dollars a day, it is being reported. with the groups am fit into the broader strategy. >> they need the resources so seizure vooi. they need the energy resources that are stored in those tanks in order to keep mosul running. the refinery battle has been going on for a month. there is a unit of iraq's terrorist forces there, people we know and have trained who have been fighting rather h heroically. it is a very desperate struggle, but they believe these resources, too. >> what further steps need to be taken in order to protect

against isis taking over the bajee refinery. that's a critical moment in history if they're successful in doing that. what can be done, what neis needed. one of the first place they were deployed was around the fire. so that is one example. and as we continue to assess the situation in iraq, we have identified specific strategic site we're concerned about, and we want to make sure iraqi has whatever capability they need to defend them. >> the kurds are sitting on a reserve of $45 billion a barely.

without coordinating those experts in the central authorities in baghdad. and baghdad seems to unhe have. how can we help the iraqi government to better improve its resources and make a system for all iraqis? how can we play a bigger role? >> well, this is something where we can play a direct role, and it's one reason we had to get through the election and try to get new government reform so we can get traffic on this issue. the their own experts right now, they approach a little less than half of that, probably. that will change over the future. the budget that's pending in baghdad before the parliament is a $140 billion budget. current share, that would be a little more than $17 billion.

so the numbers really tell the story. again, there are new realities on the ground that we have to deal with. but it is in the interest of all iraqis to help, particularly the sunnis who don't have any of these resources. they just set up a committee to try to resolve this, but they can get some traction. we have to be actively engaged because we are the one nuclear brokerage at these parties. >> just -- that's why the british wanted the country constructed the way it was. they wanted those resources, especially up in the north,

add added, thet krerp. i'm still lig. let me move on and ask, what is the current relationship between isis and al qaeda. what happened to that relationsh relationship. ef efls. the the islamic state of iraq and evon had differences across while here he did not agree with it, and he said, i don't agree with that, you should do it in

syria and we'll go our own way. isis is proving to be in effective for organizing for core al qaeda. it's more than just a terrorist organization. it seermz doesn't have the global reach to develop a a global. and those who share that idealogy from all over the world. >> what does that dynamic between the leaders of both glums potentially. they were do spectacular results in order to draw wild could you tell. let me ask one final question

about the rockies' capacity to defend their own billings ru where they are in plaeg. we have an encountered in surgery si child which means they have to be able to control their own population, right nouz that has really broken art. ist the. they go after anybody that disagrees with them. they have a bit of an alliance with the notshabandi, and this is why we have to work with iraqis to protect their violation. >> and again, i want to commend you for your focus on diplomacy.

i agree with ryan crocker that it's not too late for diplomacy, but we just have to be intervening in a very, very aggressive way to make sure that koip ploem is truly given a chance to be successful. thank you so much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you to the witnesses. we'll leave the record open until 5:00 tomorrow for the submission of questions. really appreciate your prompt responses. >> now dave talks about some problems facing the senate department. the senator confirmed. we're joined now by texas rat. so it.

. zoo just want to get your take on this bill to fund the v. a. to the poipt of 17 mill cron teen battles. have touchdown with lack of rehabilitate. a culture that has not placed a premium on the veteran and hope that comes to veterans, in he had of secret white lists in phoenix. problems i saw with two other people because they can't get in at all. we're told to call back next year. when they did that, the point of

impact never up on. plap plap lime glad to see the practices, nurses, neither -- i look forward to. we're gogal ah you in a part fortunate. or far el paso count. we're going. i. we focus on accountability, performance, value competence. i'll pass this so we get doctors

in to see veterans who need it. we can throw all the money in the world at this problem. if we don't address the kul tour of the v oorks, don't record misducts, those with pr hoover. a good sirs time. >> any steps you see getting past that stirs step? >> i don't. vif been will on the occasion. almost every bill wii worked on in this committee has been passed out unanimously. the chairman, jeff miller, the ranking member mike mashow, and the house veterans affairs committee typically work in tandem. they may have differences butd they resolve them before they bring them to the committee. so the fact we have the chairman

and the ranking member on board and the chairman of the senate committee on board, i think, speaks very well for the ultimate passage of this bill. i predict we'll be able to pass this, move forward to the cook fir first. >> as you said, you also serve on the homeland security committee. we said we would talk about the crisis on the board, but here's a headline from one of the independent papers down by you. congressman veto or i don't recollect i don't recollect, there is no board crisis. >> it's interesting that these children, who are escaping violence, severe insecurity them here in washington and in a. if you look at this problem

ofish on you on you r we had 1.6 million applications on the southern border. last year we had 420,000, just a fraction of what we had 20 years ago, and this year despite the spike in increase in refugees and silent seekers in central america, we probably will not get to 500,000. so this is a very manageable issue. we have laws in place to take care of these kids, tu night them with families, and in some cases to return them to their countries of origin if they don't meet standards for asylum or refugee status. i think we should follow the laws that are in place. we should calmly do what is in the best interests of these refugees who are fleeing very desperate situations, and then i think in a rational, thoughtful way address some of the underlying issues in those countries in central america that have created the conditions to the point that kids and their families make this very

difficult, dangerous and sometimes deadly decision to travel the length of mexico to present themselves for asylum at our border. we are the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world. certainly 90,000 children is not a crisis. you look at syria where you have 3 million refugees in jordan and syria, countries that have a fraction of our wealth and resources. that might constitute a crisis. what we have at the southern border is not a crisis. . is 2 is. >> yes, it is. i like what the president has suggested in his $2.7 billion proposal, such as increasing the capacity and quality of care for these young children from central america, making sure

that as the law demands, we put them in the least restrictive setting or conditions possible. but what i don't like are measures that respond to the border. things like a million dollars for drones at the border, teaming up for addiction at the southern border. i don't think that's necessary at a time that this country is spending $18 billion a year, more than we've ever spent, more than federal -- tamz we have record low crossings in mexico, in our southern border, and el paso, texas, one of the largest bynational communities in the world, right at the border of mexico. el paso, texas is larger than

that. san diego, the second or third safest city in america. we need to reject this idea that there is crisis, that we have a border security issue. we need to respond to issues presented to us. it will not involve borders, it will not involve walls, it will not involve sending the national guard. >> and it will not involve the humane act. this was the bill that was introduced by john corning, republican of texas, and congressman qu -- immigration judges would hear cases of migrant children with several screenings. whachd to require hhs to provide

protective shelter during the protszing, and a few other measures as well. what's your issue with this measure? >> what this measure does is it changes a law that was passed unanimously or near unanimously in 2008. the trafficking victims protect act or the william overforce revitalization act. signed into law by president bush that ensures or seeks to ensure that we do not return children, the children now presenting themselves to be help and shelter. what the humane, quote, in quote, seeks to do to reduce the standard of care for these children. and advocates for the humane,

they say, when it comes to mexican people seeking asylum, we have -- that's what we want to see with central america. we can almost wipe the standard clean by setting this reduced standard. what this means functionally within their, without an attorney, without positive tenlt. decide whether they'll apply for a cmisa and tmisa. so we would rush these kids back into very deadly situations, in communities like sal pedro if.

his history of anticipating refuse u swrees and these are refugees in our home front. we literally knocked on the door and said, i'm fleeing from my wife. we need some help. what should we do? >> we should not send him back in due process, allow them to petition for asylum. in many cases they will suck, in some cases they won't, and they'll be sent back to their countries of origin. >> democrats can call in 212-583-8810. if you're outside the u.s. it's 202-585-3113. john, good morning. >> caller: good morning, sir. how are you doing this morning?

