understanding of where i'm coming from in my remarks. our firm does almost exclusively civil rights work, as they did under section 1983. we sue individual police officers. we sue departments.

generally on claims of excessive force. we have exonerated people. we sue for malicious prosecution of departments, and for wrongful convictions. we've had, i can say i think not a modestly, great deal of success over the last 10 or 12 years, at least part of that success is indicated by the fact that many of our cases, if not most of our cases, come from defense attorneys, people whom we have litigated against comment frequently police officers whose family members have had problems of their own. also let me say generally come and i say this respectfully to my fill panel members, in my opinion based on my experience,

policework, police officers and what they do, are among the most difficult people and the most difficult area to analyze. police officers obviously are given a responsibility in our domestic society that is not given to any other. they have their arm or they have the right to use force, including deadly force against other citizens. with that also comes of course an extraordinary sense of responsibility. a lot of litigation, a lot of the issues that the judge has indicated will be discussed today have very much to do with police officers and police departments. in my judgment, you cannot

really talk about criminal justice in the united states without an understanding of how police department work, and without police officers work. obviously, there's a great range, just as there's arranged among all of us, who we are and how well educated we are, or not, what our political philosophy is, what our social philosophy is, how well we are adjusted to the jobs that we are doing. but there are certain current connecting can be generalized about and i would like to address some of them today, and it might appear somewhat contrary in, but i do strongly believe that the things i'm going to talk about are not factors that are easily determined on the basis of studies. but can only be determined somewhat anecdotally, not going

to express some of those antidotes to you in my comments. first of all, i would suggest that throughout this country, small departments, large departments, urban departments, rule departments, and departments pashtun rural departments, departments that deal with very serious crime, department of that for most part deal with less serious crime. the one thing that runs consistently through police departments is there an inherent, may be a learned behavior not to discipline their own. discipline within police departments is, i don't want to say laughable, that's disrespectful, but the fact is it is inadequate. and sorely inadequate.

let nikki just a couple of examples in it. in almost every department of the country that we have had experience with, the discipline of an officer, if he is accused of wrongdoing, and if he is accused of wrongdoing and nothing happens as a result of it, if his own department chooses not to exercise discipline, that charge doesn't become a part of his personnel file. so if a police officer is accused of sexual assault on a monday, and it is not sustained, using the land of the department come and he is accused by another individual on wednesday, when discipline is being considered, and most departments they don't look at what happened on monday. if he's charged again the following week, they don't say maybe there's a pattern that is

existing. it's not how police departments disciplined. as a result of that, police officers can engage in conduct which is detrimental to their departments, detrimental to the citizenry as a whole. the way in which citizens complaints are processed within police departments, almost universally, is inadequate and is set up in such a manner as to how the person making the charge in a position of not being successful. now, all of us know that on a traffic stop, or even criminal activity, the first reaction might be a cop did it come he was the one that was at fault. he pulled me over for the wrong reason. searched before the wrong reason. and police, to be sure, suffer a lot from charges that are

unfounded, can't be substantiated, and are sometimes just to protect the person being in charge. but that does not negate the fact that in police departments all over this country, the strong assumption is citizen is wrong, police officer is right, and there is rarely in any department that i've had experience with, and that includes most of -- that's not fair, many of the major departments in this country. i've never seen an internal process that really works the way that it is intended. just a quick example. we are litigating a case for a man who was wrongfully convicted, slow witted man, was living on the street at the time he was convicted of a vicious

rape. for many factors his conviction was overturned, and under section 1983 we are suing on his behalf. at the time this happened, this is almost 20 years later, but as a result of our discovery we find letters from other policemen, very unusual, and we know there are other policemen because it came through departmental mail, saying that they saw the subject beaten. they saw the subject being given information about the rape of which he was accused, and after being beaten for a while, the fellow said i was fine anything you want me to. this was internal. it went through internal affairs. internal affairs didn't turn it over to the prosecutor, didn't turn it over to others who were

investigating. that's an extreme example, but anyone that is familiar with the internal affairs department of most big city departments, i don't think would be surprised. there is another area, too, that is difficult, but in order to in my judgment understand the criminal justice system, you have to understand police. and sometimes we call it the thin blue line. sometimes we call it just police protecting other police. but it's what happens. in hundreds and hundreds of cases that we have had that have involved excessive force. one policemen has never testified against another. recently we had a case, young

man, getting out of time already, i'm sorry. i will finish the story. a young man was beaten in the street. a myriad of civilian witnesses, including some clergymen saw that did happen. he was accompanied by four other police officers. the policemen denied a bad conduct. the other four police officers were deposed under oath, under oath come of people that have testified and other people's criminal trial, people who have testified that will put you in jail. one of them said gee, at the time for the beating he had to tie both of his shoes, so he walked several feet away and that's where he was. second person said, i heard somebody yell at in the crowd so i left the scene and went there. the third person said, you know,

i thought i forgot some keys back in the car. that police often left the scene to go back to the fourth person said you guys saw my partner leaving the scene, so i thought that i would join him. that's how police testify against one another. it's denial and/or it's just i couldn't have seen it because i was doing something else. i don't see any of this as criticism, obviously, of the men and women who put their lives in danger and that in and women who serve their communities well. but i will go back to the point with which i begin, and that is for an understanding of the criminal justice system, it takes more than statistics. it takes an understanding

sense of duty, driver and experiences on the police force. in 2008 he started a wrestling club to philadelphia's minority and inner-city youth be competitive with suburban athletes. i know welcome michael

tremoglie. >> good afternoon. i want to take a look at about myself and what i got and what i think i can contribute to this conversation. before i don't want to read to you and account, newspaper account, testimony given at the top of a police officer accused of murder after shooting in which three of five suspects were killed in a test and is by one of the surviving suspects. he testified quote one of the officers said throw up your hands. the three suspects put their hands and a fourth to open his coat and said he had no gun. at the same instant the officers opened fire does and they want to take a guess as to the needs paper, what that incident was? no gamblers here? the newspaper was a tombstone daily nugget it was october 1881. the incident is don't finish as the gunfight at the o.k. corral. the testimony is by a convicted

horse thief and officer on trial was wyatt earp. so that hands out don't shoot mantra didn't start in fergusonn was written august the 2014 might've started 133 years earlier in tombstone, arizona. the difference, his toes when he was discredited by neutral witnesses. much as dorian johnson's was in ferguson mystery. wyatt earp like officer darren wilson was exonerated by a grand jury investigation into is also exonerated by the trial. the difference between ferguson and the gunfight at the o.k. corral was back in 1881 people pretty much knew the biases of the newspapers, unlike today where journalists try to pretend to be unbiased and they try to be knowledgeable. .org want to talk about today, the media and law enforcement. it occurred to me that i don't have the rhetorical skills of the other panelists and i don't have their training. so i'm a little bit of a

disadvantage. but i'm kind of playing rocky balboa through apollo creed, all right? [laughter] i was married in the same church as rocky balboa. but here are the things i can contribute to the symposium. first is were i come from. ethically religiously and racially diverse group in philadelphia. of which and i used to be neighbors, believe it or not. i lived -- lawyers and journalists have not lived. the second thing i can bring is i believe i'm the only one on this panel, i totally blame for not a has a masters degree in criminal justice but i believe i'm the only lisbon a white police officer in a black neighborhood. unlike the other panelists, i can give you a few anecdotes. i know would like to look down the barrel of a 12 day drunken shotgun. it looks about that big.

i know would like to get a call of rape in progress, turn lights and siren on and arrived at the scene only to recognize it's a domestic dispute as husband is 20-pound his wife said into the sidewalk. into try to arrest the guy who was twice my size only tell the wife and only because she doesn't want me to hit her husband. i know what it's lik like to gea call of a man with a gun inside a house. and nearly shoot a little kid. that's one of the reasons i am here today. the third thing i can bring are the facts, and as john adams once said, facts are stubborn things. and ironically he said that as he was defending some british soldiers who were accused of excessive use of force. so it's a pretty appropriate instance of the first casualty in war is truth and this is no less subtle and come to the propaganda war that is being waged against police. immediate past of moral judgments on police actions that are made in nanoseconds. unfortunately, the perceptions

of racism will drive all enforcement policy, tactics like stop and frisk whichever disparate impact on minorities or discourage or discontinued at this leads to increased crime in the minority communities. agenda bob woodson is going to touch on this. but this occurs because the media only reports those incidents which follow the template of portraying a lease as bulk of congress. he was the alabama public safety director who was responsible for arranging the fire hoses and attack dogs unleashed on academic source of the trying to get their rights, their civil rights. i would like to do a little experiment i'm going to be ultimate i want you to raise your hands if you're familiar with them. walter scott. anything? some of you. michael brown. okay. eric garner. latonya haggerty. dylan taylor.

deal caller. anthony -- nearly every new the first three. only one person knew the other five. the first three were black suspect shot and killed come on on -- not killed, shot by white police officer. the next five that only one person knew they were unarmed suspect shot and killed by a black or hispanic police officers but you never heard about the shootings in the national media. let me describe them. latonya haggerty was an unarmed black field shot and killed by a black female chicago police officer after a pursuit. the incident did make national news. it didn't set off in writing to build and it was a white 20 oh salt lake city man, unarmed, shot and killed about the same time as the ferguson incident. but it never got the notoriety of ferguson figure shot and killed by hispanic police

officer. gilbert called was a white ache in your universe of south alabama student who was shot and killed by a black university south university campus police officer. he was naked so there's nobody could see was reaching for something. by the national media did not report what you think would've been the storyline if the officer was white and a man killed was black? do you think they would be at least one reference? probably. bali tonight was a seven year-old white man killed during a traffic shot by a black together shouldebbieshould prods that did make national news the walter scott shooting to. anthony was applied been shot and killed by black georgia police officer. members of the local american committee rallied around the officer because she was considered the pillar of the community. while the victim was a career

criminal. this is an interesting point. people in the minority communities are tired of living in fear of criminals that this comports with my experts as to build a police officer over 30 years ago. so the media -- worse than that are the outrageous erroneous allegations made in the media. the ferguson reference was the quintessential example but not the only example. i want to read you a list of assertions made about law enforcement actions or policies. by prominent me from both sides of the ideological continuum by the way. these assertions were later proven to be untrue. there's an article in the st. louis newspaper that sent unarmed black russia every 28 hours. this was repeated by cnn pundit. and elsewhere but it wasn't true. and organization of self-described investigative judgment issued a report that said killings by police of

blacks to whites was 21 to one. the report was criticized the even a criminologist quoted in the article from university of missouri said the propublica thing needs to be shut down. another leading criminologist quoted the study a substantially wrong. the crime prevention research center said apparently the reporters are propublica don't understand the data that they are using. yet despite the controversy newspapers like "the philadelphia inquirer" trumpeted the report. articles in "the wall street journal," "washington times," "national review" and weekly standard all contain the allocation and you can make this stuff up, they contain the allegation that the consumer product safety commission had a swat team. okay, and the fish and wildlife service has a swat team. it wasn't true. as far as i'm the only "the wall street journal" has printed a retraction.

probably one of the more egregious, one of the more egregious report has to do with amnesty international u.s.a. and the aclu. amnesty international u.s.a. in its 2004 report come human rights report did annually said after the oklahoma city bomb in 1995, timothy mcveigh, this is welcome was able to live officers worked -- look for characteristic the same claim was repeated by the aclu also been to those for letters they send to congress urging them to vote for ending racial profiling act. my time is up, okay. i will have some other articles tto talk to at some of the statistic i guess we can do that in a roundtable. let me just conclude census this is the federalist society, let me leave you with a quote from federalist number three by john jay. unwanted objects to free people find it necessary to direct the attention that the providing for their safety seems to be the

first. i look forward to stimulating conversation. thanks. [applause] >> and thank you so much. and just to repeat an and we're going to have some time during the question and answer with another panelist ask questions of each other where we can discuss some of these things in greater detail. our next panelist is tim lynch who is the director of the cato institute project on criminal justice. under his direction it has become a leading voice in support of the bill of rights and civil liberties. his research interest include the war on terror, over criminal session, the drug war, the militarization of police tactics and gun control. he blogs extensively at the cato institute's national police misconduct reporting project, and has written some very interesting articles on militarization of police forces around the country. is welcome mr. lynch. [applause]

>> thank you. good afternoon, everybody. i also want to thank the federalist society for hosting this discussion and for inviting me to participate. this has been an extraordinary year of debate and discussion of police practices and criminal justice reform proposals. according to "the associated press" there have been more than 50 measures that have been introduced and enacted around the country, pieces of legislation, that deal with how the police interact with citizens. and my thesis is that some of these proposals actually are constructive. and what i'm going to do is briefly touch on some of the policy changes that i think are worth highlighting. let's start with baltimore. the "baltimore sun" ran a series of articles about how the city

handles civil lawsuits that alleged illegal conduct by older more police. since 2011, millions and millions has been paid out by the city in court judgments and settlements for suits concerning false arrest and excessive force. and if you want to include millions more dollars that have to be paid to the lawyers to handle these suits that are brought. the freddie gray case was settled just ended september for $6.4 million. some of the incidents that are involved are caught on tape, such as the security footage that are found in grocery stores and that sort of thing. sometimes the conduct is so bad, so blatant that the reporters will take the footage to police command and say what do you make of this? uintah police commanders are shocked and they have no explanation for because many of

officers that are kicking people, kicking people in the head, it's totally inconsistent with their training. so they really have no response and these are some of the suits that are brought. but what was really interesting and what came out was the "baltimore sun" found something that was very peculiar about how the city was handling these misconduct claims. the attorneys for the city would settle matters, they would sit down for negotiations and say we will settle this case for, let's say, $200,000. but there was a clause in the settlement papers so when you signed it and to receive the money from the city, there was a clause of the said you cannot speak publicly about what had happened to you. not just you can't talk about the settlement amount. we see that from time to time, but the people who agree to settle, it's a like a police baton the lawsuit, they are not allowed to talk by the

underlying conduct. so when you're a victim of police misconduct and you see on tv the next year the officer that was out of line in your case, you cannot speak to a reporter about it. you cannot go to a rally and talk about what had happened to you. you cannot even talk to civilian oversight authorities about what happened to your case if you sign on the dotted line. this policy which has been in place for years shielded the scope and impact of misconduct from the public. but once it was exposed by the "baltimore sun," the bureaucracy, they really couldn't come for to defend it very well. so i'm happy to report that those clauses in the settlement negotiations are now a thing of past. so if one positive thing that has come out from baltimore indie media coverage on it. another item from baltimore, last march, mayor stephanie

rawlings-blake went to the state capital in an apples to ask for legislative changes that would allow her police chief morley would -- annapolis book festival to discipline and get officers who were convicted of crimes to get them off the government payroll. convicted of crimes, under current law officers that have been convicted in criminal court of misdemeanor crimes like perjury and assault, they remain on the payroll for many months while they appealed the department disciplinary procedures to labor arbitrators. ..