>> good. go ahead, you're on with thomas o'rourke. >> i've been in the va system for 44 years, i see the backlog in the va and treatment down in the houston va hospital. and it's just like the problem that once you get to see these doctors when you have issues. in my case i'm a cancer survivor. we cannot go to clinics once a month and jack up our annual conflict, we have to go through a care provider which in most cases is not our doctor. we have to make a final attempt and i've been told so many times in the last fooi years, let.

a month goes by. and the situate. in a combat zone, half will still fight a war. but the aus over the years, they spent more time on their cell phones, jawing at each other, and they wait an hour, hour and a half, when you go up there, they make you feel like you're a nuisance to them. >> john, thank you for your service to our country, and it's nice to hear a voice from texas up here if washington, d.c. what you're talking about is the issue that i think is going to be the most difficult to resolve and won't be solved with additional resources. we can't pour money at an issue of culture, an issue that

doesn't prize accountability and an issue that doesn't place a premium on excellence. if we do not resolve these cultural issues that john is talking about, if we don't have accountability at the va, if there are not consequences for taking care of the veterans who come in and quickly connecting them with a provider, whether that be a specialty care physician, whether that be a mental health provider, whether that be a doctor or nurse practitioner, or whether that be care in the community, then what have we done? again, i like in this conference repo report, this bill we're about to vote on that there are some measures for accountability, that it will make it easier for the secretary to get rid of top management to stand in the way, that don't help us develop that culture that we're looking for. to add to what john said in el

paso, it is not uncommon for me to hear from veterans who cannot get an appointment at all. i mentioned earlier they call in and are told to call back next year, or who wait months for the appointment and on the day of their appointment are called and told that appointment has been rescheduled for another four weeks forward. or are able to get that appointment, show up and are told they don't have the necessary paperwork, don't have the stress test necessary to continue their care. those are the kind of things we need to resolve. those won't be solved by money. thaet a tough job for a pair of shoes, but it will a take a lot to get it going. >> you are 100% correct. it is not a crisis. i was so happy to hear george will say on fox that it is so

right. they are children. it's immoral, the things that i was hearing from the united states. it's the same thing the irish and the italians and the greeks and the jews went through at the turn of last century. the exact same things are being said. and again, the united states does not lead the world in taking immigrants or refugees. a country like south africa or even pakistan, in terms of the refugee population. and much of the developing world as well.

we have to realize we're where we want to be. i'm an american and older, in my mid-50s, and i hope to retire in latin america. many of us are turning to mexico, uruguay, panama. and we have to get off this thing that we are so exceptional, that everyone wants to be here. >> keith, you made some really good points. we do actually have a great tradition of accepting immigrants, accepting refugees accepting those who are asking for reassignment. you can go back to the europeans and the irish after the potato blight in the 20th century. look at russia, look at miramar, look at iraq. they sent hundreds of refugees to this country. we incorporated them, they became part of our country, and

in many cases were wildly successful. i had a chance to be with former secretary of state madam albright who became secretary of state and had a tremendous career in this country. we can name many immigrants and refugees who have done very well in this country. there is really a positive side to this story, and that is that this country really is, in many ways, founded on silence and refuge refugees. it's part of what made us so strong and so successful. as keith said, when you look at this in confidence with the rest of the world -- i mentioned 300,000 refugees going into turkey and syria in a most powerful view and ability to accept these refugees. in el pass oe, texas while these

there, and so they are being floechbt to he will pats oe, and then ice noifz the local catholic charity, anie nuns yags house, about those two moirts. they provide shelters so these folks can get showers, they can get medical attention, they can get a hot meal, and they can get some of the help they're needing. it hasn't made us any less safe. in fact, i think it's one of the prouder moments that our community has had. that's my message to the rest of the country, especially those who do not blooif. there's nothing to be afraid of and there's everything in this world in this country that we have to be proud of and hon orm,

taking care of those people that -- >> they represent the 16th district of texas here to answer your questions and comments. bill is up next in philadelphia, pennsylvania on our lines of republicans. bill, good morning. >> good morning, gentlemen. >> good morning. >> hi. yeah, i would like to talk to the congressman about -- i'm very glad you guys have come together for the veterans and va hospitals. i just have one suggestion for that. i'm about to enter the system, and i do have a primary care physician, and i would rather see the new hospitals or clinics being built because civilian hospitals are falling apart as it is today are closing down, allow us to continue with my primary care physician and civilian and let them interface with the veterans administration. that would take care of a lot of

the situations where there are no doctors. the other thing i want to talk about is that veterans are also unemployed, and they are not -- they have lost their unemployment benefits and all, and pretty much the argument on both the house of representatives and the senate of the democrats is we didn't pay for it before. that doesn't change the fact that there are people out there who can't pay their bills, that can't buy food, so you need stop talking about it. just because it wasn't done before doesn't mean it can't be done today. >> bill brings up a number of really good points. thanks for the call. thank you for your service, and you're addressing another issue. if we're to use a medical analogy for the veterans health care administration, you know, we've essentially hopefully stopped the bleeding with this

measure. but we haven't addressed the underlying issues, and we also haven't taken this opportunity to think about how we might do a better job of delivering health care. we touched upon one, which is capitalizing on care that's already available within the community, capacity that exists at either private hospitals, public hospitals, clinics, health care providers, behavioral health centers. there is a lot of additional capacity out there at a time when the va is having a very difficult time getting veterans in in a timely fashion to access the care that they need. another idea that's been raised that i think is worth exploring may or may not be a good one ultimately is to think about va health care as a center of excellence for war-related injuries. post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries, prostheti

prosthetics, musculoskeletal injuries. in this idea or concept, you go to the va to have those issues treated, and those become centers of excellence, there's no wait time, you get world class care and attention, and for all other non-combat or service-related injuries, you are referred back out into the community. now, critics have said that breaks down the continuity of care, that you sometimes can't separate issues that would be community based under this model versus va based. i think when you have more than 20 million veterans in this country, more than 9 million within the va system, one of the biggest health care systems in the world, i think it behooves us to use this model, to think of a more receptive way of using this, and i think that's something to look at.

>> diana is on the line. diana, are you with us? we'll move on to bill in palm beach gardens, florida on our line for i understandependents. >> good morning. how are you? >> i'm doing well, thank you. >> kudos to west palm beach and dr. king, if he's out there listening. i just want to write this about it. i think both the democratic chamber of commerce is kind of reading this in a different light than i think is really taking place. i think what people are so upset about, and i think it really is a huge, huge amount of people in america that's very upset, mainly in the way this is being

handled on the border. i agree with you, there are things that can be done and children have to take a look at it. those are kind of young men. they are unaccompanied children. you could be breaking the law down to where it really addresses that main function. in my mind it's a rule of law and the way it's being handled, the immigration laws have not been adhered to for decades. and i think that's where people really have trouble with the whole immigration problem. maybe this is the question i'll leigh you with. if the president gets to use executive action on this and go around congress, that is really what i think upsets america the most. and i would like to know how you

feel if he was to go and use the executive order without going through congress in the appropriate way. >> bill, great question. you know what, i'll be honest with you, i'm conflicted on this one. i like where the president is trying to get to when it comes to immigration, but i don't know that i'm comfortable with the method or means, and i'm really concerned on a number of levels, and not just with this president but many presidents before him as well about the growing power of the executive branch. and the more you work around congress, the less pressure there is on our institution to get the job done. and i don't know that there is a substitute for having the people's representatives come to some kind of common ground and make the necessary changes to our laws or write new ones to address the issues that we see

today. so i can sympathize with the president in terms of his frustration. i'm frustrated, too. i've only been here a little over a year and a half, and it's incredible how little work is done on the significant issues that face us. but i think it's a very dangerous precedent to start stepping around congress to address fundamental issues here and you then have the functional problem of the succeeding president who might overrule this one. bill, you also bring up a great point about the consequences of our inability to enforce laws or change laws to reflect reality in terms of labor demand or our values or family unification, and i think wii ge've got to acknowledge some things republicans have been saying, like the fact many of these

kids, while they may be fleeing violence, are also connecting with families up here. that's part of the draw. i acknowledge that. but i think that's a consequence of having a focus on interdiction and deportation to men and women coming up here to work and returning to their hometowns and villages have been disrupted. now they're locked here because they don't want to risk the return journey. so as their children face threats of violence, or in some cases death or see death around them, it's only natural they're going to flee toward where their parents are. i think we need an immigration policy, ideally one crafted and agreed to by both chambers of congress that address issues of family unification, addresses the fact that we do have a number of people here who are undocumented and should have some earned path to citizenship

or at least residency so they can work here, so they can come out of the shadows and they can be with their families. those are values that i think most americans can understand. and just last point on this, a previous caller brought up the issue of refugees. certainly a lot of kids come here. we predict somewhere around 90,000 before the end of this year, but asylum applications to other countries that are not the united states near central america, so questions like mexico, belize, nicaragua are up over 70%. so it's clear to me these kids want to be anywhere that's not their home country today. some want to come here because it's the united states, because they have family here, and really ultimately, fundamentally, they want to be anywhere that is safer than where they are right now. >> on the issue of housing these undocumented minors that come

here wild and wonderful says on twitter, i reject the notion that we have to build facilities to house these children pending hearings. we own many unused sites. >> as you know, within the current law, within 72 hours, these children are supposed to be transferred from the custody of customs and border protection to the custody of health and human services. and then health and human services is mandated by law to have them in the least restrictive setting possible, which is interpreted to mean that when we can, we unite them with family. immediate family, their parents, more distant family, aunts and uncles or cousins, all of whom are vetted and undergo did i background check before the children are released to them. in that interim when we're locating family, when we're performing that background check, we need to have safe, sanitary and humane conditions for those kids and also the men and women who are tending to

those children from hhs or before that when they're in pvc custody. i don't know that we need the full amount for detention that the president or even the senate is requesting, and i agree there are existing facilities we can use in the short term. let us all remember this. last month we saw an average daily apprehension rate of about 355 minors from central america. this month it's down to about 150. so the numbers are decreasing. most people expect them to continue to decrease for the remainder of this year. so the issue of housing these children, i don't know if it's going to be as urgent a month, two months, three months from now as it was last month. >> charles is in charlotte, north carolina on our line for republicans. charles, good morning. >> good morning. i had a comment and a question. the comment is the reason i think these options of ice on

the border is because billions and billions of drugs and drug money go across the border, and the cartels know that the more trouble they make in el paso, but the drugs coming across end up in. el pass oe is safe but it's got, we have millions of people in america living here. we don't know who they are, what their health condition is, we don't know if they pay taxes, we don't know if they're driving on the wrong way on the interstate killing people. we have people that we don't know. we don't have enough, would you

be in favor of the people who receive atsz answer and moving one pepper off the road for everyo everyone. if you want to take the american off to give him the job, i think i would be in favor. would you be in favor of that? >> no, i would not be in favor of that, but i appreciate you posing a solution and asking a question. let me address two points that you caught up. that is, the safety of el pass oe, texas.

the city is rest of the united states given the fact that in. we don't know as much as we'd like to know about them in terms of diseases, their ability to drive on a two points mooi come together very nicely in el pass oe, texas. i personally i think. we have a great sheriff's departmen department. today we had one of the largest migrant populations of any u.s. city. so your tweer about the can with

met just looking at alley, but i think in some ways because of that. that he see are people who come to our country to get ahead, to make a better life for themselves and for their kids, and they're focused on that. i think that's done a lot to improve the character and quality of life in our community. we don't have public kelt they're committing is what we can expect from immigrants in this country as we have seen for decades upon decades. had people had a c-span program in the late 19th century would be calling in about those crazy.

not. bringing over. that's why every group of mig pomerantz forever. it's helpful to me because the most powerful, and wii got a great opportunity here with these refugees seeking asylum in central america. >> bob is in baldwinville, massachusetts on our line for i understand -- independents. >> hello. how are you guys doing? >> obviously we're far from secure. when you have over 90,000 people walking through and being allowed into the country, it's not it's kind of insulting.

>> how can you say that it secure? >> bob, thanks for the fee. you may be deflating two separate issues. one is security and oert the ots these asylum issues from central america. these kids seek out the men in green. tha that's the men and women in green, our border patrol, or you seek them. we could completely wow the administration, and these kids with going to come and ask for help, and that to me is not a security issue. if we had -- >> a large volume of apprehensions at our subway

border than we might. since then, we've doubled the size of the border patrol from 10,000 to 20,000. we've more than doubled the budget to secure that order to $18 billion a year, northbound crossing temts. . talk to the county commissioners, cal rin, the county judge in el pass oe county. the judge is in one final point on the issue. the border can be seen as a threat, which i understand a lot of people in this country. i tend to see it as an

opportuni opportunity. they want the opportunity to connect the united states in mexico. el pass oe alone, $20 billion a year. you look at texas, about 400,000 jobs depend on ta connection. and look at the united states, fortify, lockdown the border. he was confronted not just for our country, not just for our state but for every state in the union. >> good morning, philip. >> good morpg. >> good morning. >> we've got these people coming in here and they take our kids' jobs. they don't just take the jobs we don't want, they take the jobs

that we do want for our kids. you know, they don't pay much money, but i want to know, what are you all going to do about in the schools when you put all these non-english kids. our people who doechbt know spanish, you happened to get trans, and we don't have to spend so much time on them. y ynd. >>. you' you're. i'll note that it's not a new tichk. i mentioned earlier the hundreds of thousands of refugees we have

expected and dozens of overcountri overcountries. we have some amazing dual language programs, the school my childr children. those kids who come out of those programs are better than one wo only learns one language. let's look at. >> we are in a kun, in many ways, founded on a session on ak went waiting people from other parts of the world. that has made us incredibly strong. you look at the innovators.

so many of them are first or second generation immigrants who successfullial lousz. >> over to oakwood, texas. zs good morning. >> good morning. >> my name i'm a representative a veteran. i spent 12 years, four months and 24 days in the united states air force. i'm also a vietnam rhett can. i was then in korea and who has been in the military and a maybe. my question is claims and benefits. what i was discharged, i was discharged in 1974.