>> >> we do not have data about the number of people who die each year in police custody. we don't have that number and police is very decentralized. we do have some departments that make this information

transparent and other departments to around the country will not make such information available. governor walker in wisconsin to his credit signed legislation after an incident in that state where now there will be an official tally of anybody killed that is tallied at the end of the year with an explanation to what happened and that is available to the public each state should have such a procedure in place. let me turn to ferguson police shooting is another area with no solider accurate information it is unacceptable is subservient have an accurate tally on the people killed by the police each year. the most of those are self-defense cases but we

should have an accurate tally several media organizations have been tracking this year and other media outlets are tracking things closely so i expect next month we will see a link the article about their findings in we can start to compare to see if the numbers are going up or down or holding steady. talking about action at the state level the governor of texas signed legislation all shooting deaths in the state of texas are to read -- to be reported to the attorney general within 30 days with an explanation and there will be an annual tally and report put out by the state attorney general that is all available to the public. this is texas it is model

legislation the type of thing we should have in place if we don't have more action going there will be pressure to get the federal government involved the states should take the lead these are their police agencies it to be along the lines of what governor abbott has done. california enacted a law to identify the officers involved in shootings we have seen bills introduced where investigators will investigate instead of the county to investigated selfie serve you the best practices in place that are now taken statewide constructive policy changes and we need to see more.

the media scrutiny on ferguson brought about core reforms to use citations as a way to generate revenue for the government there were not administering justice but viewing themselves as an arm of the treasury to help meet budget goals in the community i was at a conference last week with grover norquist who called it taxation by citation. they had turned their police into revenue agents stirring up resentment it is imperative to have court reform and reminding the audience of the stories in the bible and we have to get the police out in back into

investigating violent crimes. it is in just happening in misery. in fairfax county. last month there was a "washington post" article that ran with the headline headline, a fairfax police beating inspection and while they are in line waiting for inspection. [laughter] it is hard to believe they are trying to come into compliance and they're getting slammed with these bureaucratic abuses are exposed we see them put a stop to that but there's more work that needs to be done. i will touch on civil asset forfeiture this allows the police to seize property fromthose who not been convicted of a crime, not indicted or arrested.

these abuses have been reported over and over by expos say. over the summer there is a story of a young man traveling from his home in michigan to los angeles to start his career. he was saving his money three years had cashen was headed to los angeles and his mother gave him a few thousand dollars because that is what mothers do. he didn't get far about halfway officers came on board they searched his belongings they found a lot of cash. they took his money they said he was traveling to a drug hotspot. los angeles. he said if you have my money

i can get home and they said that's not our problem. the stories ripple out to relatives and brent and neighbors. was civil asset forfeiture retreat people worse than the criminals because with criminals is after they're convicted but back to the action at the state level if mexico banish it earlier this year and other states are trying to reform but they're running into opposition the institute for justice is doing a lot of great work issuing a report ready to report card her around the country most of

the states around the country get c & d. there is more to be said with police body cameras, militarizes to police units bail reform measures that i have run out of time so i will stop here for more time for questions and answers. [applause] >> our final panelist the center for urd neighborhood enterprise is instrumental to pave the way to bring together task forces that

pennsylvania legislature want welfare reform of the nation's most troubled schools and communities. the only person ever to receive this prestigious award the macarthur fellowship as well as the presidential citizens p.m. all. [applause] >> my friends said i the only non-communist to give. [laughter] thank you so much. i want to use my time to talk to you from the perspective of the low income of black neighborhoods in particular.

also with these issues they are personal over the course of the last 25 years i have lost three family members to violence, predatory violence and two nephews were put in intensive care coming home from work. they were not assaulted and killed by white police officers but by other blacks. what i find troubling of the testimony and statements today there is a drumbeat to vilify the police department around this country but i believe in police unions and correction officer unions have too much power and are not held accountable. i agree the police because their representative of the state have an increased responsibility and obligation to be just in the

execution of their duties but i represent an organization with 3,000 members in 39 states that live in those high crime neighborhoods and what with their response me to some of the things i have heard today? as race always seems to be the issue but the problem always looking to the prism of race it means we discount the black lives matter oldowan taken by a white police officer and when the perpetrators are black we look beyond their way. geraldo rivera had a special of the rape of women in

prison throughout the country for two hours and each case the victim's was a black woman because they are black it did not generate a large scale discussion because we have to know the race of the victim before we can take action and if the perpetrator wears the black bass then it escapes responsibility so just to personalize, for the past five years we have had children like this a five-year old girl sitting on her grandfather's lap in milwaukee edward shot through the head.

we have had 25 black children under the age of five killed not by writing police officers but other blacks for'' the black community suffers 9/11 every six months. 3,000 blacks are killed by other blacks every six months. most of the people in those neighborhoods suffer as a consequence of the of vilification of the police. in cincinnati ohio when a white police officer shot a young black man so civil-rights leaders came to organize a boycott of cincinnati the also vilified the police they said since

we are as aggressive as a result the murder rate twitter up 800% it did not affect the neighborhoods of pastors and civil-rights leaders they did not have to suffer the consequences of their advocacy. in the say with baltimore those that intervene between the police because they have the respect of the young people they can reduce the violence. they are out every weekend trying to develop a strategy by helping young people that

our indigenous to take responsibility for themselves. it the leader said for all of these encounters there were not threatened by violence but demonstrators from black lives matter who wanted to chastise them to support community-based efforts. my point is the solutions over the past 10 years to identify the indigenous grassroots leaders to command a change from within the community. with 53 murders 18 years ago the police were afraid to intervene to have the same

cultural and geographic tiptoed any of those that the lives have been transformed they were witnesses that the transformation is possible in redemption and is available to them. but we spend money on these leaders under the character coaches with the consequence of 53 murders down to this hero in 12 years. rather then the system investing another indigenous efforts with the attitudes and behaviors. we have taken this solution to milwaukee of 60 young

adults are employed full-time and by investing to what is indigenous to these communities the grassroots leaders need the cooperation and the support of the police because what we are experiencing now as long as they come to forums like this to speak about the militarization of the police they will do what they're doing now because they feel -- der but it is the grass roots mothers and fathers such as the parents of this young lady who will suffer the consequences so we need

to spend some time to reduce the balance of these communities and not vilifying the police tried to work with the low income parents to bring about change. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> i will ask questions here shortly and we will have a brief time to respond.

>> i will make some general observations. for people who care what is going on in this country, no one i have heard on this panel has vilified police so to be asked that they are held responsible our sons and grandsons it does that mean they are vilified. there is a big difference between being held responsible and vilification. i feel strongly about this because these are issues we have dealt with both me and my family and what we deal with all the time. criticize is not to vilify to ask things to be done better by police officers by a police department can be

done and can be accomplished but it cannot be accomplished if every time a police officer engages in a wrongful act use automatically told he is right to police departments make mistakes but our job as citizens of what has been some token of to operate in such a manner. >> can i respond to that? >> i didn't get to read off some of the data that i had prepared to talk about

amnesty international they were considered the global standard. i start to talk about an oklahoma in a human rights report they talk about timothy mcveigh being allowed to flee. the aclu said the same thing but they repeated media claims in newspaper reports those were not the facts facts, that the fbi profile other immediately had a profile as a white male with military experience probably a militia member it had identified mcveigh he was already in custody by the way on a minor traffic violation driving down the

road we know lot of civil rights people like those stops he had a suicide best taken as by the time you reach over it is called a suicide holster. he was already taken into custody the fbi had arrayed editor based in oklahoma but nine years later the premier civil liberties organization repeats a false assertion so they are vilified by putting out false data. people incest even after being exonerated, by the jury how you know, this? i could say the reason why

cities are sued and the high dollar judgments are awarded is to find jurors who are sympathetic. , the plaintiff lawyers than the trial lawyers i know doctors complain about this all the time. i could just as easily say that grand jury but the fact of the matter is the work with people who were indicted so i know better than anyone here if anybody wants to googled names names, please do so you will see guys that work with who will go to jail he called me up one night is and what you think? i said he is a nice guy i

said what is going on? he told me he was shaking them down a number writer is a bookie like the legal lottery. nobody wants say bad officer. i'd like the cops that were bad or brutal nobody in my family like them and nobody of with friends like them they were bad for us that for police and society in general. to their needs to be reforms made they are prosecuted, i will not argue about that. but i believe they're interested in criminal justice reform when the trial lawyer does rapist on behalf of the rape victims which does not seem to happen i will be happy when

instead of having police misconduct that have parole boards that release five and criminals and murderers because nine people modesto% on death zero have a prior homicide conviction. think about that. win people have websites for those to kill again because as a police officer you get tired of walking up the same people over and over. my wulff landed -- my wife tells me i have a philadelphia accent. if you need me to repeat

myself let me know but those of the people who are interested in reform. >> the outrage is selective to be under the justice department supervision for police misconduct talk about ferguson under eric holder we had more police officers shooting citizens in washington than any other place in the country but no lawsuits no public condemnation you have to wear a white face before the challenge and that is detrimental to the people that we serve that is my point about vilifying the process to be a racial

dimension. >> we all know about the level of crime but the actual statistics are sometimes very content -- surprising with the same level of debt is a big difference for my generation is an african-american child was murdered in chicago you were lucky they got two lines. what is better african americans getting killed by growth in the year it was not newsworthy now released

there is public attention solutions are complex but bear in mind police today compared to 40 years ago there is publicity given to the black on black crime. >> i will give you statistics. determining the best predictor use of force is the attitude of the suspect if they're acting nasty they will be treated nasty. . .

near through two-thirds of police shootings from 1980 to 2008 are intraracial. officer, black suspect, white officer, white suspect. also worth noting that 3/4 of justifiable homicides are also

intraracial. a black civilian shooting a black criminal. and this is another interesting statistic. according to the university of chicago's research center, general social survey, and any social sign exists you're used to that report -- 12.8% of americans in 2012 don't think police officers should defend themselves even when being assaulted. think about that. this fig increased dramatically from 3.1% 40 years ago. for 2008, 64% of the justifiable homicides by police involved the officer being assaulted. for those involving citizens, 41% involved an assault against a citizen in another arrest relate death record, congressionally mandated report, if 4,813 arrest rerates deaths from 2003 to 2009, six in ten were classified as homicide by

law enforcement personnel. the racial breakdown for blacks and whites indicated that 60.9% of whites and 61.3% of blacks were killed while being arrested during this period. the fbi estimated during the same seven years, ste and local law enforcement officers made nearly 98 million arrests. this means that only three out of one every 100,000 arrests result in someone being killed by police. according to one source i contact, you have a four time greater chance of being electrocuted than kild by police. a statistic that despite all the negative media in 201, 1 bureau of justice statistic studies determine 93% of persons requesting police assistance felt the officers acted properly. what is even more revealing there was no stackal difference found between the percentage of hispanics, blacks and whites. so, going back, the average person does not believe the misinformation campaign but it's

important to note that this data is out there, it is not being reported in the media. as bob say, you're only getting when it fits a certain narrative of a white officer and a black -- that's what you're getting. you're not getting all the information. you can quibble, debate it, refute it, do anything you want with it, you can argue it, say what i'm saying is incorrect or what the government says instance correct or it's incomplete or whatever. the fact is, it's not known. and there's too much misinformation, and i suggest in some cases disinformation that is out there about police work. >> i want to turn to some specifics reform measures and hopefully leave 25 minutes for questions from the audience. one i was recently at a conference for state supreme court justices, and we saw a program on the use of body cameras by officers. i know mr. lynch, you mentioned this. it was really amazing technology.

some of them, although they're quite expense sinks include infrared technology to see things in not well lighted situations, and i'm wondering what you think, mr. lynch, and others on the panel, about the use of -- the proliferation of body cameras and whether that is a good or bad development. >> well, it's not a panacea, but i think it's going to be a big improvement in police work and the best friend to honest police officers. they're the ones that will be able to show that the stop was legitimate, the detention was legitimate, and the use of force that may be necessary in some circumstances was legitimate. it's going to be the enemy to the bad officers, the ones who are abusing their power. now, we just published a study at cato on police body cameras, identifying best practices, because what we're hearing is spending money, giving them to police officers and getting them on their uniforms. but the issues get more

complicated about what you're going to do with the footage once the police department is holding the information. should it be disclosed in all circumstances, some circumstances, and it can be very expensive if you're going to blur out the faces of certain witnesses who may have been in public near the person being arrested. so, these are some of the complicating issues surrounding body cameras, but the politicians are all over them when the issues of police misconduct come up, it's their first go-to reform. let's spend money on body cameras because they don't want to discuss these issues. body cameras and then move on with the discussion. but we're moving into a new era where people have their cell phones at the ready, and we're catching more and more police interactions with the public, with smartphones, and this is a big difference from a generation ago, because in the past, when

somebody was complaining about excessive force with the police, and the police depth denies and it just says, the officer used the force that was necessary, for those of news the public, we didn't know what to make of it. we weren't there. we don't know the people involved you don't want to think that the officer is fibbing, so we didn't know what to make of it. now that more and more footage is becoming available, we can reach our own conclusions about what happened, whether or not the officer used excessive force or whether he was defending himself. this is kind of like the new thing going on and it's not going to stop. we have more citizens with their smartphones and police wearing body cameras. >> do you have something -- >> just quick note. again, there's not a single perspective on this. a lot of the homicides, a lot of crimes in neighborhoods occur because people come to the police and report to that police officer something that they have

seen, or provide evidence that allows them to make an arrest. they're not going to be inclined to do that if they know they're going to be recorded. they're not going to want to cooperate like that. so, i mean -- i think we need to balance the accountability issue against law enforcement effectiveness, and closing homicides and crime. >> i agree. it's a complicated issue. more nuanced than many people are acknowledging in the media. i agree with you. >> but we need to discuss it from the point of view always, on both sides of it. when i talked about the vilification of police, that's my point. whenever we talk about the police, it's always, how can we prevent these bad people from doing bad things? that's the message that keeps coming across. >> the other issue, too is how do you, through the filter of a contentious media, that is really only out to crucify --

for lack of a better term crucify a police officer -- it generates controversy. they sell papers. what whatever their motivations are. that's the other thing you have to look at. this may be the only thing we concur on, that police cameras are good, but if, as bob says, if it's going to intimidate people, if it's going to be used by a contentious media or scholars only to justify what they want to present, which is a racist white killer cop, not going to be any good. i alluded to in my presentation, an arrest i made of a guy that was twice my size, who was basically trying to pound his wife's head into the sidewalk. she had an fair and he was mat. a guy came out as a call for rape, but as soon as i pulled up i realized was a domestic dispute, not a rape. i had to dislodge this guy. okay? and he is on top of her and hitting her. so i tried to push him. didn't work. i got any night stick and put it

under his neck, and lifted up, and we beth went up, and we both fell back and then recovered. i got my night stick. he is come might at 90-miles-an-hour and i'm read request to hit him with my stick, and and the wife grabs my nightstick. supposing in that arrest i crushed his larynx or something or i killed him by lifting hem up. didn't intend to do it. do you think the wife, who probably would get -- probably contact somebody like mr. -- want to sue for millions and millions of dollars, you think she's going to say she was in danger? no. she didn't even want me to hit him after i rescued her from having multiple concussions or contusions or whatever, and that is the type of thing that goes on. i guarantee if that's filmed, what excerpts are you going to see on the news? are you going to see anything that led to this? are you going to see what motivated my actions to get this

guy and do what i did to try to dislodge him from her? to protect her? i don't know. i don't think so sometimes. >> i want to get -- >> i'm really disappointed to hear mike say that the only thing that we can agree on is the police camera issue. i agree with you there's been a lot of media distortion with the racial narrative, but i laid out about six or seven policy proposals, these clauses and settlements that victims can't speak out. municipal court reform, turning police officers into revenue agents. keeping a talley of in-custody deaths. keepingy tally, how many people are killed by the police officers each year. cutting out red tape to allow police chiefs to get rid of problem officers. laid out six or seven, and how heard. the. the only thing we can agree on is police cameras. >> i just want to say -- >> , wait a minute,. >> disappointed to hear you say that. >> [overlapping speakers] >> let him have an opportunity

to sound and then mr. -- >> just for quick, i share the opinion that the body cameras can be helpful. i also share the point that it has to be used at the discretion, so that those who want to give information to the police are not intimidated by it. we had hoped that when the cameras came in to police cars, that would reduce the amount of violence because at least some of the stops would be shown. and our experience, and it's anecdotal to be sure. nine out of ten accusations that we have dealt with, where the violence took place in front of a squad car in those instances, the camera was inoperative. just happened to be broken. back at the station they just happened to not be able to fix it. it's probably going to be the same reality with the body

cameras. >> of course you're not vilifying police. i understand it. if you believe that, anybody, i have some oceanfront property in nebraska to sell you at a cheap price. >> i think the use of body cameras needs to be done in a low and incremental process. i would urge caution in adopting it nationwide because -- i want to give you an example. a mandatory arrest for domestic violence. for years when a police officer would show up at a household where there was domestic violence going on, lilt balancely affair and didn't make an arrest. they did research in minneapolis that found that -- randomized experiment, and found that when you instituted mandatory arrests, what you found was that the individual who was arrested was less likely to engage in domestic violence in the future, and so that was a positive