i was discharged out of russell ha hall, part of lackland from a m institution and congressman o'rourke i must tell you i have served my country honorably and i am having trouble receiving my benefits and i would like to know out of the $17 billion my claim, i entered my claim the 10th of -- 17th september 2010. they paid me a severance pay of $17,500. then turned around and made me repay that service pay and took my disability. >> any thoughts. >> thank you for your service. appreciate the question. you hit upon this larger issue

that we've been talking about this morning which is we can spend more money on the va, we can add resources, but if we don't place a premium on performance, excellence and accountability we'll have allowed this crisis we're in to go to waste. you see that on the veterans benefits side of the house teva as well. in waco, texas where claims for el paso veterans are processed we were seeing last year wait times on a first time service connected be disability claim of 470 days on average. some veterans were waiting much longer, perhaps veterans like mr. matthews. so we focused on that. went out the waco. met with the administrator, the director there. talked to the director under the secretary here in washington, d.c. and we're starting to see

some results from that. 470 is dropping down much closer to the va standard that was set of 125 days although we're still not there yet. we still have far too many people like mr. matthews who will call my district office in el paso and tell us they have been waiting months in some cases years and in some cases over a decade to resolve a claim. now, as the va prioritizes these first time claims and tries to meet one of these goals that they set for themselves, a very ambitious goal of 125 days for response on a first time claim, it also includes the pile of appeals because as these claims are denied or perhaps not adjudicated properly, it then forces many veterans to appeal these claims, that appeals pile has grown and there aren't the necessary resources to meet that. so, mr. matthews, i think you've given me a great question to ask the va, which is what, if any,

additional resources do we they'd to speed up first time or appellate service connected disability claims and where are we going to get the accountability on that side of the house. i appreciate your question. something also that we need to be focused on at the veterans affairs committee. >> i'll try to get one or two more calls. pam in ohio on our line for republicans. good morning, pam. >> good morning. i would like to say we would not have these problems, you know, like the va and the health care and also the illegal immigrants if the president did his job at the start. i think it would have been a lot better if the president had started his job -- one thing about the va it has to be redone because of the obamacare. that's where most of the funding will be going.

as far as the children. these children that come across the border they belong to someone else. they are not united states citizens. >> pam, on the va issue i think there's plenty of blame to go around. certainly this administration deserves some of it. but so does congress. this issue of the secret wait list this were kept at regional va facilities and fudging of the numbers and inconsistency and how wait times were reported to headquarters here in d.c. and to congress and to the administration, we've known about that since 2005. the gao and the inspector general within the va have been making these reports on almost an annual basis since then. so this for anyone who has been paying attention cannot come as a complete shock and certainly for those of us lutzening to our

veterans that we represent in our home districts we were hearing stories about not being able to get in despite what the va was telling us and lastly, pam, when it comes to these kids, i would argue that we do have the responsibility both under law and by our conscience to do the right thing by these kids and without going into the details, the u.s. has some culpability in creating the conditions in honduras, in guatemala, in el salvador that have forced these families to make these very difficult decisions. yes the ultimate responsibility resides in those countries, in those communities, within their leadership, but we have not played a completely positive role there over the last few years or decades before that. so appreciate your point. >> appreciate you joining us this morning. come back and chat with us again. >> will do. thanks. on the next washington journal we'll talk about immigration policy with republican representative steve pearce of new mexico.

we'll talk about border issues with representative diana degette as well as the status of the highway spending bill. and cq weekly staff writer paul krawzak will talk about the 1974 budget act. washington journal is live c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the discussion on facebook and twitter. earlier today secretary of state john kerry and ukrainian foreign minister spoke with reporters on the conflict between ukraine and russia. secretary kerry was asked about the ongoing violence between israelis and palestinians. here's more now. a cease-fire under the egyptian formula of no preconditions, cessation of

hostility, negotiations to take place in cairo. that's exactly what we have been talking about, no variation, no deviation. we've been in touched with the egyptians. we honored the egyptian concept. if there's a negotiation it would be in cairo. entirely without preconditions. it would not prejudice israel's ability to defend itself. so there's a little bit of energy being expended here unnecessarily and i do think we'll continue network with our very close friend and ally and i'm not going to worry about personal attacks. i think that president obama has it right. and the international community has it right when we say it's more appropriate to resolve the underlying issues at the negotiating table than to continue a tit for turns -- tat

violence. [ inaudible ] >> that depends entirely on the parties at this point. you know, we're trying to very carefully without, as i said, diminishing israel's legitimate right to defend itself against tunnels and rockets, but to find a way to see if we can spare the people of israel as well as palestinians the possibilities that any moment something going terribly wrong when one of those rockets hits a major school in israel or a major population center, lots of people die, the effort here is to find whether or not -- i can't vouch for it, president obama can't vouch for it -- but we know we owe to it everybody to see if you can find that way. if after you get to a table it

proves that there is absolute reluctance to honor basic defensive needs of israel to deal with the rockets, to deal with the tunnels, to deal with other thing, then at least you know you've made that effort to try to spare lives and to find a legitimate way forward. that's our job. to try to do that. and we think we're doing it in a way that completely reinforces israel's rights. you know, i've spent 29 years in the united states senate and had 100% voting record pro israel. and i will not take a second seat to anybody in my friendship or my devotion to the protection of the state of israel. but i also believe as somebody who has been to war that it's better to try to find a way if you can to solve these problems before you get dragged into something that you can't stop.

and it seems to me that this is a reasonable effort, fully protecting israel's rights, fully protecting israel's interests and president netanyahu himself said to me can you try to get a humanitarian cease-fire for this period of time. and if it worked for his commitment to it obviously the president of the united states and i would not try to make this effort. i either take this commitment at face value or someone is playing a different game here and i hope that's not the fact. coming up on c-span 3 a discussion on judicial independence and politics. then former nba kareem jabbar talks about racism in sports. and president obama's ambassador to russia faces a confirmation hearing. american artifacts on

american history tv. this weekend our visit to the national security archives at george washington university reveals declassified documents about the gulf of tonkin in vietnam. american artifacts, sunday at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern and watch more american history tv next week while congress is in recess american history tv will be in primetime monday through friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern featuring watergate. now women judges talk about some of the challenges of maintaining judicial independence when being subjected to partisan election campaigns. speakers include a judge involved in the 2000 bush v gore decision and an yoi judge who lost her job after ruling on a same sex marriage case. national constitutional center president jeffrey rosen

moderated the event last month in philadelphia. ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us. and welcome to the national constitution center. i'm jeffrey rosen the president of this wonderful institution. the national constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to d disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. to fulfill that goal we have a series of programs we call ourselves america's town hall and we bring together the best voice from all sides of the spectrum to debate the constitutional issues in the center of american life. in the next few weeks we have a series of programs that i hope you'll join us for including on june 20th david boysen and ted olson will discuss their new book on marriage equality. then a debate about the institutionality of restrictions

on campaign finance reform. on june 16th we'll have discussion of the cell phone cases that the supreme court is about to decide and talk about the future of the fourth waemd the two advocates who argued the cell phone cases before the court here at the constitution center. so it's a wonderful series of events coming up and i hope you'll join us both here at the center and online and on our website. i'm especially thrilled ladies and gentlemen to introduce today's program. presented in partnership with the national association of women judges. this is a program near and dear to my heart. we talked about how wonderful it would be to bring together women judges who are defending the idea of nonpartisanship and rule of law to talk about their concrete experiences with judicial elections, with the challenges of merit retention systems and to give you the

people a direct insight into the real threats to judicial independence that are faced by judges today. you'll have an opportunity to hearn more about the national association of women judges and about their inspiring goal. our goal is to be nonpartisan and to encourage votes for judges based on integrity. we recognize mark robinson of the american board of trial advocates who is a partner for today's program. please turn off your cell phones and prepare for a really engaging discussion and now let me introduce our esteemed and extremely impressive panelists. marsha ternus is former chief justice of the iowa supreme court. she practices law in des moines, iowa. she was appointed to the iowa supreme court in 1993 by the

governor. chosen to serve as chief justice in 2006. her term on the court expired on december 31st, 2010 and you'll hear her striking story about the reaction to a decision that she issued in iowa and the consequences that it had in iowa. justice barbara pariente has been a justice of the florida supreme court since 1997 and served as chief justice from 2004 to 2006. she's been involved with several notable cases including the bush v gore case from 2000. the michael shafo case from 2004. some fascinating cases we discussed involving dog snifs and searches and seizures. you have an amazing run and had some extremely sobering reaction tours designates as well. we'll learn about them.

finally i'm absolutely honored to welcome judge anna blackburn-rigsby who is the president of the national association of women judges. she was nominated by president george w. bush to the district of columbia court of appeals. she's a commissioner on the district's access to justice commission and before her appointment she was nominated by president bill clinton to serve as an associate judge on the superior court in the district of columbia. this is quite a remarkable panel and i would like you to join me in welcoming them. [ applause ] judge ternus we'll begin with you. you had an extraordinary experience in iowa. you issued an opinion in iowa in a case of defense of marriage act. tell us about that case and your decision. >> well our court had an appeal from 12 same sex couples, the 12

individuals, same sex couples who had been denied a marriage license in iowa based on iowa's version on the defense against marriage act. they challenged the constitutionality of that statute under the iowa's constitution equal protection clause. our court issued a unanimous decision that the statute did, in fact, violate the equality rights of these individuals. >> describe the reaction to that decision. >> well, the case itself was controversial even before we issued our opinion. there was a lot of social commentary, a lot of public discussion of whether same sex marriage should be allowed or not. and there were demonstrations outside of the judicial branch building when we heard oral arguments on the case so we knew that our decision would be controversial and when we issued the decision, of course, it was very controversial. there were a lot of groups who were opposed to our decision primarily on religious grounds.

>> some of those groups took out tv ads and we have video of some of those ads. >> right. the actual -- i think the opposition reached it's crescendo when three members of our court happened to be on the retention ballot, in other words we were up for retention. voters were asked to vote yes retain these judges, no don't retain these judges in the 2010 election. what you'll see are ads to campaign against our retention. >> let us see the ads. ♪

judges on iowa's supreme court have become political. imposing same sex marriage on iowa. liberal out of control judges ignoring our traditional values and legislating from the bench. imposing their own values on iowa. if they can usurp the will of voters what will they do to

other rights. three of these judges are on the november ballot. send them a message vote no on retention of the supreme court justices. >> judge ternus, i'll ask you in a moment what your reaction is to those ads. what was the effect of those ads. did you keep your seat? >> no. none of us were retained. i'll point out only the second ad actually was on tv. the first video that you saw is, i think about a two minute video that was circulated within the religious community in iowa, which was kind of used as a grassroots structure to oregano vote on the retention ballot. >> and do you think that the ad was responsible for your defeat? >> i'm sure it contributed. you know, i don't know what single action they took resulted in our nonretention.

but public opinion at the time based on polling done by the des moines register showed the majority of iowans opposed same sex marriage. they certainly had a receptive audience in terms of whether people agreed with the decision or not just on social grounds. >> how did you feel when you saw the ad? >> honestly i didn't -- this first ad i never saw until afterwards. i just didn't really want to watch them. i didn't even watch tv during that period of time i'll admit. yeah. >> now, on the one hand the ad is factually correct it says that the court ignored the will of the legislature and the people. but on the other hand, was that an appropriate ad to run on television? >> well, i think citizens can vote for or against a judge for any reason they want including because they disagree with an opinion. that certainly how our democracy works. but i also think that it's important for citizens to know

when they are exercising their vote in that way that there are consequences to voting judges out of office because they have issued an opinion that is contrary to public opinion. >> what are the consequences? >> well, it clearly sends a message to judges that in the future they should hesitate to issue an opinion that may be correct under the law but may be a decision, a result that the law demands and yet is unpopular. they are telling those judges to check the opinion polls on the issue and follow those rather than following the law. that's a very dangerous message to be sending. it was exactly the message intended by those who opposed our retention. they said on their website we intend to send a message across iowa and across the country that judges ignore the will of the people at their peril. and so it was a message of

intimidation and certainly the fact that we western retained, voters bought into that sent a message to judges by citizens, we want you to follow what we think the law ought to be rather than what the law is. >> do you think that message has changed the way judges are deciding cases now? >> i think we're naive to think it doesn't have an impact on judges whether it's consciously thinking gosh if i make this decision i'll make this group mad or big business will come after me. or whether it's just that sub conscious knowledge in the back of the mind they don't realize is there. sure it has an impact but not measurable but judges are human. i don't think as a citizen i'm comfortable with them having to worry about whether they are going to keep their job. it shouldn't be about the judge keeping his or her job. it should be about enforcing the constitutional rights that we

value. >> what was unusual about your case? had there been previous examples where all three judges were voted out bus of an unpopular decision? >> we never had a retention election. i had two prior retention elections. this was my third. it was my first retention election when somebody came into my office the day after the election and asked me how much of the vote did you get? and i had forgotten that i was on the ballot. that's how, how much they were just, you know, they were just not controversial. >> and remind the audience the merit selection of the retention system is a nonpartisan system. you were selected because of your abilities not because of your politics. >> right. the intent of a merit selection which is known as the missouri plan and florida has the same plan is that a nonpartisan commission composed of lay persons and educated persons, licensed attorneys interview

applicants and based on the applicant's professional qualifications, integrity and character choose the three most highly qualified individuals and those names are then sent to an appointing authority in iowa, that's the governor. the governor has 30 days to appoint the person, appoint a new judge from among those three nominees. the intent is to take politics out of the appointment process and then the retention election is a way to involve voters and give them an opportunity to remove judges, you know, mistakes can be made and not with standing the merit based commission system if a judge proves unfit or becomes unfit they can be removed through the retention ballot. >> we'll talk more with all of your colleagues what's changed but what was unusual about this case? was at any time nature of the topic, the marriage equality? was at any time new technology of the internet? why indict happen in iowa? >> well, i think -- i think it happened in iowa because of the

issue and i really think all the money that poured into iowa came in because it was a startling decision in the heartland. it was startling because it was unanimous. and the individuals who opposed same sex marriage felt, you know, we have to stop this now. and the only way we're going to do it is to intimidate other judges in other states so they won't do what the supreme court did and by removing us from office that was the message they intended to send. obviously, you can see from the videos that the internet, youtube, media, all that made it easier for the home sell their message. >> now, many other courts have considered the same sex marriage question since iowa and it's my understanding every court that considered tissue has, in fact, since the supreme court's decision last year ruled in favor of marriage equality. did this campaign successfully intimidate other judges or did they have selection systems that

made them immune to those pressures. >> most of the decisions your referring to are in federal courts where they don't have to worry about whether they will be retained because they have lifetime appointments. >> so there's a different between federal and state judicial independence. >> federal judges do not think there will be retaliation against them for making a decision that's correct under the law yet unpopular. certainly gives them some freedom to make those decisions without having to worry about their own career. and, yes, that's probably a significant difference. >> what is the solution to the experience that you underwent? what is a better system of appointing state court judges and might iowa adopt? >> i think that before one discusses what is the best system for choosing judges or retaining judges, citizens need to ask themselves what kind of court they want. do they want a court that makes

decisions under the law that upholds the rule of law. or do they want a decision or a court that makes decisions based on who is the most popular, who has the most money, who shouts the loudest? and so, once you make that decision, whether you want a court that makes political decisions or makes judicial decisions based on the rule of law then i think you look to a system that minimizes politics getting in. it minimizes the opportunity for politics to get in the system. no system is immune from politics. there's no perfect system that can guard against politics coming into judicial selection and retention. the only way that will stay out is for voters to demand that the