effect. well, all across the country, cities and towns adopted mandatory arrest policies. then when researched did randomized experiments in other jurisdictions, they found that it had the opposite effect, that in ohama, nebraska, and charlotte, north carolina, they found that after the individual was arrested, the person was more likely to assault his partner because he knew he was going to go to jail once the call was made, so unfortunately this is sick but decided to beat his spouse or a girlfriend, even more, because he knew he was going to spend the night in jail no matter what. so it backfired in that case. i think that we need to take sort of these changes in policing or -- right now we have an experiment going on with the increased use of body cameras, and some cases, as mr. woodson has said, it could backfire, and

that's an important criticism. so i think we shouldn't just rush to judgment and adopt body cameras on n all police departments. i don't think it's going to happen. but we need to sort of look at it and sort of assess what the effect is, and unfortunately, sometimes it takes years to actually assess whether or not a change in policy or program is actually having the intended result. as always, as a researcher i urge caution because sometimes our policies backfire and cause more harm than good. >> thank you. i feel a bit like a referee, reffing a boxing match. >> nobody is throwing any chairs yet. >> good. but i want to have the audience members enter the fray and see if they -- make sure they have an opportunity to participate as well. yes, roger. >> yes, roger, with the cato institute. bob woodson, your brief against

vilification of the police misidentifies the issue. tim lynch and his colleague on the other side are not vilifying police. they're vilifying criminal police. you're calling for prosecution of criminals in the communities in which you work. this is exactly what these other people are calling for. prosecution of police criminals. that's not the same thing as vilification of police. >> offer a comment that 90% of the police cameras suddenly weren't working. what is that? i want to know -- >> a statement of fact. >> that's vilification. that is an example of what i'm talking about. >> but it's true. >> well, wait a minute. you're implying that this is

done purposely. you're. i replying this is done purposely. now -- >> now, now, let me respond to your question, sir. >> one at a time. >> the cato institute wrote in november 2014 it remains to be seen whether officer wilson will be held accountable at some future date. accountable for what? the man was innocent. talk about vilification? why what that written. >> ask tim, he is right beside you. >> why? >> when the justice department report was issued, we immediately update all of stories -- >> why did you say in november 20 4 , after he was exonerated by the grand jury, that the man in your opinion, was still guilty? >> don't attribute that to me. i didn't write it. >> talk about vilification. that's why. >> mike is from philadelphia. again, is chief john tim yonny -- he wrote when be took

over the philadelphia police department he said the disciplinary process -- >> what's that got to do with what your wrote about ferguson. >> just a second. he said the disciplinary process in place in the philadelphia police department was a joke. that's in his memoir. now, he is not vilifying police. he is identifying problems in the police department to up their standards. i think you say -- >> did i say he vilified police? >> i'm saying all -- >> i'm talking about what you said. >> -- criticism of police department prosided nose vilification. >> you weren't criticizing police procedures. you were saying this man was guilty after he was exonerated. why? >> no. when he was exonerated by the department of justice we promptly updated -- >> by the grand jury -- >> you're a distraction jerk you're the distraction you. don't want to answer the question. >> let's move thon there is fellow right here. >> i hesitate to jump in, but -- >> me, too.

>> sorry, my apologies. i am -- >> the point i want to make is the most important thing from the standpoint of -- look, policing free people is a challenging job but it's really important that people have faith in the integrity of that effort. and one thing i've been working constitutional lawyer for 15 years, and think i found most surprising is the massive and inexplicable double standard between what other practitioner -- i'm a lawyer, can be sued. my sauer is a daughter, she can be sued. the only vocation in this country where it's virtually impossible to sue is law enforcement. prosecute prosecutors have absolute immunity. police officers have qualified immunity. and there's a law review article that documented that 99.98% of all damage awards found against police are actually paid far by taxpayers, not by the police officers. i have couldn't crete policy

proposal. what -- concrete proposal. what if we had police do what every other russia does is to self-insurance lawsuits so the payment -- the cost is internalized. you have police officers who constantly have damage judgment, the premiums will be higher and there with a tendency to comfortable control, and the money women come another of your pocket instead of the tax payers, and the -- >> i have a better idea. if you get a bad cop, put him in jail. that's all there is to it. just like if you get a bad ceo -- this idea of suing people and lot can insurance companies bear the brunt, that doesn't touch anything. the only way to do it is you have somebody who is bad, put them in jail. >> you shoulder the double standard where law enforcement is the only vocation where it's difficult to -- >> how many ceo go free because

the stockholds has to pay for the lawsuits. we say it happen no 2002 and 2008. they -- 2007 and 2008 of. they weren't held accountable. >> by the way, i thought the idea advanced from the floor is a very good idea. but what mike says is really what identifies the problem. i think is a clearly as anybody could. he says if it's a bad police officer, put him in jail. there is all kinds of bad, unconstitutional conduct, that police officers are -- or others, governmental officials, can engage in, do engage in, that is short of criminal conduct, but nevertheless, for the benefit of the citizenry, needs to be corrected. that's what civil law does. that's what the question from the floor indicated.

unfortunately, most police departments reach exactly mike's conclusion. either you did something so criminal, you're going to jail. otherwise, you're off the hook. there's a huge middle ground that needs to be addressed in order to make policemen and police departments more responsible. >> i hope everybody saw the front page "washington post" story about two weeks ago where local prosecutors indicted an officer for murder, and his attorneys got the -- went to court and said, he was part of a federal task force, and his status as a federal officer made him immune, legal he -- legally immune from state homicide statutes and the case was dismissed. the prosecutor said they're going to appeal that ruling, and so that is one to watch. so it's not as easy as saying, hey, broke a law, send him to

jail. there are legal barriers in place. some of which are dubious and unjustified. >> can those laws be changeded? legal barriers be removed? >> let's go to the back of the room for another question. right there. sorry about that. >> i'm always struck in conversations like this, i like to imagine they're taking place in the lace '20s around the time of prohibition and we are all talking about, well, the practices of the police, maybe their focusing on hillbillies too much or they have too much discretion how many barrels to destroy, and instead the problem was prohibition. so, i don't know if it's beyond the scope of the conversation here but i feel as though we're in this classic situation where what we have done is in creating this enormous black market for 40 years, we have cultivated a

scenario where police are naturally going to be in these terrible situations. the communities themselves are going to engage in this bad behavior. and right down to the arguments in front of us on the panel. talking about small points here and there are important to be sure, but it would seem to me that the far bigger problem, the elephant in the rhyme is this drug war itself and i haven't heard it mentioned. if you want to talk it, i'd love to hear your thoughts. >> we have a question about the drug war. anybody want to respond to the questioner's comment? >> well, i would just say i agree that it this root of many problems, but i think it is beyond the scope of this particular panel discussion. >> i agree. >> all right. i'd like to thank all of you for your very diverse perspectives. especially thank the gentleman who spoke about vilification of

the police. i understand there were some recent articles that not only in the cities that you mentioned, but throughout the country, crime has gone up as a result of police being afraid to do their jobs in light of the recent vilification. i want to speak about a possible -- see what people thing about a possible reform i haven't heard mentioned today, which is better police training. seems like some of the deaths that occurred were due to police not recognizing medical issues, perhaps we need better training of recognizing when something is in medical distress. i also have a friend on the police force who says the police need better training in martial arts. often martial arts are a way of bringing down somebody without having to result to gunfire. that's a possible reform. it seems that could be very helpful and that everybody could agree to. i also want to ask you about the

people behind the antipolice demonstrations and the total lawlessness of this. as you know the policemen have been killed as a result of some of these demonstrations. real unbelievable. i've been involved in organizing protests on other matters in new york city, and you have to get a permit when you organize a protest. you have to -- you work with the police, restricted to a certain area. but however the antipolice protests were just totally lawless, running through the streets, closing down traffic, people couldn't go anywhere for hours in the city. and obviously the baltimore situation was even worse than it was in new york city. who is behind this? seems also that some of these lawless protests were very well-organized. in ferguson and so on. and there were also other groups

involved. for instance we noticed antisemitic posters in these protests. so, do any of you have an idea who is really behind financing and inciting some of these protests which have been completely lawless and resulted in violence and property damage and so on? >> let's take the training of officers issue first and then take the latter -- >> just a quick reform that we have been advocating and that is a lot of police officers are promoted if they make a felony arrest, which a lot of times means violent encounters. but there's also some very good police officers who prevent violence by positive interactions with the police. somehow that person should also -- that should count towards promotion, and elevation as well. >> agreed. >> thank you. >> if i can make a brief comment. i agree, of course, about training. we're litigating a case now in

which a 97-year-old world war ii vet in a nursing home, had a knife in his hand, and was shot and killed by the police when they arrived at the request of the nursing home. what really seems to me needed to be done was the police needed better training on how to disengage someone. talk someone down. obviously, no policeman should not be able to protect themself when he or she is in danger. but there is a skill that, in our judgment at least, should have been used to talk down a 97-year-old man that was in a nursing home in his kitchen, and when there were other mental health people on the premises who could have helped. so training is indeed a factor. i think most police departments in their more reflective moments

realize that there's a lot that could be done. >> it's very difficult to establish a training regimen that would cover just about every situation, and i hear martial arts a lot. i've studied brazilian ju-jitsu and other things over the years, and as you might have heard i used to coach wrestling. even at that, if i would have applied some of those techniques, it would have caused injury to the person i was trying to apprehend. there is no one silver bullet that would solve every situation. especially when you're dealing with people who are mentally ill, and it's really, really difficult to do that. so, i just don't know what the answer is there. >> now, may be beyond the scope of the panel but it want to give you a chance to respond etch she also brought up the protests

occurring. anyone want to respond to that? >> i think "black lives matter" has been one of the most destructive forces around. they have no purpose but to protest. i'm a veteran of the civil rights movement. we had, i think, goals. what is their solution? blah "black lives matter" seems to only matter when a white person is taking a black life and not when a little girl gets shot through the head sitting on her grandfather's lap. when they can rise up and protest when that occurs, then i will join them. >> let's go to the back of the room. >> okay. this -- i know that you have been talking about how it feels like the police have each other's back. sometimes i wonder to what extent. it feels leak the judiciary has the police's back and i'm talking about the heightened pleading requirement. to what extent do we end up

shielding municipal entities and counties that should have made some really good decisions on the front end from continuing to make bad decisions because we basically are shielding them from liablity through the judicial process. >> well, it plays in some ways. one of the speakers pointed out, policemen have immunity from being sued. it's a qualified immunity. prosecutors, judges have an absolute immunity. they can never be sued. in part of the problem is municipalities insure themselves. part of the problem is the municipalities can pay a judgment even for errant police officers, short of criminal

conduct, even when they've engaged in criminal conduct and what happens is they pay the compensatory damages. a policeman can be sued punitively to give warning to other police officers, they can't engage in the same kind of conduct in the future. they can punish him for his bad acts. again, i'm speaking an n neck totally. i don't have -- anecdotally. every time we gate punitive damage against a police officer, the department puts pressure on the municipality to say as part of the settlement, the person that you're suing -- not the lawyer, our client -- you can get all that money as long as you don't collect it directly from the policeman. it is very unusual in the civil litigation under section 1983,

extremely unusual for a policeman ever to pay anything out of his own pocket. what happens is the municipality steps up. the more subtle problems, quite often it is the supervisory personnel in a department that are really responsible by the instructions they have given. everybody falls on the sword in most -- again, anecdotally, but in most of this litigation, the patrolmantakes the responsibility for the sergeant, the sergeant takes it from the lieutenant, the lieutenant for the captain, the captain from the chief. knowing that at the end of the day, they're never really going to be hurt by it. i hope that answers the question, ate least in part. >> i'll take the moderator's prerogative here and ask a question which hasn't beside asked. there are different views on the panel about the need for reform and what that reform looks like.

but i want to ask a more fundamental federalist question, which is where does the reform need to come from? if reform is necessary. from the national government? state government? local government? or all of the above? >> i would say all of the above. >> i think that state -- policing is inherently a state and local issue and needs to be governed by the jurisdictions responsible for providing this service, and i think the federal government is more likely to impose a one-system-fits-all solution that may not work across this very land that we live in, and so i would stress we need to have sort of a maybe outdated but a -- federalism means there are certain responsibilities entirely reserved to the state and local governments and not the federal

government, and i see this as a local issue and, in terms of the federal government, should play very little role if any. >> then you -- >> i agree, and i think that we should look for reforms. camden, new jersey, used to have one of the most corrupt and ineffective -- they've made some major reforms, with police officers are actually living in the community where they're serving, and there's just been some positive community interaction, violence is down, police relationships are good. franklin township in new jersey where the chief has met with local citizens so if there is an incident involving the police, the call doesn't go to new york to demonstrators but it goes to some local leaders who are able to convene and explain to the citizens what happened. so there are some positive models of reform but should come from the local. but we ought to have somebody spend some of the time, particularly some research institutes, on what works in

terms of community police reform. where the studies of successful police community interaction. >> david in your opinion do you feel that because of the nature of the politics between city and state, and sometimes you do need the federal government to come in? >> i think it should be extremely rare occasions. >> with saw that during the civil rights era. >> i think there's some cases, but broadly speaking the federal government should not play a major role, and i think that if -- for those who are interested in looking at what the best available research says about various topics in policing, i'm not affiliated with this organization but the center for evidence-based policing at george mason university, does excellent research. i highly recommend the work they do for looking at what works in policing. >> existing -- i'm sorry --

without existing federal law and law as section 1983 and the way it has been interpreted by the supreme court, without those laws, there would be virtually -- i shouldn't -- let me put it differently -- it would be extremely difficult for a citizen, an individual citizen, to get redress from police misconduct. very viable remedy that is available to them is available under federal law. without federal law, citizens would be dependent on state court remedies and historically they have been inadequate. so, the federal government does have a role to play. section 1983, section 1988, been on the books a long time, and i think they have provided an

effective watchdog, an effective oversight on police misconduct. >> mr. lynch. >> in the weeks after the death of freddie gray, when baltimore was all over the news, pressure began to build to bring in the department of justice, and eventually the mayor of baltimore did invite low rate to lynch and -- lore retta litsch and the department of justice to come in and investigate the city police department, and so that investigate is now ongoing, and i expect in a few weeks it could be two weeks, might be three more months but the department of justice i expect is going to issue a report saying there's a pattern and practice of problems in the baltimore police department, and it's really not going to be any surprise. a lot of people are surprised when i say that was a mistake by the mayor to bring in the department of justice. i think when there was all that national attention there was no better time for her to make the

corrections that a lot of people felt were necessary in that city police department. the environment is never going to be better than it was back then when there was so much attention and scrutiny on the department. so the department of justice is going to issue a report in a couple of months, i'm sure the mayor will hold a press conference with the police chief and they'd pledge cooperation and follow through with reforms, and we'll see what happens. my point is that sometimes the local officials shift off the responsibility for cleaning up their own police department by inviting the department of justice in and say, let them handle it and make the tough decisions, and i think it should be done by the mayor and the chief of police. >> thank you. let's go back to the front of the program for another question. >> yes, my name is bill otis, an adjunct professor of law at georgetown. the question has been raised by the panel whether the police misconduct sparks distrust of the police and that distrust in

turn undermines law enforcement. the question whether the police in other major public institutions enjoy the public's trust has actually been polled, gallup polls it every year and the most recent poll last month, a poll of 15 institutions. the leading two institutions were the military and small business. coming in number three were the police. 52% trust. by contrast, the president enjoyed 32% trust. the supreme court 31. and tv news, 21%. in other words, the principle organizations you hear calling for police reform enjoy half the trust of the police themselves. the reason they enjoy that level of trust is that they have largely adopted what has become the motto of the antipolice movement, that is, hand up,

don't shoot. it's no longer news that "hands up, don't shoot" is false. that his hand weren't up and he was not trying to surrender. what is news is that the media, an and antipolice organizations, continue to adopt what they know is a false motto, as the anthem of their movement, and a movement that takes root in a knowing falsehood deserves all the amount of trust that we would give, for example to something like, if you'd like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. [applause] >> the motto in poor communities today is nothing to do with you're hand up. it's don't put your hands in your pants becausehat's what results in shooting. the issue of broad surveys of police -- i'm glad it's like that -- has nothing to do with

the reality of high-crime communities. in a high-crime communities -- again, it's more anecdotal but i think it's true insure a high-crime community, there's an intense distrust of the police. why is there a distrust of the police? because the police in the high-crime communities do the stop and frisk, they -- their issue is not only to reduce crime. it is to make -- this is what is really going on -- is to make a social statement, much like the social statement that the last speaker just made. you have to respect me, you have to respect authority, you have to be in a position that if a policeman tells you to do something, asks you to do something, you can't wise off, you can't exercise even a constitutional right to do it. you, the police, are someone

that has to be listened to. it is not an accident that law-abiding, decent, fine people, in high-crime communities, won't talk to the police, and it's not just because they're being intimidated by gang members and other bad people. it's because the police in those communities have not been trained very well, and if -- have taken the same attitude that some of the police have presented that, we can do what we want because we represent justice, the citizens do not. [applause] >> and that i think is what is going on. >> well, that -- >> thank you. >> the data doesn't bear that out, arthur. >> it's true. >> i just quoted bureau -- perhaps you didn't hear it, 2011 study which said that the majority of people do approve of the way police do their jobs and no discernible difference between hispanics and blacks and whitement.

gallup survey does the same thing and other surveys as well, and, bob -- >> shouldn't be a majority. it should be 7899%. >> it was 93%. i'm sorry. go ahead. >> the point is, people in those high-crime communities want increased police. if you look at any study of those communities, they want increased police. they're losing their children. and they want -- it's just not true what you're saying. that surveys of people in those high-crime areas, more of them desire increased police presence in their -- that's what their demand is. >> from the chiefs of police to the officers on the street, their biggest complaint in trying to solve crime is that people are not coming forward to help us. >> well, that was the same -- >> let me finish if i may. >> that is -- >> that was the same issue in the south american communities

100 years ago. that was the same thing in the italian american communities. >> i wasn't finished. >> -- more interaction with police on use of force other, their nonfatal or fatal use of force by the police the african-american community. the question we have to answer i why and people interested in true criminal justice reform need to answer that question. if if say to you, what ethnic group -- if i say the term organized time and save whatth neck group would you associate, anybody who says anything other than italian is lying. and i'm italian. the question is, why were italians so much involved in organized crime? nobody really answers that question. and these are the questions that need to be answered, and you can't have reform until you have some kind of idea of what you want to reform and why, and what causes things. to have anecdotal afghanistan in

your opinion, blacks won't talk to the police officer because they're afraid, that's maybe your experience. that's not mine as a police officer and not bob's and bob happens to be african-american. >> arthur guests the hard word. we have to wrap it up. >> you spoke over me. what i was about to say, what i did say is, police complain regularly from the chief's to the guy on the street, that communities, high-crime communities do not have sufficient cooperation from the citizens in those communities. what i was be to say was we can disagree about the reasons. one of those reasons -- not the only reason -- one of those reasons is the fact that police in many high-crime communities have abused their authority and their power. now, you can deny that takes place but it is an element, and i believe that very strongly.

>> i'm told we have to wrap up. it's 2:15. i apologize to those standing at the microphone. but please give a nice round of applause for these very passionate panelists. filibuster. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of this federalist society discussion,

along with any on the recorded sessions at the national conference, they been available later today. you can watch them on our web site, c-span churners.org. the monitor web site in mcallen, texas, has story that ten-term congressman announced he will retire from congress. quote, i'm officially announcing i am not going seek re-election. hossa has represented end mcallen since he was elect felt 1996. read the rest of it in monitor.com. also, smart armed services chair john mccain is threatening a court battle if the president goes around congress to achieve his campaign pledge of closing the military prison at guantanamo bay. the white house suggesting all options are on the table, leaving thissics to believe the president could be degree up --

gearing up to use his authority to shutter the prison. more at politico.com. ahead of the world crime change summit in paris, energy secretary ernest moniz looks at carbon reduction plans. live coverage starts in about 12 minutes, 2:30 eastern here on c-span2. >> live picture from orlando, florida, republican presidential candidates gathered for a two-day event to rally supporters at the sunshine summit. earlier today remarks from senators marco rubio, ted cruz, and lindsey graham, and donald trump, jeb bush, ben carson and right there, mike huckabee. florida officials also speaking tomorrow. governors bobby jindal chris christie, rick santorum, rand ball, governor john kashich and carly fiorina.

live coverage now on c-span, running until 7:00 p.m. eastern, followed by your phone calls. continues tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span live. the hill 2010ing out today that congressman look messer is backing jeb bush, and he becomes the first elected house republican leader to endorse in a primary. that from the hill. luke messer represents indiana's sixth congressional district. democratic presidential candidatesles getting together for a debate in des moines, iowa, tomorrow, one of the first nation caucus caucuses will be healed in three months. we'll have replay of that debate between hillary clinton, senator bernie sanders and martin o'malley, sunday, 4:00 p.m. eastern, and 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> a portion of washington

journal. >> now joining us on "the washington journal" a former presidential candidate. before we get into your issue of campaign finance reform, you probably heard the first segmenting this morning talking about the issue of race on college campuses. you teach at harvard. what's your take on what is going on and what happened in missouri and et cetera. >> this is a microcosm of a much more fundamental inequality, systemic inequality, institutionalized that has spread throughout our society, and my campaign was targeting a very specific substantiation of that and the way we allowed representative democracy to become radically unequal. there's no equality in our representative democracy and that manifests itself throughout our political and social system. i think this is the critical issue that we have to find a way to rally political support to

affirm the equality of citizens which has manifested the inequality throughout our society. >> host: how and why did you run for president? >> guest: i think we have at the core of our democracy a failed institution, institution sitting right over there congress. failed in the sense it no longer represents the people. it's no longer representative because of the way we fund campaigns, because of the way political gerrymandering creates radical inequality and polarization inside of the house. the system we have allowed to develop has produced not a democracy, not even a government that can function, and my concern was, even though candidates on n my party were talking about the influence of money in politics, nobody was talking about how we could fix this crippled and corrupted congress, and that we needed to fix it first if we're going to

have any chance to do the other things they're talking about. what i wanted to do in this sprint of this improbable campaign was to in vary short time get to the level that would allow know be in those debates, and nose debates, make this issue the central issue that the democratic party -- >> host: campaign finance reform. >> guest: you say that some that's the way it's framed, a that means i've done not a good job in identifying the issue. i care about the fact that we don't have a representative democracy. the way we fund campaigns is a critical part of why we don't have a representative democracy. the idea that 158 families have given half the money contributed to the -- in the political cycle so far is a measure of the inequality, unrepresentativeness in our political simple. but its also the way we allocate how in the house of representatives it's just the way we suppress the ability of people to vote, through voter i.d. systems. all the way in which we no

longer live up to the standard of a representative democracy that respects the equality of citizens. >> host: at what point did this inequality occur? was it written into the constitution? is it the last 20 years? >> guest: no. america has a history of striving for equality in so many dimensions. what is so striking is that though the framers of the constitution were obviously not aware of the need for racial equality, and they certainly didn't even understand the need for sex equality and wouldn't have known what sexual orientation equality was. the framers of the constitution were very sensitive to basic equality of citizens. when madison described the government that the constitution would create, he said we would have a congress that would be, quote, dependent on the people alone, exclusive dependence, and then after describing that exclusive dependence on the people, he went on to say by the people he meant, quote, not the

rich more than the poor. so, their conception of the republic, the representative democracy they were creating, was it would have a basic equality of citizenship. what we have allowed to happen, and i think just primarily in the last 20 years, is the evolution of all sorts of inequality in the basic way in which our government functions, and the consequence of that is a corrupted and crippled institution of congress. we have all these presidential candidates running for president, promising the moon, as if we lived in a dictatorship where the president just goss to say, yeah, we'll have $15 minimum wage, or, yeah, single payer health care will be passed. take on the banks and break them up. what we know is we don't get change unless you actually get congress to enact it, and we won't get congress tone -- to enact it so long is a congress is focuses obsess receively on what they need to do to rates the money they need to get back

into power, or so long as they come from these incredibly pollarrized, jerrymandered districts which forces them to be sensitive to the extremes in our political system as opposed to representative of the major american. >> host: why were grew not allowed to participate in the democratic debate? sunny. >> guest: when we ran we launched our campaign against hey background of a promise by the chair of the democratic national committee the rules for getting some the debates were one percent in three national polls six weeks before the debate. and we were told those rules were not going to change. we didn't make that in the first debate. part of the problem was the pollsters wouldn't include my name in the polls, o -- political ran a piece if they included my debate. we got to the second debate, it was clear we were going to qualify. monmouth had a poll, one percent, nbc had a poll, one percent, quinnipiac has a poll,

one percent but the three that counted had the one percent. then at the end of the week, before we -- i withdrew, the democratic national committee contacted our campaign to say, thankfully, it want three polls within six weeks. it was three polls of the six weeks before the debate which have meant i couldn't have qualified. and when i said i couldn't run because of this change there was all sorts of outrage because of that. and then cbs modified the rule again and said, wasn't one percent in three polls. it was greater than one percent in three polls. so, the goalposts were moved, and had the goalposts not been moved i wouldn't be here in washington today. i'd be in iowa today preparing for the debate tomorrow. >> host: our guest is lawrence lessig, professor office law at harvard, former democratic presidential candidates. the numbers are up on the screen if you want to participate in the conversation, about campaign

finance reform. it's about what he calls inequality in our system and representation and other issues in the political arena. let's begin with a call from jack in maryland, democrats line. jack go ahead. >> caller: good morning. thank you for the effort of the guest. what a noble idea to get the money out of politics. all that money -- just be doing so much good elsewhere. and i think that as well as -- in the blackdrop of -- backdrop of somethings so much wrong with the government hinges on the majority versus the minority and the short-term, shortsight sight edness of things. an impal share rules committee could get together saying eight years from now, don't flow who will be in power. let's rite i write rules that are fair and get rid of things

line unrelated amendments to bills, forcing thousand page bills through in one or two days, the filibuster, something passes one house and is not allowed to go to a vote in the other house. it could be so fair. an alien would look at this system, of so much money and special interests, influence these elected officials. that is my comment. >> host: got your point. >> guest: i think the point about short-termism is really important. this is a city where elections are basically every two years. to define the control of congress and what happened is the campaign time has evolved from basically six months before the election to 24/7 from one election to the next. so, no longer is there actually a time when congress gets to govern per pet actually --

perpetually congress is run are for re-election and they're in this mode of constant permanent war mode, where to raise money they spend all their time calling donors, the estimates in the academy say anywhere between 30% and 70% of their time raising money, and when they're raising money they're calling up the into side as being the devil. when you spend all your time referring to the other side as the devil, it's hard to turn around and work with those people to get anything done. i think the critical thing we have to begin to focus on, and i think your idea of, let's set the rules for eight years done the road, is how to begin to get people who can think about what makes sense for america rather than what makes sense for my party to get control of congress in the next two years. >> host: sea of tranquility tweets: in hoyt when has there ever been equality? equality is only achieved with a planet of clones, difference is the beauty of life and that is a

tweet, and if you can't get through on the phone lines and you want to tweet. >> guest: i'd like to comment on that. it's an important disk. ... i'm talking about equality, i'm talking about equality of citizens. that idea is different from the idea that we are equal in our abilities, equal in our wealth, equal inour prospects, absolute opportunity. we have all sorts of inequality in society and some of that inequality we should celebrate. we should celebrate the inequality that comes from hard work. that is all fine. our ideal, the ideal of her present of democracy is the ideal of the quality of citizens. people should be equal before the law. people should be treated equally. in my view, i'm obsessed with the quality not because dusty

equality because i'm inegalitarian could i believe in it and i think it is important. the reason i care about equality is that the corruption we have theour system right now product of the inequality in our system right now. a we could create representative democracy again, one where congress was not obsessed the tiniest fraction of the 1% cared about, the funders of their campaigns, we could begin to have a government that could work again. i care about equality because you quality is the cure for the disease of our government and the disease of our government is the cronyism that comes with the corruption of this political system. host: eric is calling in from arizona on our independent line. what would you like to ask lawrence lessig? caller: i've a question in a couple of comments. ae question is -- this is not democracy. it is a constitutional republic.

if you so worried about the individual, that is why the forebears native -- named it a constitutional republic. i'm curious about what he think the benjamin franklin. thank you. guest: i borrowed benjamin franklin's glasses. admirer of frankel could let us tear up this issue of democracy versus republican the framers gave us a republic. they gave us a representative democracy. it is one kind of democracy like a red apple is one kind of apple. when people refer to america as a democracy, they should not leave that america is a direct democracy could i think would be a disaster to have a direct democracy. i believe in a representative democracy. and i say we do not have the democracy the framers intended, i mean that we do not have a representative democracy. in this democracy, citizens are not equal. they are not equal in the 345 districts in the house where seats are saved seats where the

majority party basically controls that seat whether it is a democrat or republican seat. 89 million americans have no effective representation in those districts because they know that their views could never matter to the representatives the cosa happened to be from the minority party. the political gerrymandering creates one dimension of this inequality and the way that we raise campaign funds is another. these are inequalities that means we do not have a representative democracy, which means we do not have a republic anymore. that is why my book is titled "republic lost." host: this book is brand-new? guest: it first came out in 2011 and i rewrote 70% of it that just came out last month. host: still the same name? guest: it is the corruption of equality the 2016 edition. host: john on a republican line. caller: mr. lessig, my question to you is how are we going to

stop this knowing that the obama administration stop the keystone pipeline, not knowing that warned gave millions and millions of dollars toward the administration? called therailroad santa fe railroad that comes from canada all the way down to texas. to that oil is being pushed the railroad. that is why the keystone pipeline was stopped. there are other congressmen in washington that are taking money from terrorist groups. there is one terrorist group in pennsylvania. the only reason i know that is because they grew up not too far from that area. how are you going to stop the corruption that is getting worse and worse throughout the united states and throughout washington itself? guest: it's a great question because it brings out exactly the problem with the current system that we have got right now. right now whenever you see a

decision you disagree with, the first thing we run to is that they must have made that decision because of the money. i do not and know exactly why a obama made the decision that he did about the keystone pipeline. fair toit is completely point out that whatever financial interest might have benefited the democrats when he made that decision. the same thing the other way around. the point is that we have a system where we have no reason to believe that the decisions are being made in the interest of america as a whole. we have every reason to believe that the decisions are being made to benefit the funders that is exactly what donald trump's point was in the second republican debate when he stood up and said i own all the people and i own you people because i've given you money and i know you will return the favor in exchange. he told us that the system is like as if we needed donald trump to tell us that. the point is that we all believe that this government is corrupted. these politicians are bought. until we change the way that we fund campaigns, that believe will not change. if that belief does not change,

then whatever government does, we have no reason to get engaged democratically to respond to it. we just sit back and are cynical way on a couch and say that is just politicians behaving the way politicians always behave. host: are any of the candidates speaking to you as far as the issues go? is bernie sanders out there? democratsryone at the -- hillary, burning, and martin o'malley -- have on their websites and in their policy which ificies, enacted, would address this problem could the problem is not that they do not believe in the policies. the problem is that they are not out there explaining to the american people this is what we have to do first. it is just not credible to talk about breaking up the banks when wall street and the financial industry is the number one conservator to congressional campaigns. times"the new york reviewed the health care proposals of different

candidates and talk about bernie sanders's single-payer health care system, they were so derisive of what this proposal was that they were not given a paragr >> we are going live now to the energy secretary ernest moniz at the carnegie endowment for international peace that will start momentarily. live coverage on c-span2 he is expected to arrive in just a moment. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> once again live from the carnegie endowment for international peace waiting for comments from secretary ernest moniz for comments on climate change meeting that is happening next month. the associate press said the supreme court is taking on the first abortion case in eight years over state regulation of clinics. the justices said they will hear arguments over a texas law that would lead to an abortion clinics open across the state. the decision could come by late june for months before the presidential election. the court brief one dash previously blocked part of the law there has been a wave of measures to put restrictions when day pregnancy abortion may be performed. >> good afternoon.