systems remain nonpolitical. >> are voters likely to >> we're trying to educate them on the impact of their votes. the voters in iowa were sending a message to judges we want you to behave like politicians. we want to you test the winds. and go with public opinion. we don't care that it's correct under the law. or another big component of course one iowa was that we violated god's will by ruling the way we did and so the message there is, i guess, i should have checked the bible or checked with my, the priest in my church to ask how i should vote rather than checking the iowa constitution in our long years of case law which, in fact, were consistent with our decision. >> you've warned in fact voters should not turn judges into theologians in robes or

politicians in robes. >> i don't think they should. that's voters choice. they can do that. >> you now have the opportunity to speak and write about the importance of judicial independence. what do you tell voters when you try to persuade them not to turn judgeses into politicians in robes. >> the rule of law is what distinguishes our democracy and from other forms of government. and we have to be willing to uphold the rule of law even when it upholds the rights of others. others whom we may disagree with. if the law doesn't protect everybody, if the law depends on who is standing in front of a judge then we don't have mutual decision-making, we don't have fair and impartial judges and we can't say we're a society governed by the rule of law. >> well said. thank you very much. i think that deserves a round of applause. [ applause ]

>> we'll return to these important questions in a moment but i want to turn to justice pariente. you are no stranger to controversy. as we discussed you decided bush v gore and terry shiavo case but a 2012 case involving an amendment to the affordable care act that your court rejected and got a lot of heat. what was the amendment and what did you hold? >> first of all, i must say that 2010 with what in iowa was a bellwether year and as you all may recall the health care, affordable health care act, obamacare had passed, and a lot of controversy about it. in our state we have the way of amending the state constitution

by legislative initiative or citizen initiative. there was a legislative initiative to put on the ballot an amendment that would have voters say yes or no we are for obamacare or against it. and that's their prerogative. the only issue that the florida supreme court deals with is whether the ballot summary is misleading. and in this case the ballot summary had talked about that if you voted for this amendment which was against obamacare you would eliminate waiting times for doctor visits. that was essentially it. when it came before us, each side -- they both conceded it was misleading but they wanted to us rewrite the ballot summary, the majority five of us said we didn't have that power. the irony was by 2012 a new amendment had been proposed which had already been approved. but what happened was my view is right after the iowa election

and emboldened by that, we had immediate signs that there were three justices that were for merit retention, myself and two of my colleagues and these groups, partisan groups, special interest groups were going to run a campaign to take us out of office. just like justice ternus i had been on the court since 1998. i had gone through two prior merit retention elections, and this would have been -- as a supreme court justice, one as an appellate j-i've bean lawyer -- i'm now 41 years out of gw so although we know each other we're not contemporaries although i would have loved to be. the retention, i know, pennsylvania snois not a retent state. the idea is you're on the what not that you did something

wrong, it's not at that recall. you're just on the ballot every six years and the best we can tell check to see as justice ternus said if the judge has violated ethical standards or integrity or is not hard-working or is being political. it's a chance for the voters. the problem is that there's a low level of knowledge about why the judges are even on the ballot because, again, under our federal system what did the founding fathers do but put life tenure to avoid judges being beholden to the will of the king, the will of those in power. so, our election was not really about a single decision. it was about 16 years of just saying we had ruled in ways that were against the mainstream, against popular opinion and that

type of situation. so we didn't have a hot button issue. but nevertheless we had a very vigorous campaign to oppose the justices. we made a decision different than iowa seeing what happened is that the justices were not going to just let this happen. so, we had ways to organize again judges are very restricted to try to educate the voters on what was at stake. and that continued over really a two year period. >> let's see the ad which as you said raised several issues and then talk about your response. >> this is a compilation of what ran. >> a mixed tape. >> yes. >> let's take a look.

>> we'll try again with the volume. >> one more was a criminal case. >> in a parking lot like this one, a woman 38 years old a victim of two horrendous attacks, justin pariente and peggy coincidence and judge lewis threw out a technicality. they wanted to give this killer another chance. a world without judicial access. [ inaudible ] >> the rule of law still matters and the constitution still means what it has always meant not what some judge thinks it should be. >> imagine a world --

>> have some of the most activist judges in the world. [ inaudible ] >> no more judges playing politics. >> and compromising. [ inaudible ] >> there are dark clouds. >> the court system is the last best hope. >> these justices have opposed patients rights, property rights, education and fair elections. pariente, quince and lewis, tell them to stop judicial activism. ♪ >> health care reform, with a new health care reform law. gave washington more control over our health care and will

cost trillions. most americans 0 points. that's why many states like ohio gave the citizen the right to vote against it not florida. our own supreme court denied ouring right to choose for ourselves. shouldn't our courts protect our right to choose? you be the judge. youbethejudgefl.com and you be the judge. >> what you see and i think this is important for the viewers is you hear some of the same buzz words being used. judicial activism. legislating from the bench. being against property rights. or different rights. the right to vote. and so these are the buzz words that are meant to upset citizens, that somehow courts are acting in their own self-interest and against the

interests of americans, of our citizens. and so that was in the last ad which was paid for by americans for prosperity, which is the koch brothers group and others ran on the internet and that has been a very successful tool, the social media. you asked about what's changed. you know, 16 years ago social media was virtually non-existent. social media is a very powerful tool now to get to constituencies that have that ability to get their message out. >> so describe effect of these ads. ad said people should call you and say they posed judicial activism. how many called you? >> i don't know. we have a pretty good system. we blaernd it after bush v gore we didn't want calls to our offices. we ended up in florida not only having different groups opposing us but by october the republican

party of florida had come out against us, using a decision -- the first decision was called nixon versus florida and it had to do with an issue of rights of constitutional rights to representation but it had been a 2003 decision. we were now in 2012. so what we had was dredging up a case -- we didn't let somebody out of pry son, tissue was they were going to get a new trial. and that was used as if, you know, because this issue of being soft on crime, again is another theme protecting constitutional rights. in the end, and i say the republican party, it would be just as bad if it was the democratic party coming out in a in nonpartisan state for or against judges that was the whole reason in our state that judges became nonpartisan.

but what i believe is what happened is with our ability to organize and get our message out to the citizens, we were overwhelmingly retained. in other words, we were -- our percentages were excellent, i believe, and it was excellent across all party lines that citizens properly informed did not want to transform the court into a power grab for one governor or one side or the other. they recognized separation of powers, checks and balances, everything that the constitutional center wants to emphasize, they appreciate judges have to, cannot be intimidated in making a decision that is right on facts and the law but may be wrong on the political or popularity poll of the day. >> this is the most exciting and inspiring constitutional news i've heard this week. so tell us how precisely were

you able to launch a campaign? >> this is a very difficult thing. we heard a lot about campaign finance and campaign reform. it is a particularly problematic issue for the judiciary because judges are not there to raise money. we're prohibited from raising money. at least in the state of florida and i think in other merit retention states. so committees have to form to assist you. those are going to be lawyers. lawyers that may appear before you. that's why we're so pleased to have the american board of trial advocates which is a bipartisan, nonpartisan organization of lawyers understanding the threat. it's not about being for business, against business, for consumers, against consumers. it's about judges who when everyone comes into the courtroom that they are going to get a judge who will look at the facts, look at the law and not