i am the president of the carnegie endowment for international peace. it is an honor and privilege to welcome secretary ernest moniz. those who had the good fortune -- fortune are intimately familiar with his mit's martz did you have been able to negotiate with them you're familiar with his toughness and all of you with his viral tv appearances. i have learned a great deal from him over the years with the nuclear program to dampen this debate with the most esteemed collection of the house of representatives [laughter] natalie one of the most remarkable wines but i am very pleased he has joined a climate conference which begins later this month. joining ernest moniz is my

friend the what editor-at-large a atlantic for the american strategy program. and i cannot think of a more consequential debates of policy. there is no question among the overarching challenges facing united states the facts are as clear as they are compelling. one at of 10 incidents have occurred in the 21st century the arctic ice have lost half of its area and three-quarters of the volume the sea level has risen about 3 inches since 1950. half of the population lives on or near a'' -- a clothesline.

and in addition to the risks it poses to the coastline it argues climate change is a threat multiplier from poverty to pandemic said under obama as leadership across the u.s. government to combat climate change and in paris played that coalition and to work to secure concrete actions to combat the dangerous trend lines and we are glad that secretary moniz agreed to make a pit stop here before the ministerial meeting and have another opportunity to benefit from his wisdom. please join me to welcome secretary moniz. [applause]

>> first of all, let me thank on a number of issues but i have to say i was in the middle east last weekend it is like every hotel we have been to bill burns was year. [laughter] thank you for the opportunity and releasing a report that i will come back to but let me say a few words especially the department of energy going into paris but in terms of climate risk we need to talk

about these solutions and our approach of the department of energy that energy technology and innovation the continued cost reductions and energy technology arkie but first quite simply lower-cost of energy solutions and in the context of paris compared to what most lot a year ago to

change the a conversation ben globally and that they have moved forward with national steps of commitments with china and the cap-n-trade announcement now over 160 countries taken together to be reasonably ambitious that when executed would move the beetle on the approach to climate change the analysis suggests that nevertheless is not to degrees centigrade. may be closer at three but here is the innovation with continued cost-reduction to

enable increasing ambition as time goes on. and third of why this agenda is so important, if we anticipate going forward also 2050 and 2100 will have to keep going very hard. everyone including the least developed countries who has many challenges of universal service. we need this cost-reduction to continue that his two

stops in paris and next week will have the pleasure of sharing the biannual ministerial of the international energy agency in followed by the top 21 beating's in paris including the day the french coast has labeled innovation day. so we will be advocating this now through the end and then to implement that agenda. so to say more about the revolution now and also talk

about the technology's he will showcase. let me just show one grab. one graf. [laughter] we won't dwell on this right now but this is the first that of the report shows the index cost-reduction so last six years of the technology of the utility scale with double takes the battery cost for electric vehicles and without going through all the details out what you see is dash 40% dash 50% dash 60% dash 70% and minus 90% in just half a dozen

years is a remarkable story the kind that we need to continue for all other options. >> i will ask the obvious question if the hacker get can achieve such a dramatic scale without pricing carbon then why do we need to? >> first of all, if there were a bargain price not but that is our policy, but it would clearly have the advantage with the approach of the least cost approach through market mechanisms so that is still necessary in

my view but these types of cost reductions make it easier going forward but some of this is clearly happening in a dramatic way. led is the most impressive of those. we had the run from very small a half-dozen years ago even though the life cycle cost was in your favor it was a big barrier to put down $20 for a light bulb now it is months of payback and we have 80 million deployed you talking about

going gangbusters on el it will -- don led so india is making mass purchases of led they have an order for a few hundred million over three years and with that they have driven the cost down for them at $1. amazing. they will use that to distribute to their world population to introduce light is a game changer and literally a life change your agent requiring roughly 1/6 the power it dramatically reduces what they need to pay to get the source. >> many people see that transition the you talk about as a cost to the

economy with decrease competitiveness this came up in the debates when rubio said we just cannot go down the path the cost is too high. without being too rubio but does this now deserve a response that the retrofitting around the next generation technology is not as high up a bar? >> it is a big part of that but i want to emphasize any of the economic models of the economy suggest going to a low carbon has a very small impact on gdp.

however there are distribution effects so if there is any change in a society is what we have to adjust to answer to me the administration is sensitive to but the idea to provide assistance with the neck distributional impact but certainly the idea it is a drain on the overall economy >> with the hair on fire issue, not your hair. [laughter] we had and a panel on global shot dead most were talking about big problems and then said we have to focus on

climate. to see it as a squishy issue someone asking on an urgency for the issue we are preparing for in paris hagues of other national security issues of the day? >> always. [laughter] the answer is yes. but we have cooked in a lot more because it takes quite a while so to come into equilibrium. that is very simple to see if in fact, at sea levels to

easily see putting aside so to put aside for the moment you can see that amplification of the impact that is one example. but we cannot associate individuals the rinaldi application of fax. >> rigo the patterns for exactly what was predicted decades ago. we know it leads to issues like wild fire and disease sectors.

we are seeing the impact. we know we have already cooked in an additional impact it is critical. to the 50 year time frame for those historical changes of the energy system. when obama put out the climate action plan to start off by saying we would love to work with congress something that could have an impact like we discussed earlier of the market based optimization but we don't

have time to wait to see now with those administrative authorities that we already have so inherently it is the sector by sector approach that we could have if we work with congress of the appropriate legislatures. >> what does that look like overtime? weaver with leaders from that industry the other night to say that is good but you of my reach the scale now reaches the overwhelming dependence on fossil fuel. how do you deal with that? can i go faster or is it the incorrect assertion that

they cannot achieve such a great scale? >> got the technology side with solar and wind in particular much more dramatically requires other solutions with all of these possibilities but some people like the expression i never get tired it is all of the above. >> what about some of the above? >> and by the way some means my favorite technology not the silver bullet. there will not be a single low carbon solution.

we will have dramatic regional differences. let me make it clear it starts off the statement is repeated department of energy requirement for all fuels for the low carbon world. ed says advancing and engaging for carbon capture utilization what about natural gas? the answer is yes. right now it is clearly part of the solution as it has a major role through the market driven and substitution.

however as we go to a trajectory of never lory missions that gas to be carbon intensive. fundamentally, what we need to fight is solutions to climate change. and i am going out many decades but the demand side always has to be a big part of the solution.

i don't believe the supply side way of the challenge. that is still important. what is the next sector where uc electricity? we have many different options including curbing capture. . .

and second, the reality is there is no hire energy density per cubic foot to the petroleum-based fuel. so that is obviously very convenient nevertheless we have a three-pronged strategy. one is efficiency of vehicles. part of that is the café standards.

what is it like when you heard about the volkswagen thing? >> the epa has to investigate all these issues. given some of these measurements it is something we can tolerate and we won't so i think the epa is correcting -- >> obviously the epa isn't going to move towards much more mobile testing to actually do the measurements in the real world drive cycles of the volkswagen resolves that issue with the regulators. >> i did read your report which i hope folks will pick up and i

want to go to the audience soon but the role in this in terms of how do you tell -- i know that you are working on lightweight vehicles and trucks, efficiencies with truck transportations there's this stuff you have on the graph but i grass but i know the things in the energy field that we are not talking about that we don't even know about. and i like that part of the reports that flirted with some of the things that were coming up in the future. so can you share with us a little bit about what's not in the report just a little bit further on >> next week i will mention the technology showcase. these are the technologies we are going to do but let me just go quickly. how about flying wind turbines.

how about a 50-megawatt nuclear reactor that can be built in a factory and just taken over the highways to a site? how about a great efficient fuel cell? how about a great driver [laughter] this is an oak ridge. i was looking at approximately a quarter of you. you should render this is the 50th anniversary of the shelby cobra commander this is oakridge -- >> [inaudible] >> oak ridge national laboratory which accompanies. for this displays is a three d. printed car. this is an electric vehicle shelby cobra but the point is

things like new manufacturing processes and three d. tv to -- 3d printing. supercritical co2 power fuel cycle is catchy. what's that going to do for me? whether it is applied in the coal plant ended it will increase the efficiency of the plant is a hybrid photovoltaic technology and a novel hydro. >> how did you know i was going to ask that question? and actually those are going to physically be in paris next week so that we can display to the ministers who were there etc. why ambition is a great thing in addressing climate change and

this will be part of the solution. i know that you have an arpa e that works with a lot of systems but how did this function backs >> i know that it's very well described and it's not very well understood the role that you're playing in other areas of innovation. first of all it is highly varied and let me give you kind of different examples to highlight that. let me start by saying by no means a full research efforts certainly we have national laboratories and they play an absolutely central role from everything like energy to basic science to the nuclear security. now in terms of how it works, again, quite varied. if i start at the basic

resurgence, we have a network of 32 energy frontier research centers. this is used to inspire basic science. first, we bring the community together. 1500 scientists define the core basic science challenges that would underpin future technology breakthroughs. each one of the centers is addressing each one of those problems and doing it effectively. >> arpa e was created in 2009 as were these energy frontier research centers. 2009 arpa e was created in the process for high-risk technologies investments. for example, that hybrid solar thing i mentioned was one. i might say we believe that program is underfunded by a

factor of three in terms of innovation in american capacity to innovate. >> let me take other examples. carbon capture sequestration. this is now -- we have a set of large-scale demonstration projects. they are risky. but a couple of them are already working and will have a coal plant moving on in 2017 carbon capture. we have industrial plants with a capture that is cheap and the either use the co2 for enhanced oil production or we put it into a very deep formation. and finally, one of those technologies that we had at the beginning with the cost-reduction etc. plus utility scale solar which fell by 60% cost over that time period.

in 2009 the country had zero utility scale meaning greater than 100 megawatts of the photovoltaic firms. now another loan program that has issued over $30 billion in loan guarantees provided that financing for the first five utility project all successes. that's all we are doing and that is all we need to do because now there are 21 additional projects with purely private financing. you have to get over the hump to show that these projects can get out there and can work in our finance etc. so you can't delete code you can see it as everything from the technologies and loan programs. i should add one more. again in the solar arena --

>> it's so much cooler than i thought it was. i already emphasized the technology developments. but you know, the cost has now fallen so much for the photovoltaic modules that the dominant costs are not the modules anymore. it's really the other stuff you have to do particularly if you want to put the module system up on your rooftop and so, another very different thing we did come it's not technology company have something called -- you mentioned you got it not quite right it's called some shot, and it's about getting solar costs down with certain targets by 2020, and in that program besides technology, it's going to need code got a program that

works with cities and towns in terms of how you should be permitting. how do you get the permit down from the month today since technical assistance to do that. >> let me ask some really quick questions so i want to go to the audience. how does this play out because you are in a political position and has anybody dven across kansas lately? blank and you don't >> i know you don't have this graph but that's the coolest graphic in the report. maybe you should describe it, the point is when you leave that out, i was pretty surprised to see such an investment by someone over a vast expansion of

land in western kansas how did that happen? >> it's hard to miss them actually. you didn't. first of all, the united states has a fabulous wind belt that runs up the middle of the country from texas to the upper great plains. so, this is when. it may each be just a coincidence that a large part of that has a rather low population density. but it's an honest way and resource at the major centers that tend to be far away. so, building up the high-voltage transmission is absolutely critical. and we are talking about it again. texas has a pretty isolated grid and they have an enormous wind resource in the course the

centers that but if you get from oklahoma up through north dakota and then a big part of the job is filling up the transmission system to move the window to the market. >> for those of you that can't see it there are a number of graphs and this one i'm showing here with land-based wind power just demonstrating a staggering decrease in that cumulative wind capacity taking off it's just something i find -- accost drop into plain and coming plane and going up. >> so we live in washington which thus far has not proven able to untie the political knots but we are in an answer direction is hard to find. you've been working with cities and states and other non- federal level players and recently the atlantic and others did something called city lab where you bring mayors from all over the world they to have the climate plan so what do you

interact with at all the non- federal level and help guidance or support in the book of innovation with several cities are doing? >> i was with the mayor in los angeles helping dedicate a novel sold being installed at fire stations and emergency power for them and for the neighborhood. you've got to get your cell phone charged up and if things are down for while the cities are giving a lot of creative things. the mayors conference actually released a couple of years ago i did that with kenneth johnson the former basketball player who's the mayor of sacramento and they are just enervating tremendously. i cannot underestimate how important it is not just in the united states and the mayors are

beginning active partnering across the globe. may the century the globe is greatly 70% urbanized. it's like willie sutton. why do you rob banks? that's where the money is. if you want to adjust these issues, go where the people are. that requires an urban focus over the next several decades. now, part of it especially in the united states, we are outgoing to be building. we may be enhancing some of the ones we have put in another part of the world they are going to be starting much more, much closer at least and therefore by hope is we also think about the genuinely new solutions at of how you design an urban environment with those opportunities. i will give one example that i've always kind of liked.

if you think about -- imagine a city that is roughly speaking pretty much all electric, the vehicles are electric vehicles and gives a quite correctly no tailpipe pollution and we say then very different noise levels. the item seal every building etc.. this can actually open up new business for integrating the energy, water, infrastructure, communication transportation systems in ways that are good for the environment but also provide frankly a better quality of life. >> one of the hottest moments in the democratic debate is when hillary clinton talked about how she ended up president heard the chinese were in the parking lot

and over here and there was this scramble to find india and china at the last minute and then all do you think paris is going to have any fun like that? >> first of all, despite the hurried nature of the conclusion of the copenhagen conference i want to say that i believe the copenhagen conference will go down as having been an important turning point i establish in some very important principles for the future negotiations. now in paris it is well known that the approaches being taken, that is the leaders will be there at the beginning of the conference and charging the conference and charging their negotiating teams and attend the negotiations p6 >> will be left to the negotiating teams and -- is

gender somewhere? i don't see jim. let's go to this gentleman right in the middle. there are millions of people watching. tell us who you are and make it short. >> i am a reporter. during the climate negotiation how do you leverage future innovations, how do you bring into effect future solutions for the current problems and get other countries to act and what should we expect next week? >> in terms of the negotiations for example, several things. one is we will be looking to make strong commitment and innovation among the set of countries, and that will include the opportunity to more collaborative work, so i will just give you one example of kind of a natural.

take india that clearly has a tremendous need for the distributed generation as we have a tremendous interest in the distributed generation. we have more that we can do there. so i think the ind c., the targets are pretty much set for this first round but we can talk about how we can work together on innovation to get more ambition when it comes time to revise the targets, said that to me is in some sense how i'm thinking about that. and that will be getting the innovation theme set up to roll just a week and a half later. >> just a quick 32nd follow-up on the questionable other countries bring peace ideas themselves are there things other nations are doing that we can learn from anything you've seen that would be a shocker? >> absolutely there's a lot of innovation going on in many

countries. >> there's a lot of work, a lot of interesting work going on in the election space in the countries as well by the way other alternative fuel vehicles, so that's one area where i think there's quite a bit. but i think the -- we also should have said in our international activities of countries have an interest in our consultations with regards to building an innovation system

and also you mentioned some interesting technologies i wondered if you had any thoughts on leslie.

[laughter] i thought that it was a pipeline. anyway, what was the first question? >> intellectual property. so first of all we had worked out some very suitable arrangements in the international collaborations for example with china we had a significant program a significant threat of death that was working out ip arrangements that worked quite well. number two, we are doing experiments for example at berkeley there is something which is a spin approach in

which the laboratory provides a central investor opportunities and in terms of power i have been brief on that when i was in mit but i didn't go into any specific technology but i will say a very interesting thing has happened. i showed the new scale reactor but there are something like 50 companies in the united states with private capital looking at innovative nuclear fission and fusion technologies. we don't need more than one to work. it is a new wave of innovation looking at nuclear because of its carbon free characteristics.

think the president put out a statement on the nuclear import of our own carbon -- >> one week ago there was a nuclear meeting workshop held in the white house specifically to the publics interest to that. >> the agribusiness magazine we have a billion people that are hungry in the world many of them small farmers and many of them live on marginal land so how a fraction of them to adopt the next generation to put it into the chance petition network? that is probably a question that some of my colleagues in agriculture might be able to answer better but clearly what we are giving as you know you're getting the research and development for many different

types of feedstocks. we are looking at things for as you said biomass on the marginal land, salt tolerant organizations etc.. so we are doing that research. we have outreach for example particularly the national renewable laboratory which has a big biomass component but i will be honest i think the bigger outreach on that. we are trying to provide the tools. >> quick right here in the front we will go between the two here. >> just make it brief. >> first of all economist

magazine is ruining the closing of nuclear plants. i was concerned and interested enough that the recent atlantic article is suggesting there are places where if you buy an electric car you are actually increasing the emissions. can you comment? >> into bill gates interview in the atlantic he talks about there are places you can invest in their vehicles and do something in the process you actually at increasing carbon. >> i think that depends very much in this transitional phase on with a mix of fuel is. so for example let's say an electric vehicle in the northwest versus one in the upper midwest is going to have a more positive carbon impact because it is drawing upon hydropower for example, whereas

the marginal benefit command again i'm not arguing against it being deployed everywhere but the marginal -- the marginal benefit of the efficiency investment will be higher in the upper midwest and in the northwest. so come it really depends how the technology fuels are matched to what's going on regionally. now of course, i argue that the electricity sector in particular is going to be pretty much in my view d. carbonized by the time we get to the mid century into and some of those geographical effects therefore would not apply. >> in the beginning of your talk you mentioned china. as i observed when there is a treaty between the u.s. and china such a topic close climate change. some people call it diplomacy.

so, my question is what is the cooperation between the u.s. and china now from climate change compared with a few years ago and how you work with your chinese counterpart before the paris meeting to ensure a substantial result from the climate change? >> first of all, i've already said the joint announcement last november just about a year ago was a major turning point in has now been followed up in just about every meeting of president obama with additional progress most recently here in september. ..

is to get enhanced oil recovery.

and by the way, the united states today, we are producing about 300,000 barrels of oil per day from co2 flooding of mature reservoirs. but now but we added, edited the document from last november and we're moving forward, is enhanced water recovery using co2. so the idea is whether there portable water is a niche but there's lots of issues of water which we can clean up a bit. we have, we are in, right on our side would in the middle of selecting a site for our first enhanced water recovery project and that's something with china. >> you are off to the iea come international energy company than adequate accrue. it leaves china outcome leaves some other energy players out. is that a problem you're going to hang out with the folks that

are not the problem? how does china built in in this weekend coming up? >> we are going to hang out with the chinese as well because they will be present. so the iaea membership by its construction in the 1970s in response to the oil shock is oecd countries. however, the world looks different today than it did in the 1970s. and so the iaea is in a number of dimensions looking to do some modernization. and that clearly includes among other things the idea of welcoming dialogues with the big economies, the big energy consumers. so frankly we expect china, we expect india, indonesia, quite a few countries that are not today members. >> let's get our friend from brazil right here in the fourth

row. >> regarding hydropower efficiency act of 2013, what has been done, what is the next status, and what comes next? how many megawatts due respect for the next five, 10 or 20 years? >> in the united states? >> yeah. >> that's a hard one to answer to be honest. there is, i mean, i to see we will ever be building any big mega- dams in the united states. but there is a lot of interest in small hydro. effect when the technologies i shall was a low had hydro project. there's also, there's a lot, if i remember, i'll get it wrong. i think come and this may be incorrect i think there's a quarter of 100 megawatts of opportunity for powering small

and power bands, for example, get a lot of that is what the corps of engineers, those kinds of projects. we do research in some of the novel hydro. and by the way, also hydrokinetic technologies. >> this gentleman right here in the middle. >> james with george washington university. with the reduction in the cost of producing these technologies, our government subsidies, either grants, loan programs or tax breaks to companies still necessary even with consumer demand for these technologies speak was good question. what if you took all the subsidies away from all of the energy sources, what would the picture look like? >> look, we believe that we are still at the stage because of the necessity up dramatically accelerating the low carbon transition that we still think that some of these well-placed

renewable investment and production tax credits should continue. now, for ever? no, probably not. would that be helped if we had instead something that enter lies is the price of carbon emissions? yes. but where we are today we think we need those, but there is an issue of the continuing major credits in the fossil areas which i would say are probably a little more difficult to defend. defend. >> just in closing i just learned recently that you are an avid soccer player, not just pashtun opposition deeply and yet any games lined up for paris? >> added should not be confused with a good. [laughter] this is a true. i generally play in the defense but last time to put me up in

front line. our season is over speed and anything allied up in pairs speak what no. >> ladies and gentlemen, secretary ernie moniz. thank you. [applause] thanks, everybody. [inaudible conversations] >> energy secretary moniz will be leading the u.s. delegation

to the united nations climate change conference which will be held in paris beginning november 30 and going until december 11. in a work toward legally binding agreement on climate issues. live picture from orlando, florida, and republican presidential candidates are there today and tomorrow for what the state gop is calling a sunshine summit. marco rubio, ted cruz, lindsey graham, donald trump, jeb bush, ben carson and mike huckabee are there today. florida officials addressing the conference. kamora bobby jindal, chris christie, rick santorum, senator rand paul, governor john kasich and carly fiorina will address attendees. live coverage right now on c-span until about 7:00 today and then your phone calls. tomorrow coverage begins at 10 a.m. on c-span. democratic presidential candidates are getting together for debate in des moines, iowa, tomorrow where the first nation

caucuses will be held in about three months. we will replay that between hillary clinton, senator bernie sanders and martin o'malley on sunday at for the easter and re-air at nine on c-span. >> now a panel of lawyers, legal specials and supreme court observers discuss the nation's highest court under chief justice john roberts. the decisions he is made and what aspects of his legacy will most be memorable to the federalist society posted this discussion yesterday. >> [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. we are about to get started. the microphone is apparently on. okay. welcome to those of you watching on c-span and those of you

watching the live stream online. my name is rachel brand. for those of you may not be fully with the federalist society, we are a membership organization of lawyers and law students that provides a forum for rigorous debate on issues of law and legal policy. for many of us in the room this is the organization that brought to our law schools to first professions on lightly balsa that were not otherwise reflected on campus and to continue to provide informative and provocative programming on the right of legal issues all throughout the year. i am standing here today because of chairman of the litigation practice group. my practice group land than what you are about to do. they federalist society is 15 practice groups divided by subject matter and they are responsible for a large portion of the programming hosted by the organization of throughout the year. for those of you may be interested in getting more involved, i would make a pitch for you to get involved in one of the practice groups. you can come and find afterwards fortified jean reuter who's at

the front table who's on the staff that runs the practice groups. i've been asked remind you certain conferences clean this one are being live stream on the block of the federalist society sick you can't hear in person for the whole conference you got to miss entirely. without light to turn to our topic today. i am very delighted with the panel we've put together. i'm looking forward to this discussion. the panelists that a good reflected on the first decade of the roberts court come from diversdiverse perspective. with a journalist, an academic, a practitioner and a former senate staffer, so thank you all for being a. without i will turn it over to judge thank you. thank you, judge bea. [applause] >> thank you, rachel, for that introduction. 15 years that chief justice roberts has led the court have

seen decisions that have affected important aspects of our cultural, religious and political lives. our panel today will discuss and deal not only with the chief justice, but also at the nomination process and what effect he sat on the other justices and whether it should be called the roberts court, or perhaps the kennedy court, or some people might say the alito court. in the ninth circuit we may refer to it as a court of reversal. [laughter] because over those 10 years the supreme court has reversed the ninth circuit in 70% of the appeals that it accepted from our circuit. to paraphrase -- [applause] to paraphrase a former solicitor general, it has been suggested

that one could open a certification by saying this is a petition to review a judgment of the court of appeals for the ninth circuit, and there are other reasons also to reverse. [laughter] but enough about the ninth circuit. our panelists will discuss the important decisions which are seen as consistent with the judicial philosophy of the roberts court and how does perhaps brought surprises to the president who have nominated the justices. we have a distinguished panel with us today and we will hear from each panelist. the panelists will then exchange questions and then i will take questions from the audience. first we have steven duffield, graduate of the university of chicago law school asked even as vice president for policy at crossroads a gps, and president

of the endgame strategies here in washington. stephen worked for senator john, on the senate republican policy committee during the day in judge roberts nomination and confirmation. stephen is going to discuss the expectations regarding judge roberts role as chief justice at the time was confirmed in 2005. next we have jan crawford is the chief legal correspondent for cbs news, and also a graduate of the university of chicago law school. she covers the supreme court regularly and publish a book in 2007 and titled supreme court conflict, the inside story of the struggle for control of the united states supreme court. she is going to speak about how justice roberts tenure on the court has coincided with and emerged from public expectations at the time he was confirmed. we are also joined by michael

carvin. he has argued in numerous cases before the supreme court. mike is going to discuss some of the hot button issues that have arisen during chief justice roberts tenure, including the affordable care act and affirmative action cases. last but not least we have professor michael paulsen. michael is a professor at the university of st. thomas school of law in minnesota. he has written extensively on constitutional interpretation. michael is knowledgeable about the course of religious freedom jurisprudence. he is two degrees from yale, one in divinity and you offer some thoughts on the direction that the supreme court might take during the next presidential administration. with that let's begin with the first panelist, steven duffield. [applause] >> thank you, trent whether i'm

honored to be a part of this panel today. i was a lawyer innocent for senator jon kyl in his leadership office to a truly crazy time in judicial nominations, 2003-2006. for those who were not caught up in a particular vortex, that could include democrats wholly unprecedented filibuster of lower court nominees such as priscilla owen and others. the publican threats to eliminate the judicial filibuster a lower court nominees, of all nominees in what is now called the nuclear option. the infamous gang of 14 partial settlement of that dispute, the nominationnomination of john rod samuel alito and the soviet experience with another nomination. nomination. i had been applied to set the stage for how it was that john roberts was viewed in the senate what the expectations were for him from the perspective of the senators who confronted her i don't speak for any senator put these are my good-faith picks impressions. let's go back to the sum of 2005. the most important thing to understand is that was a great deal of concern that any supreme

court nominee would be blocked by filibuster. republicans had just 55 votes. many of us believed that democrats would hold together to block all but the most moderate of nominees, nominees the conservative senators themselves could not support. in other words, we feared some disaster. as a consequence of this, senate administrations have spent many months working on how to frame a supreme court nomination. any nomination. the arguments would be the same regardless of who it was. in fact, i'm sure everyone recalls that in judge roberts analogy of judging as umpires as calling balls and strikes. the first of i heard that analogy was not from judge roberts but a few months before the o'connor resignation sitting in bill for it its conference fm chemical republican counsel share the analogy in almost precisely the same language that judge roberts would later use. i suppose it's possible the

white house and doj staffing never shared this id with judge roberts, but call me a little bit skeptical. if you don't like the analogy, i know many do not, just do what you like to do, just blame congress. keep in mind they were real substantive consequences to this fear of filibuster focus on messaging and framing. it meant there was far less attention given on the republican side to understanding the nuances of john roberts precise judicial philosophies. instead we worked on how to shape the debate to prevent filibuster. let's go back to the timeline. the inconclusive gang of 14 agreement is reached in may, and justice o'connor announced her resignation, retirement rather, in july. the president nominates john roberts soon after. from the outset one thing was clear. senators really liked john roberts but they thought he was brilliant but they also just like his style. my personal to i've always said

this is that judge roberts excited many senators because he reminded them so much of what they wished they could be themselves. brilliant. somebody who is smooth, cool under pressure and a phenomenal communicator. they wished they could be more like him. at the same time few at the time, at least in the senate, were saying the president had replace justice o'connor with a justice thomas for a justice scalia. at the outset judge roberts was considered an improvement over justice o'connor. a very good choice for the o'connor spot. enthusiasm grew as fighting continued at the left became more vocal in opposition. in retrospect i think we should agree he was a substantial improvement. so after eight weeks of waiting the passing of the former chief justice and the nomination of judge roberts to the role injuries occurred and that kennedy caucus room. john roberts sat patiently while they made opening statements. he gave a brief statement that stunned everyone with his

eloquence. the balls and strikes metaphor made its first public appearance as did the promised not to be a politician or to have an agenda. there was the beautiful language about his childhood and in those fields of indiana and the promise of endless possibilities. he was formidable. the fight if there ever was to be one was over that day. the next two days of key when they were just defense by the nominees but by also by most republican senators that judge roberts gave us earnest repetitions of doctors and tests but showed relatively little in the way specific judicial philosophy. he was also rather dry. at the alito hearings thank you much later joe biden clown around with a princeton cap on his head and spoke 26 and a half of his 30 minutes before even asked a question. we kept track. i must say we did learn that judge roberts favorite movies were as we on the doctor zhivago and north by northwest. perhaps nothing illustrates the

nature of the hearings better than judge roberts answer to senator graham's simple question. he asked, what would you like history to say about you? characteristically judge roberts first response was a bit cheeky. he said, i have my drink transcript. he said i'd like to start by saying he was confirmed. [laughter] perfect, right? audience laughed and then he said, but actually the answer is the same. he said, i would like them to say i was a good judge. what does that mean? we didn't really know except that it was a very firm sense that judge roberts was adamant that judges should not bring their policy preferences into judging that, of course, democratic nominees today all say the same. senators saw there getting a very smart man who contrary to his opening statement was an excellent politician, just in a different field. staff conversation as judge roberts to do his private

meetings with her senators were always the same. that god is good. people were incredibly impressed. there was a sense he would be an institutionalized, that he truly love the court but i'm not sure any senator had any idea on what that would mean in practice. it's interesting to listen something he said in his opening statement, towards the end of the statement. he said, if i am confirmed, i will be vigilant to protect the independents and integrity of the supreme court. i worked to ensure that it upholds the rule of law and safeguard those liberties that make this land one of endless possibilities for all americans. so a concern for the court, and coupled with a concern for the rule of law and liberty. but at least in this sense he placed them in parallel. let me also read what he had to say about results oriented judging. during questioning from senator cornyn, judge roberts said that if a judge is results oriented, quote it's about the worst thing

you could say because what you're saying is you don't apply the law to tell you what the results should be. you don't go through judicial decision process. you don't look to the principles that are established in the constitution or the law. you look to what you think the result should be and then you go back and try to rationalize it. that's not the way the system is supposed to work. it's been great to see the elephant in the ruper room. these words are somewhat interesting given popular conceptions in both the obamacare cases. those comments should also be read in light of his behemoth in the same-sex marriage case. but i'm going to let others sort that out. the transcript provides other clues. he did not adopt a strict textualism but you said of course a judge should start with text. in response again to senator cornyn he said, i think you folks, i think that when you folks legislate, you do something in mind in particular

and you put into words and you expect judges not to put into own preference. not to substitute their judgment for you. but to implement your view of what you are accomplishing in the statute. and a few lines later as he said i think there's meaning in your legislation at the top of a good judge is to do as good a job as possible to get the right answer. this nuance was not pursued by senators of either party. the more time you spend with the hearing transcript the more clues you see but in fairness this is maybe another style of looking around the room to find your friends. what matters is that the centers heard what they wanted and needed to be. know which end, no politics, limited will of judging, a desire for unanimity. what they were left with at core was an institutionalized it was hostile to judge is inserted itself into policymaking. when you look back on it just over 10 years, it may well be that's exactly what we got. thank you.