look at who the litigants are and decide that case. so it was, i believe, a triumph for fair and impartial courts but as judge blackburn-rigsby will tell you, we're seeing this crop up across the country. >> how does it work -- what mechanics dose you do, social media ads about the importance? >> a state like florida where we take a statewide ad to run for a week would cost a million dollars. we didn't have anything close to that. also we were prohibited the three of us, the justices who were being attacked we couldn't do ads together because of our own canon. so we did use effectively going to editorial boards. we did use the social media. we had facebook. i was very upset when my facebook page came up and i didn't get a lot of likes because i found out that actually the social media world

you got to actually drive people to those sites and that costs money. we did have independent groups that did run ads for us but i really don't know the mechanics of it because under campaign laws you can't coordinate with third-party groups. it is the idea of campaigning and i know there are states and have wonderful judges but the idea for judges campaigns it's really contrary to what we're about. just like justice turner said she didn't want to see those ads running against us. it's not like we're in an ivory tower but we want to be insulated from what you see on tv. what the public opinion poll is of the day because public opinion changes. i bet if justice ternus had that decision today the public opinion would be different. you can't make a decision, brown

v board of education would never have been decided if it was based on popular opinion certainly not in the south. >> as we discussed you've been part of the most controversial cases under a state court. has something changed. is the polaringization worse or does your inspiring counter example show it can defend. >> it will take all of us. there are over 300 million americans in florida. we have 16 million floridians. we can't do it alone. what's unique what we're doing judges and former judges speaking out about it because it's one thing for lawyers to speak out. no offense, law professors. >> sorry. i'm on leave right now. sabbatical. >> to understand. i mean i grew up at a time, i believed in the constitution, constitutional rights and to believe that you can make a

decision that was fair based on the constitution protecting not the rights of the majority because you look at james madison he said no, judicial branch exists to protect the rights of the minority, not minorities, but someone who may have unpopular views on speech, flag burning, terribly offensive subject. and so if judges feel they have to put their finger up to the wind to make decisions justice ternus says it has a terribly intimidating effect. right after our election there was a pension case and we ruled the majority ruled that the pension law that had been passed by the legislature was constitutional. that did not make teachers happy or unions. the next thing we see unions say who are those people we'll vote against them next time. so that's not a good thing. so i guess the answer is we got to keep on -- we got to continue

the conversation. and realize that if we want to celebrate the rule of law and what's great about our country, we've got to protect our judges from politics. >> that deserves a round of applause as well. [ applause ] . just one more question before i turn to judge blackburn-rigsby. when we met i saw you in a public panel and you were asked the obvious question that you must be asked. wasn't your court being political in bush v gore and you had a powerful response to that as well. >> yes, i did. what i said was, the message from our court was every vote should count. we weren't dictating a particular result. and that we had many opportunities during the six weeks of litigation to come up with a decision because only 600 votes that separated bush from gore to come up with a decision that would have given the election to gore. how would we come up with it if

we were saying there should be a statewide recount where votes undeniably had not been count where they had intended to be. so we felt the majority of us felt that we were really vindicating the best tradition that every vote counts. so, no, to this day i will defend what our court did as being consistent with the precedent of the court and of the state to make sure that alexandrias are condu s -- el conducted fairly. at that point we were discussing whether the supreme court acted politically or our court. it's really -- it is -- that's what's not good for someone to say we like your decision because we wanted gore. we didn't like your decision we wanted bush. thts n that's not what is at stake.

i would defend what the flow supreme court did in 2000. >> thank you so much for all that. judge blackburn-rigsby you are the president of national association of women judges and thank you first of all for your leadership. it's a wonderful organization. >> thank you. >> a round of applause for that. sure. [ applause ] i think all of us are affected by the crucial service you provide. there have been a series of high-profile attacks on judges. describe some of those attacks. tell us about what's going on in oklahoma, for example? >> well, first i have to say the fact that we're having this discussion here at a national constitution center is so important and that we have so many people here engaged in this conversation with us because one of the issues of concern and one of the reasons why the national association of women judges

cares about this issue so deeply is that the independence of our judiciary, the fact that we have fair open courts that are supposed to dispense justice and ensure access to justice for all is a corner stone of our democracy. and the design was that we would have three independent branches of government that had specific and important functions. and when we begin to overly politicize the judicial branch which traditionally was the branch that was supposed to be one that had the more ability to make decisions based on case by case determinations of the law and the facts, when you blur those lines with the legislative branch where the legislators are elected by popular support of the constituents and they have a constituency to report to, you

begin to blur the roles and the functions. one other example you heard about iowa and florida, recently in the news we heard about oklahoma where their high court voted to stay initially execution there until they could get a little more information about the lethal injection manufacturer because there was some concerns. and there was a public outcry and threats to impeach those justices who voted to stay the execution. the decision was changed or reversed or modified and the execution went forward and many of you heard the stories of the excruciating nature of the particular execution because the lethal injection was flawed in some way. we think about our eighth amendment that we should not have cruel and unusual

punishment. and the manner in which the execution was carried out, i think, meant unfortunately that standard. that's one example. there are examples in other parts of the country. and i think where the national association of women judges comes in, we're an organization of women judges at all levels of the judiciary and we have male judges who are our colleagues who are members, members of the bar but we're in all 50 states. trial, appellate, administrative, military judges, indian tribunal judges. the important thing is i think a lot of people just don't know about the judiciary and what judges do every day. until one of our loved ones, family members, friends has to go into a courthouse and that's a part of the problem. what justice ternus and justice pariente talked about and what judges and lawyers in the community need to do more of is talk like this.

so they inform voters, fair judges project is a civic education program of the national associates of women judges to do just that. we go into communities all across the country and talk about why fair and impartial courts are important to you, not just important to the judge. and judicial independence and independent fair judiciary is not about the judge, it is about the community, it's about the people and about our democracy. and so i collaborated with many organizations like the national constitution center, local civic groups. it's a nonpartisan, nonpolitical effort just to talk about what you should look for in a judge. you know, when you go into a courthouse with your elderly parents and have a will, probate dispute you should expect the judge will look at the facts of your case and not that a judge

has a preconceived notion or agenda about how this kind of case or this kind of litigant should be treated. and sometimes when you have these moneyed influences from outside of the jurisdiction coming in that signal to a judge you don't do this in this way you better watch out, i think that that affects the rule of law and i don't know. i just will share a story as justice pariente and i participated in a global judicial conference involving women judges from all over the world, 500 different countries and i tell you that they in many ways look to our system where the judiciary is fair and independent or conceived of to be that way because there are pressures that come in to bear in other systems and i just hope that americans continue to value

our democracy and the way the judicial branch, the role that we serve. don't mean that judges are above criticism, because there are mechanisms for judges to be reviewed and disciplined if they act in an unethical or illegal way. but to attack a particular decision outside of the court or appellate process i think raises some of the concerns that we talked about here. >> how are these impeachment efforts succeeding. in the federal system there's a precedent dating back to the failed impeach meth of justice chase that you can't impeach federal judges for their opinions but only for criminal or high misconduct. are some state court judges being impeached because of the substance of their decisions. >> i haven't heard actual impeachments being carried out recently. we had the threat in oklahoma.

but you're right. to look at the language in our constitution and we're at the constitution center, there were very limited circumstances under which a federal judge could be impeached for a particular decision. i think certain high crimes and misdeamnors and other extraordinary acts that cut against the moral character, adherence to the law or adherence to the code of judicial conduct. not for deciding this way or that way in a particular case that came before the court. that's why we have appellate rights for parties to appeal decisions that they disagree with. that's why we have a state, a high supreme court to ultimately resolve differences like that. we have a process. i tell you, in the district of columbia we have an extremely busy trial court.