[applause] >> i think when we think about the roberts court, i'm going to ask us to think back 10 years and this may cause a lot of pain, but these remember how much excitement that there was, because president bush had really been given an historic opportunity to change the supreme court in a way that his father had failed to do so, and even president making. as you all know, the story of this report and survey the rehnquist court has been one of disappointment for conservatives. the rehnquist court, seven of nine justices nominated by republican presidents, yet in case after case after case, those justices failed to adhere to conservative judicial principles. many victories for liberals as

we do we need to get into here after lunch. but you know, why was that? obviously some of the justices were not as conservative as people had hoped. and when i say conservative i know that's a frustrating term but i'm just referring to traditional conservatism of principles. you know, they were never that conservative to begin with. that would be the story of justice souter. he looked conservative antiwar a three-piece suit and was only polite. [laughter] but he had no real philosophy. others really changed when i got on the court, and perhaps didn't have that is wrong -- it would be the story of justice kennedy, justice o'connor, and failed to provide in many cases the key votes that would have started to turn the court back into a more

conservative direction and away from some of the excesses of the warren court. other justices who did have strong conservative philosophical views i think affected according very unexpected ways. that, of course, is the story of justice thomas who i believe is really been the most egregiously mischaracterized take your probably in our generation -- mischaracterize figure. is very interesting because the story of justice thomas is one as we all know where the narrative that he is al-awlaki of justice scalia. these justice scalia's intellectual understudy, and for your intellectual and, of course, that narrative is demonstrably false. it's obvious not only by reading his opinions but it's in the papers of the library of congress.

you can see thomas taking key positions on his own in conference and then scalia later changing his vote to join justice thomas. and it's funny, when i talk about this in speeches, depending on the audience, especially on the west coast -- [laughter] i will start to talk about justice thomas because i think it is an outrage the way he continues to be perceived in the press. people get all excited like i wish you could say timing on pan justice thomas that i started a love story. people, no one wants to hear. and that i think is a tremendous disservice to admit but also been done by my profession. it's something i think is outrageous. but his tenure on the floor i think it's affected the court in unexpected ways. he i think in many ways cause justice o'connor with a strong conservative views to drift more to the left and she already was.

certainly she was going that way. the rehnquist court was a disappointment for conservatives. he wasn't george bush with this historic opportunity to do what previous presidents had failed to do, which became obvious what justice o'connor shocked everyone by announcing that she was stepping down before the chief justice. so we had to get it right and relied on i think some very smart people. and in capping john roberts that was taking us all back. it's really funny because it's almost like we have kind of come full circle like who is john roberts? 10 years ago i was one who come and argue with many conditions, including on this panel, 10 years ago about whether john roberts was going to be this solid judicial conservative. i was convinced that he was. i remember others were not.

and i remember even members of the press kit i remember vividly in the supreme court pressroom reporters were saying he's not that conservative. he's not that conservative. because he was really nice and he would talk to them an in retn the calls. he gave them his cell phone number. a conservative would never do that because they are so mean. i was like yeah, right, i know this guy and he is going to be solid. been remember when the memos came out that he had written in the reagan administration and they were like snarky, his comments on the margins suggested that he was really conservative. i called a member who was sitting on the spam and sent see, i told you so. [laughter] -- sitting on this panel. he waltzed through as steven just recounted, waltz through his confirmation you. but he was john roberts?

we are still talking about some of his decisions. they are hard to figure. i think assess and we'll get into more details as this unfolds but it's fast and we think about how he would ruin obamacare and same-sex marriage but those decisions i think in his mind would be completely, completely, you know, complementary and not at all inconsistent because as he testified courts should not reach out and take on social dispute. court should take a backseat to save it's a bad everything, this is perfectly consistent with his testimony. but the other thing about john roberts did go back and look at his testimony in 2003 when he was confirmed to the d.c. circuit, he had a interesting exchange about whether he was a strict constructionist. some of the republican senators were concerned that what was he? was really going to be in the mold of scalia or thomas involved some of those principles?

and he would not engage at all. he said he doesn't like labels. that's not a strict constructionist and mean one thing in one case and one thing in another. at the time you thought that's a very savvy answer. but john roberts does a like labels and vacancy right now and this panel will show he defies them in many ways. of course, i think the other nomination that president bush made, and we will talk not just about john roberts but the roberts court more broadly, was samuel alito and that was an absolute home run. his opinions are beautifully written. his presence on the bench has been an enormous asset to the court. is questions at oral argument are penetrating incompletely different and in some ways unexpected than some of the other justices. and my favorite thing about watching justice alito on the bench is how often justice

kennedy will jump in and ask an attorney, what is your answer to justice alito's question? [laughter] so i think justice alito has been from president bush's perspective of one, the home run and, of course, replacing justice o'connor a very pivotal vote for the future of this court. but what is the roberts court after 10 years? it to me as almost too soon to say now with the two new justices how they will affect dynamics on the court because the new justices as you makes a new court and when we saw justice thomas, the court, a solid vote to change the dynamics on that court. so i think in many ways it is too soon to tell. i thought about writing another book and was encouraged to do so by by publisher after five years, and decided not to because i think it's too soon. here's a snapshot you can take of the court in determining five

years, 10 years, lord knows we've got a lot of talk today after 10 years but i think that snapshot is being developed. it is not -- what would be interesting going forward is as this court establishes itself and as i did and i want to talk about it and whether or not it has any consistent theme, whether roberts is any consistent approaches, this court is going to change. when you talk about a presidential election in 2016, the next president could well get two, three, possibly four appointments after a reelection. for other justices and the next president's first term will be in their 80s, and these are conservative justices who could very well be stepping down. so john roberts, while has i think been frustrating for many

conservatives, if a democrat wins the white house, john roberts may well be writing a lot more decent on the other side because of the court and its membership -- dissent -- could be something that is in flux. so on that happy note. [applause] >> mike carvin. >> i will pick up on that happy note. the first point i think to be made is it's a bit of a misnomer to talk about the roberts court and the rehnquist court or any of the court. really the chief justice is just one of nine votes. to be joined at eight liberal justice he would have an entirely different legacy than to join a conservative justices. and to pick up on the judge's remark, i mean really i think it's probably more accurate to say prior to 2000 but it was at the kennedy o'connor court. in the last 10 years it's been largely the kennedy court

because he more than any other justice is going to dictate the direction of the law. i'm worried that it could become the kennedy/roberts court if the kind of jurisprudence he brings to the affordable care act tends to bleed over into other areas of the law, then we will have some very rough sledding. i think it's probably too early to tell on that. the real consequential tng that happened 10 years ago was not john roberts replacing chief justice rehnquist. it was justice alito replacing justice o'connor because they got a principled conservative replacing sort of the suburban republican state legislature and you got some continuity of the law and principle of the law. that has affected so many various areas that i would like to chat about briefly. the first things i'd like to talk about his substance of some of the things we've seen over the last 10 years, and then just

kind of jurisprudential approach, an approach to judging and how chief justice roberts differs from people like scalia and thomas. so in terms of the scorecard how about the last 10 years looked? i will start with the good stuff because i'm an eternal optimist. i think we've made some baby steps towards the return to the rule of law, and, obviously, as jan points out and if the election goes wrong mixture, then none of that will matter. we will dissent into a hellish existence from which we will never emerge. [laughter] but for right now you can make an argument that has some relationship to the text construction history of the constitution that people actually listen to, so that's nice. i'd like to just go through briefly the areas where i think we've made some decent progress and then some of the worst parts of the roberts court.

i'll start with free speech. generally it's been very good about the. again i will talk to each of these very lightly. citizens united was a brilliant decision, landmark to restore individual liberty and enhancing the marketplace of ideas. generally they've taken a very libertarian approach in all areas the speech, commercial speech. there was a decision where they certainly reinforce the basic principles of free speech. case called alvarez is somewhat controversial but made the point that a lease with respect to political and ideological and scientific debate even knowing falsehoods or constitutionally protected, and the reason for that is because we don't want to allow an orwellian truth ministry to govern the marketplace of ideas. again, the dynamic in this area

and are just about every other area i'm going to talk about is this reflected justice kennedy's jurisprudential inclination. the court can basically go as far as justice kennedy wants to go, and no farther. except with respect to the affordable care act but i will come back to that. but basically if justice kennedy hasn't basic libertarian approach to the first amendment, that's what the court is going to go. he had a step backwards last term which was probably the worst term since the 1970s where chief justice roberts wrote an opinion, very restrictive opinion, about the rights of judges to solicit campaign contributions. you can hope to write that off as economic that judges are given so we're not going to really apply the first amendment to them but the motive analysis i do want to get into the weeds but it's underinclusive analysis was a dramatic departure from president anything but takes it seriously, which i hope they will not, could dramatically

undercut some first amendment protections. the other aspect of course of the first amendment that's important is religion and again i think generally very good marks in terms of where the court has gone on that. in terms of enhancing religious liberty coming is in the right of religious adherence relative to the state, justice scalia both his and my mind very controversial smith opinion that defend the protection of the free exercise clause that essentially said unless they single out religion for differential treatment they can post any kind of neutral even if it has a dramatic burden on religious practice. so that every switch from the free exercise clause to the statute which restores the protection and saiyou get substantially -- the practice of religion absent a compelling government interest and then we saw most notably last year in the hobby lobby case where

they've indicated the right of religious employers to resist the contraceptive and other mandates that were embodied in the affordable care act. you saw a very similar development which is actually a departure i thought from smith in the case with this it even neutral regulations you can't infringe on religious autonomy of religious institutions. and so they departed from the notion in smith a neutral law would be okay as long as it was generally applied. seen some baby steps in establishment clause, you can mention god and things like that. in public forums, ma least of you have a strong history of doing so. i think the real issue in establishment clause, the court has the expert difficulty the litmus test in terms of whether or not they will take a sensible approach to the establishment clause. it is not in from the establishment survey should be that it doesn't violate the astonishment clause if you give

religious organizations funding pursuant to a neutral funding scheme. in other words, turne enough toa friendly discriminates against religious organizations when you're doling out of social welfare money. i think that's the one part of a religious agenda that has not yet been resolved. i strongly agree that will be five vote for that if it comes up. the next area has been a mixed bag and that's of course racial equality. i thought the biggest change were dramatically see when justice alito replace justice o'connor was in the area of racial preferences. justice o'connor in the michigan case famously said we'll take a 25 year vacation from the 14th amendment. [laughter] you can discriminate all you want against anybody who the government doesn't think is a protected minority group and get back to me and we'll talk about whether or not that makes a lot of sense. i suspect justice alito does not

share that discriminatory the of the 14th amendment, so we're going to find out this term in the fisher case which presents again the issue of racial preferences in higher education. so sort of dramatically reduce its what justice o'connor did in the michigan case is this a number of ways that you could restore some teeth to the protection on on my norse against faith-based racial discrimination without a friendly overturning the michigan cases simply by saying things like look at, if you are invoking critical mass and diversity and the other buzzwords, maybe you could supply some evidence that achieving 14% minority representation relative to 10% minority representation action has some educational bounty. this is the complete absence of any evidence to support that extraordinary counterintuitive notion, as long as they demand

is proof as opposed to slogans, and i think they could go along way towards restoring the racial utah the command of the constitution. again, fisher is an interesting test case because of bubbled up a couple years ago. supreme court waited nine months to issue a four-page opinion that letter he said nothing except why did you take another look at this? the fifth circuit said okay, send it back up. this time i think we interesting to see if they actually put some teeth to restore some teeth begin to equal protection analysis. the statutory realm there's been some very good decision in the voting rights act at the big surprise and a big step backwards which was attributed to justice kennedy last term was he read and effects test intertidal eight at the fair housing act which prohibits their housing discrimination which was a real surprise to me because at least the employment of the voting every justice kennedy had seen confirming

understand and adopt the position that the effects test is just another word for racial quota and that we shouldn't turn statutes which say don't take account of race into statutes and so you must take account of race and sort out government benefits on a racially proportionate basis. budget last year title eight cases in texas he took a big step backwards. he laced his opinion with same don't turn this into a quota but had a week issues that for a week later he should have much h of quotas. that will tell you about as much of it as just as kerry has to there. again i do think for the reasons i just articulated the court's decision and fisher would take a lot about how they're going to handle racial issues going forward both in terms of the statutory and nonstatutory context. i think the final big step forward in terms of jurisprudence and determined to rule of of law over the last 10

years was the decision to recomd the second amendment does protect individual rights to own firearms. the actual practical effect of that opinion i think we don't know yet because they have never taken a follow-on case to sort through the gun regulations that are out there and that kind of judicial scrutiny they have given to it but he was clearly a huge originalist when in a closely divided court. so that was certainly probably the best thing that this court has done. on the bad side of obviously last year's decision, the same-sex marriage case, was about as lawless as you could be. the provision that justice kennedy invoked says you can't deny life, liberty or property without due process of law which, of course, to all english is peaking people means people of the same-sex must be able to marry.

[laughter] he supported this keen to act in textual analysis with platitudes that are thinking from hallmark greeting cards. [laughter] so it really didn't pretend to be what we are usually accustomed to in terms of overriding the democratic choices and five millennia of tradition of most major religions. of one, and i obviously have distinct prejudice on this, but the other i think hallmark of lawlessness over the last 10 years was a distinguished case in king v. burwell which i argued. in many ways it was worse than the first nfib decision which upheld the affordable care act. because as steven was pointing out, you could attribute that to a normal conservative -- you can at least argue plausibly that this was the fruit of congress and they didn't want to end a

presidential election year strike down landmark, social legislation but there was really no such excuse in terms of interpreting the statute. the plain language of the statute, and having six of the court state doesn't mean stated, it means federal, was very reminiscent of what the court was doing in the '70s take with respect to the civil rights act under cases like weber and critics with a said north and south, east met west. and i thought that the one thing we accomplished in the late stages of the rehnquist court and in the roberts court was to interpret statute at least have some relation to the plain meaning of the text. constitutions live and grow and there's the argument you shouldn't defer to the policy choices of a couple hundred years ago by dead white men but these are the policy choices, the legislature from four years ago, and there was really no

excuse other than a naked policy preference to change with a law meant to the opposite of what it meant. this is where chief justice roberts probably departed most starkly from the law was the nfib case which upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act. i'm trying not to get either of these decisions personally, but for those of the fascists, the school of fascist conspiracy theories can think he just doesn't like me so we only departs -- when i'm available, then maybe that will give us solace for future cases. [laughter] the others i think of a less dramatic in terms of their departures from the text. eighth amendment we've seen a lot of arguments were the court is essentially establishing a code for states in the death penalty and life without parole context where they are dictating

to the elected representative the state of the need to treat relatively young are relatively mentally challenged murderers, and establish a kind of code without any serious argument that the punishment being inflicted is cruel or unusual. in another opinion from last term that again, not terribly unpredictable in terms of its consequences, it was really a big assault on the text of the constitution was the arizona redistricting case where they said legislature met popular sovereignty didn't mean legislature. i commend to you this was literally two days after the king decision came down. i commend you chief justice roberts stirring dissent about how dead they distort the meaning of the word legislature to achieve the broader purposes of the constitution. again proving yet again the supreme court is an irony free zone and -- last night and again

maybe confirming the personal animus theory that i am coming to adopt. [laughter] so those are the big pictures, subsidized i think the biggest difference between chief justice roberts, for example, and conservative members of the court, particularly justice scalia, thomas, an emphasis on incrementalism where he wants to take a step at a time. i could want you to understand that in a variety of contexts. fisher is an example where they took a small step and they come back to it. the shelby county decision striking down sex prefaced by small steps but this time they will decide a case which i'm arguing where they cast great doubt on the constitutionality of command agency fees, in public kingston people who don't belong to the union on first amendment grounds and now they've got a case that squid presents the question whether you should overturn precedent

that it could upheld it. i don't think that, i'm not entirely sure why this should a conservative principle that says incrementalism is preferable to a skill you like approach. the point i was making is you could have certainly and 1954 when brown v. board of education to say that the black schools were clearly unequal to the white schools and upheld plessy v. ferguson law about separate but equal but nonetheless struck down these laws because they didn't satisfy the plessy standard the problem with that kind of incrementalism is that reflects is your tv to place a foundational premise which is contrary to the tax structure and history of the constitution which can't be in the long run good for the coin development of the law or much less the institutional integrity of the court. and that's the last point i will

make, picking up on stevens point about how justice roberts, there was some ambiguity during his confirmation about whether he was worried about the institutional integrity of the court. in my mind anytime you're a justice or judge talk about the court as opposed to the law, that sense of the real warning signal because if you want to enhance the institutional integrity of the court, just do law. just do it and do it in a neutral way where umpires are calling balls and struck him in a two-minute. if you start changing your view of the law or modifying your view of the law because you weren't about public perceptions of the court, that can only abide the notion that you are not mutually interpreting a text of the legal materials in front of you but you are injecting a thumb on the scales that favors one party or another, or one policy view over another. in the long run that by

definition decreases the institutional integrity of the court because it just reduces the court to another legislative body where decisions are made based on who's office is being gored rather than neutral principles. so that was always a worrisome sign. again i think it's too early to tell which way chief justice roberts jurisprudence will develop. generally it's been very favorable. there have been a couple of exceptions to that. i'm hoping those will stay in vietnam was a category but we don't know. and again it would lose the next election it will not matter at all. thank you. [applause] >> well, i'm honored to be here at the federal society, it's been a part of my life existed since 1982 when i read at yale and discovered that they were not created as were not created as a tutor i'm not a founding

father of the federalist society but i think i am a founding nephew, second generation. i have met many of these events and i love this organization. i'm going to build a lot of what michael carvin has said. he stole some of my thunder but then i'm going to move on beyond that you think the things that the future of the roberts court. the title i've given my remarks is a question. i have a handout, what kind of law professor would i be if there was no assignment? the question is what's conservative about the roberts court clerk? i agree the idea of marking the beginning of period or ethics of supreme court from the chief justice ship of a single individual in some way is distorting. but it is convenient to it is a convenient marker. i want to look at the personnel changes for the past four years and ask the question as to the court really become ideologically more conservative in its composition? my answer is no, not very much. there's been not much of an

ideological change in the composition of the court since 2005 when john roberts was first sworn in. so first consider the composition of the court as it stood. we've heard basically three solid conservatives, rehnquist, scalia and thomas. you had a solid block pretty much a form reliable liberals. by the time of the 2005, solidly in the liberal bloc. and you had to swing justices, so-called swing justices, o'connor and kennedy. i prefer to call them weathervane justices because they can't just win with the prevailing political and cultural winds. they had conservative instincts at least in certain respects but not principle coherent or judicial philosophy. you had three conservatives, for liberals and to swing votes. then you have the substitutions. i laid out my little lineup

card. the substitution of roberts for rehnquist and i think that's pretty much a wash. you have generally mainstream for the most part consistently conservative replacing another mainstream consistently conservative jurist. the switch from roberts to rehnquist basically ends up being this thing. the material change i agree with mike and with jan, of sammy samy alito for justice o'connor put in some sense it's a little unfair to like a double switch in baseball that they came in at the same type of roberts was going to be 4:00 and he was bumped up and we have is the episode that dominated october 2005 where bush was flirting with a different nominee but then on halloween i think it was alito was that the fort as the nominee and that's the material change because i think it does substitute a solid judicial conservative for a

liquid judicial conservative. sometimes a gaseous one because o'connor was just not a principled solid conservative. something that change is you have moved from one of the swing justices into one that is more fairly reliable. you now have a difference where kennedy would have voted with the conservatives anyway. there's some issues in which kennedy leans conservative. us of issues in which o'connor leans conservative. and material change in 20 substitute alito spoke for all congress vote come and kennedy was going to be with the conservatives anyway. that's basically the list, and michael did such a good job that i'm just going to bullet point this. as quickly as i can. my theme is that the changes have been few and far between. there have been relatively few conservative victories and the event interspersed between a lot of important and dramatic liberal victories and defeats for the constitution.

so a quick campus of the cases, all the cases were mostly cases where kennedy leans right and o'connor left and the change from o'connor to alito made them until different. one mention is campaign finance to the switch was a first amendment disaster to citizens united which is a first amendment triumphed as public the single most notable change affected address which is attributable to alito's boat. there's been a shift in abortion. the court struck down nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000 upheld in the narrowest the ground in 2007 the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. it's a baby step. baby steps on racial preferenc preferences, michael covered the. the court as many of the so intimately it is sometimes hard to see. religious freedom, there's been a think a very important change. unanimous supreme court decision which i think undermines in

principle the premises of the employment division versus smith case. and will hopefully become for import to the future. i never was an afternoon am devoted exclusively the issue of religious freedom. hobby lobby case 5-4 holding kennedy was extremely important in its interpretation in his recognition abroa of broad righf religious freedom and religious conscience as against government regulations. a little mixed result as mike said on the scope of the governments enumerated powers to put on one of the few federalist society heretics that thinks nfib versus sebelius was rightly decided. it doesn't conform with my policy preferences. but i think the best interpretation -- [inaudible] [laughter] we will talk about that.

but one important thing to note is that even in defeat, there is a conservative victory or constitutional federalism in that the court to adopt a majority of justices their interpretation of the scope of the commerce power, and had a dramatic new restriction on the scope of the use of government spending power to coerce and adopting a federal programs i think that's meaningful. >> it's a silly opinion. it's brilliant. it is important and i think it's one of the sleeper victories. in the category of other sleeper victories, this is the litigation practice group. in my day job as a civil

procedure professor. start a dummy to bring back bad memories. but there've been meaningful changes in the law governing pleading, standing, territorial jurisdiction which i think will have a practical impact in changing the way litigation is conducted in federal courts in the future. these victories have been few and interspersed far between dramatic liberal results, some of the most awful cases i think i've been a war prisoner case from the bush administration era, absolutely indefensible and precursor of indefensible decisions in the same-sex marriage cases both the windsor case in 2013 and, of course, over felt. before democratic appointees on the supreme court or a solid block. when kennedy joins them it does not in any mental sense the roberts court. it is the kennedy court. so i'd like to conclude with

lessons for the next conservative president or lose the next conservative president who cares any meaningful way about the constitution. sort of look forward hopefully, cheerfully to the next 10 years of the roberts court. as jan mentioned on inauguration day 2017 nearly three justices in their 80s when it is late '70s and there's going to be an opportunity for in all likelihood some meaningful changes and also the import. ideology matters. judicial philosophy matters. the supreme court wheels substantial government power and what your philosophy is after the proper use makes a huge difference, huge difference to the country, to the future of the nation, to your faithful stewardship of the constitution and sometimes it is literally a matter of life and death, who you all point to the supreme court. it makes a world of difference, for example, that we've ended up with david souter rather than

edith jones or laurence silberman in 1990. i think if you edith jones appointed b by a republican president i think roe v. wade is overruled by a vote of 6-3 or 70 because the weathervanes swing the other way. -- seven-to me. it's different if you this conception but in terms of saving millions of lives. it makes a huge difference whether in 1987 you succeed in confirming a robert or a douglas ginsburg and makes a huge difference whether you have a sotomayor or a sudden for a session. a big difference when you have a justice kagan or a kevin na or cruise. ideology matters and of the objection will come and tear up like to get back and forth with steve on it, sometimes you can't read note what is best judicial

philosophy. and sometimes it's considered not proper to ask or that it is not politic to press the position. my answers are yes, you can no judicial ideology in advance fairly reliably and yes, it is proper and necessary to ask. of course, you can know how these individuals will be as justices on the supreme court. i don't think it's bragging or any sort of special skill but really give me 10 minutes with a prospective nominee and i will tell you how they're likely to be on the supreme court or i would not have everything right but they will not disappoint well-settled expectations based upon an interview that puts straightforward ideological questions to them. you can tell in advance the difference between a scalia at a david souter. of course, is proper to ask

these questions. sometimes we fantasize this idea of judicial independents. judicial independents in the constitution is a function of life danger and salary guarantees which supposedly the assurance of the essential autonomy. once someone is confirmed. the other side of the constitution is that it enshrines and explicitly political appointment and confirmation process as part of the separation of powers and checks and balances. i think it then becomes the obligation, to constitutional duty of the president during the inauguration of this in consider whether to confirm to press what they understand to be a proper view of constitutional interpretation with all the powers and energy at their disposal. i think it's possible to know what hs is what you and i think it's actually a the most extreme version of litmus tests. i think if you give me just one

question to ask an individual justice that will yield the maximum amount of information about their judicial velocity i would say what you think of ruby wade? it wit would have whether they k the judges can make constitutional rights, to do something about the theory of precedent and stare decisis, to me about their theory of the relationship of judicial power to legislate a power. it is entirely appropriate i submit as a constitutional matter to push these questions forward and that should be obligatory on the next. i will leave it there so we have time to go back and forth but thank you very much for your attention. [applause] >> we are going to be. the question and answers, and as chairman, i appointed myself to start. first, steven, we have the two

cases, and the interpretation of what is not a tax on monday is a tax on wednesday in the first case. the word state includes the word federal in the second case. and then we have arizona case where the word legislature includes a non-legislative enactment. question, is textualism now dead backs and did then judge roberts gave any indication of what his views were on textualism when he was confirmed? >> i really don't think he did it. i have the quotes and the hearing transcript, and you get some hints come and in that it is all a bit odd to go backwards

loop is you find yourself looking forced about it is received at the time. as i went through it and i was reading it again and thinking back i don't remember squarely into being teed up and there was no substantial significant discussion about what that would look like of that, of course, you start with the text of the statute and have this conversation of the legislative history. to the extent to which would focus on the text and what the words can mean something different, no, it's not squared up. i had a note come with no discussion of the i could find of taxing power editing like the first ac a case. these questions don't get keyed up and part of that is because, to your question, no, that wasn't and its odd looking back that was a. i think that these hearings take place in a certain moment in time. kelo had come out a few months earlier and so there was a lot of discussion of kelo. ..

>>

>> but just to supplement the point i don't mean this disrespectfully but it to the house judiciary committee they're not supposed to know the nuances of how to par's things but the republican nominee those that are the most interested to make sure this person was conservative would be the republican senators but they will not engage a high style postelection and he could run circles around anyone with that confirmation but

he enveloped the committee in the warmest baffle of bordeaux. [laughter] that is how he did use them so the notion from democratic senators especially joe biden. [laughter] to figure is jurisprudence is unrealistic. >> i want to hear more from you about how you will find out a solid judicial candidate when roberts to the question he said yes subjects to their principles of a lot. and they heard different things.

id to members of the senate judiciary committee to have 26 minutes with joe biden. >> i a commented nine the north by northwest if you don't let you must not remember but it is a funny moment that senator schumer was completely and totally frustrated with the current attorney for new york to play a daughter very careful cross-examination to figure out what he thought about things he said cassie your favorite movies i like movies better comedies sometimes they are drawn or female leads or the male

leads he exasperated them but the joke part is that they ran out of time and the german was not inclined to give senator schumer any more time so the question wasn't answered. there was of back and forth judge roberts said i am happy to answer that question number and northwest and schumer was very angry. because they really tried very hard to figure his judicial philosophy. and here they thought they had him. but he slipped right by then

they made a joke out of it. but at the same time it was not a joke for the inside because there were very frustrated not to draw it out. >> i am not sure that those are the best message apology to she ideology you do that with one-on-one conversations with people who actually understand the issues in the right questions to ask and what to look for my critique is the way the administration have seemingly failed to put a direct simple straightforward questions. >> unit can't figure that out in the interviews they will lie. i did the reagan and judicial screening i think are of -- will be weighed in should be overturned which like some coffee? [laughter] the building is going to say

that was correctly decided. levy there engaged in public law or the state attorney general or on the bench and that is how you know, how they decide. justice souter was self-inflicted that was obvious when it was done so i don't think it is the hard tuttis out those conservatives but doing in the crucible the white house interview process. >> because of justice alito bill kelly concluded he has never written a wrong opinion is confirmation hearing he was nominated on how levine the democrat said this is scary it is a trick he would be replacing the pivotal vote there was a track record and the

opinions and memos and his performance was sova masterful he was better then roberts when his wife started crying you cannot script that any better it was like they were ready they ever going to beat him and there were never able to strike never. by the way he did not say -- keep -- she did not read one word of the briefing book that the white house provided. track record although it is appellate court judges but to think about the nominee robert bork could have been on the supreme court of there was nicker red gum at the time.

>> we still have the senate in 86 he would have gone through and sent via would have sailed through so yes that definitely affects that spirit we have to close punctually if you have questions please stand up and go to one of the microphones and identify yourself of the wish to answer the question. >> i am a real property entered a from idaho. generally for the penalty think the decision of hobby lobby is for the little sisters case but does the robbers score ever move into a position where it doesn't

necessarily use the bill of rights as a shield to get car bouts to say no? there is no power to do those things with portions of the affordable care act. >> great question if hobby lobby dictates the outcome with the little sisters or the contra -- contraception mandate cases. i hope so but it depends on justice kennedy it is his world and we are just living in it. more broadly if they will move to a position you say you liberty as a way? >> it is a broad understanding of religious liberty it gives you the

right to exercise religion in some respects differently it is your individual freedom from government compulsion but it usually does not keep the government from otherwise doing what it needs to do. >> justice alito recently spoke to a federalist society gathering and he mentioned his distress with the results of the free-speech cases he was the one dissent of course, and he also mentioned a the crash video case. he would like to see a distinction drawn between aid of limited self expression and free speech. do you think his position to

encourage this distinction he will be of potential with other members of the court and what might be decided differently if this becomes the case? >> i think justice alito narrow interpretation really does make him an allied air of the court it is this something he does very often but with that aspect the least. freedom of speech position for anyone on the court. with the freedom of speech his dissent is a freedom of

expression and then to divide their membership and their identity that is an important lost during the roberts court era. >> 88 ink justice scalia is less libertarian. i'm sorry i meant justice alito like stepping on puppies heads or violent video games and things like that that crossed the threshold to be expressive and i think what justice alito is arguing for is common sensibility to protect more verbal members of society from those destructive images and don't think it will be the majority of the court but he is a firm advocate of the first amendment and even

with those discrimination on college campuses that it could be a burden. >> i have a question a historical question. was there in a consideration in given and then still to get justice alito in there as well. >> the market has very the liberation of the

nominations i there is a handful of members but they keep the data member level and i never hear about it after the fact. my answer is no and justice alito did not appreciate it. he has said he enjoys what we have on the court with his dissent he can be a rages on the bench. but with the disinterested in is so to get struck by lightning with the nomination to the court. the senate has to be the right who will get the nomination but the fascinating question is if

renquist step down when we all thought he was going to and really he should have have, would john roberts have been the nominee? of request went first? my guess is no but the president saw roberts performing and to pass away but then for that legal powerhouse period myers that nobody is mentioning her name. but i think the court will look quite different. >>. here it out there for a few weeks. high-stakes poker but i give him credit.

[laughter] >> roberts criticized if they were the intent times that is what more and more legal scholars are willing to brace. so what role do you think that case will play to determine the next appointee should the republican win the election? >> i say zero i don't see anybody on the court including justice thomas going towards the notion of a process that gives the same kind of protection to abortion.

but they think the constitution does not deprive of the ability of to act with stupid economic regulations. >> the last question. >> talk about citizens united but in cases like those like citizens united your right to life who is the swing vote or the last one to come on board? >> we know there was a famous dispute with dash dispute between justice alito and roberts over wisconsin right to life. that scalia takes the approach you have to destroy the village to save it to justice roberts takes the approach keep the structure there beecher doesn't mean anything.

if you can tell i am on the scalia cited there is a fundamental president that is basically incompatible and it should be cleaned up not through incremental steps that is a long answer i strongly suspect that chief justice roberts was reluctant to take the steps that builds and really took in citizens united as quickly as justice scalia wanted to ultimately came around. to talk about quirks if the solicitor general had not given the completely truthful answer of course, this means you cannot publish a book criticizing hillary clinton a corporation could not do it, we may have a different result in bad as well lead to the question by the way to people rethinking and real argument.

i strongly suspect chief justice roberts puts the brakes on that he wants to write a more narrow opinion but once the momentum overturned to restore that first amendment he went along with that. >> thank you to the wonderful pnel. [applause] couple more candidates on the republican side still to speak today -- about 5:20 p.m. eastern ben carson 6:00 p.m. eastern live on c-span will have highlights