thousands of people walk through the doors of the courthouse every day that look like every one of us. what amazes me and what gives me hope and why i love doing what i do is that they expect that the system will work. everybody is not happy. sometimes no one is happy when they leave but they do expect the system to work and all we have to do is look at the media around the globe in parts of the world that are in extreme conflict where there's no expectation that they can go to a courthouse and get resolution that will be fair and impartial through a process that they have confidence in. and what we're talking about are attacks on the bedrock principles of our democracy that the judicial branch should be fair and impartial and independent. >> in the few minutes we have left i would like all of your ideas about what reforms can take place to ensure judicial

independence. judge blackburn-rigsby, is the national association of women judges focused on the role of money in these campaign? we've heard about funding for these attack ads and the supreme court has upheld restrictions on funding judicial elections to avoid corruption. is that an issue? >> the national association of women judges has taken a broader approach. we view our role as one to educate the community, civic engagement, civic education about the role of judges, the role of the courts and how the process works because -- and there are different ways that judges are selected. some that you hear of here, some are appointed. but whatever way the judges are elected in your local jurisdictions, we need the community to understand that. and to care. and to understand why it matters to each individual person and so our informed voters project, fair judges project, ivpnawj.org

we have a fantastic website with tools. really engaging not written like our judicial decisions. they are written very understandable, common parlance so that high school students, college students, civic groups can go to the website and download materials about what a retention election is. what qualities are important for a judge to be fair, to be educated about the law, to be impartial, to be neutral. and those materials are available to the public. we've partnered with civic groups and bar associations. we have over 25 different partners with us. a grassroots effort to make our courts more open and accessible and understandable so that people understand the true jewel that our judicial system and our tripartide system of government

offers. i used to have civics class and many in the audience may remember in elementary and middle school we had civics class. my sons and boy scouts learn these things. we really have to make people understand why they're important. when you're stand income front of a court with your loved one, no matter what kind of dispute it is, ask yourself, what do you want the judge to be thinking? oh my gosh, what is the paper going to say tomorrow if i do this? or do you want them focused on the facts and the law and really bringing an open and fair mind to the resolution of your case. >> i would say just on the issue of campaign finance, the u.s. supreme court decisions were in the context of the legislative and executive branch. i know that justice o'connor, who is a supporter, great supporter of civics education, has come out saying she's very concerned about the state of

campaign and big money coming into -- the corrupting effect. we must i think look at, and i'd encourage a broader conversation about how judicial races are financed, the role of public financing, and the studies that show certain troubling facts. i think that must be addressed as citizens look at what is happening in their state, they ought to be informed about the process by which judges are selected and see if that process encouraged politics or discourages it. and if it discourages it, then it should remain. they should look at legislative attempts to change the way judges are selected which is happening in many states. our judicial nominating commission is not as nonpartisan as it was 15 years ago. i think that is -- that's a

mistake. so there -- but we can't say, we can't sit here and say, well, if you're from a partisan state where, like in texas, judges are elected still as democrats and republicans, we're not going to say today, well, we think that system is going to encourage politics. i would let the citizens and voters think, well, if you're running as a democrat or republican, doesn't that sound political? so the only thing i would love to do, because i know we started a little late but it's also live stream, if we could show the justice o'connor video, or do we have time for that? >> we certainly will have time. it's a great video. i want to give justice turniss the last word, then we will watch this wonderful video which has been nominated for an emmy. justice turniss, you have lived this you've heard our discussion. we've just talked about three different methods of judicial election. the merit selection and retention, partisan election,

and judge rigby's system of a term of years with nomination -- the advice and consent of the president and senate. does the nomination system matter, and what other reforms would you suggest could help avoid the kind of threats to judicial independentance that you've experienced? >> well, i think the voters, the citizens, have to decide, as i said earlier what kind of court they want and then look at the selection system they have in their state and ask themselves, does this selection process promote the kind of court that i want, or not? but even beyond the kind of system that you have, because any system can be politicized. and i think the systems can be unplit sized. i think citizens today have to do what americans did here in philadelphia, what, 250 years ago? i don't have the math right in front of me. but, you know, we need to understand that we have to have

as much of a commitment to democracy and the rule of law as our founding fathers did or we will lose it. i think the mean message that i would like to convey to you and i hope you would convey to people in the coffee shop and over the thanksgiving dinner table with your relatives is that democracy has to be protected. and we have to commit ourselves to a fair and impartial judiciary or we will lose it. and that is what is happening now. if we don't do something about it. >> each of you is just knocking it out of the park. is this just -- this is really inspiring. and we're about to hear this great video nominated for an emmy featuring our wonderful board member and the leader of civics education and the defense of judicial independence in

america, justice sandra day owe coner. >> as a member of the national association of women judges -- >> forgive me. let's not be proprietary. >> done this in conjunction with our informed voters fair judges project. >> thank you for that, judge. let's watch the video. >> life isn't always fair. but all of us want to be treated with fairness. it seems we were born that way. before we could read or write, we know what fair feels like. >> we know what fair feels like. >> none of us had to be taught how to say, "that's not fair." the first lessons we learn at home and at school are how to be fair. everyone gets a turn, no cutting in line, share what you have. it seems so simple. until you try to do it.

because even though we all want fairness, we don't always agree on what's fair and what isn't. down to its core fairness is treating others the way you want them to treat you. and knowing they will treat you the same ways. it's playing by the rules even when we don't win because the same rules apply to everybody. life may not be fair but the rules we live by must be. ? america, fairness is the foundation of our laws. but you won't find the word fair or fairness anywhere in our constitution or bill of rights. and there's a very good reason why you won't. our founding fathers and mothers were smart. they knew it was impossible to find what's fair and what isn't in every situation. so they created one branch of government devoted to fairness. a third branch of government equal to the others. a branch whose one and only job is to decide what's fair.

it is the judicial branch. it is our nation's courts and judges. judges who don't represent one group or party versus another. judges who don't make decisions based on their personal opinions. impartial judges who apply the law without playing favorites. free from fear, sympathy, oppressiveness, free from influence of special interest groups, free from emotions that fuel our most decisive debates. judges who don't bend the rules. junes who don't bend to pressure. judges who stand for one thing and only one thing, fairness. it isn't flashy work. nobody ever went to a game to watch the referee. but it can't be a fair contest without one. it means making hard but fair calls and not worrying that the crowds could change your mind. because fairness has never been a popularity contest. and doing what's right isn't based on poll numbers. throughout our history, americans looked to the courts for fairness.

today americans still go to court because they trust the judge will handle their case with an even hand. fair and square. they believe that while nobody in america's above the law, all of us are entitled to the same law. guaranteed by fair, impartial judges. in this country our courts are the great levellers and our courts, all men are created equal. idealists believe firmly in our courts. that is no ideal to me, that is a living, working reality. harper lee's words from "to kill a mockingbird," spoken by attic does finch, are true. i have seen that reality. i have worked alongside judges and justices dedicated to defending the integrity of our courts. evenhanded judges committed to doing justice for all.

impartial judges who stand outside of politics and partisanship, free from the influence of special interests for particular groups and causes. because when a judge does what is right, under the law when a judge decides each case strictly on their merits, when a judge gives every case and every person the same treatment, our courts are what they have always been and must always be. fair and free. >> america's courts are fair. help keep them that way. with 18 an informed vote. >> wow. ladies and gentlemen, there are many inspiringom