>> that is it. great information. one thing you mentioned was that when you look at african- american to really see a disconnect. you told me, you have data that says african-americans have half the amount of money saved for a retirement and white americans. >> it really is tragic. we did a survey for over 10 years with charles schwab that looked at this data. over a year or so ago, we did another survey with a number of groups, getting real data for millions of employees and thousands of employers. african-americans have half as much save for retirement from the same income level and simplest level, and -- employment level, and hispanic americans were in the same place. any time i ask the cfo, have you

thought about the participation of your minority employees? every single time, it is, we have not thought about it. we have to communicate to minority employees in more different -- more creative ways because of a huge cultural differences -- because of huge cultural differences in investing. there has to be investment into thinking about materials and outreach to minority employees to get involved in the 401k plan. pensions have disappeared. we need to make the right decisions in the 401k plans. >> where are the gaps? what do we need to know? and i'm talking all groups, all nationalities in america today. and we will talk about the rest of the world. let's talk about our children in america today.

you can choose your age -- eight years old, five years old, 10 years old, 16 years old. whatever it is. what do we need to know? >> i think one of the big issues that we're all facing is the quality of education and what learning people bring to their financial decisions. i start from the proposition that math is kind of scary. the math i learned in the elementary school, you become comfortable with, high school, you become comfortable, college, it gets scary. it becomes increasingly scary. it is not the kind of -- even simple division is something that, you stop, you would like to have a calculated. when you talk about financial products and the decision making process, a product itself is pretty complicated -- the product itself is pretty complicated.

understanding the mathematicians, the annual percentage rate -- the math, the annual percentage rate -- people need simple, easy examples. on the retirement issue, that is something that we worry about at the fed in terms of take-up rates on our 401k. at different income levels, i can imagine that the overall wage compensation may not be as much as people would like in order to save for retirement. when you start saving for retirement. the employer matches very important. it does seem very important that the firm's taken active interest in that for all of their employees and everyone with different income levels. >> we need to know that not participating in that 401k plan

is leading money on the table. >> that is right. -- leaving money on the table. >> that is right. you have to delay consumption, put off expenditures. for some people, especially during the economic downturn, people withheld from that. over a short period of time, be that was the right decision, but you need to get back into it. people are very sticky. if you get somebody in these programs, they are far more likely to stay. if you get them to think about increasing contributions, they are far more likely to do it. >> i am glad you mentioned education. you rarely see a 6-year-old or 10-year-old saying, i want to be an engineer. you do not hear that focus on math as a basic educational tool, which, of course, leads to responsibility about money later on in life. >> i think this is a very vulnerable population, certainly

by age group. middle school, high school, but also by gender. i always say this, every single time, especially for young girls who do not hear it enough to -- how important it is to be good at math if they want to pursue a career in science. even if you do not want a career in financial services, to have that foundation under your belt, whether you want to be in the public sector, run a non-profit, your own business -- whether you just want to be literate in your own personal finances, that foundation is so very important. as parents, educators, government officials, we need to send that message more to our own home, that it is absolutely -- we should not just support it, but anchorage it. -- encourage it. it is a vulnerable age where people are starting to make independent choices. you go off to college and you're

bombarded by college -- by credit card applications. we need to make a concerted effort in this age of instant gratifications and instant celebrity. it is time to stop and retool and rethink how we approach our youth. >> i think this age of instant gratification creates a ton of teachable moments. you do not hear a lot of kids talk about being engineers. you do hear them say, i want a ds. how do you teach them a lesson? the rule of thumb is, money is time and time is money. money is time because, ok, so if i'm going to pay this much for this, how much time does daddy have to work? , will he be home with you -- how much time will he be away from home?

time is money. you can start talking about saving. having more money in the future. finding the teachable moments, given the barrage of things they want to buy -- let convert that into time. >> make a good point. in some cases, it brings me back to the parents. often times, but what we're talking about here does begin at home -- oftentimes, what we're talking about here does begin at home. the parent may not have the tools or information or education about money. how do we also, while setting the tone for kids, get to parents, john? >> one thing we have been trying to do at ariel is to have a newsletter that will be sent home periodically with all of the different financial concepts for teachable moments for

parents to talk with their kids about what is in the newsletter. a couple of times a year, we have a teacher -- speaker come talk to the parents in the evening. our president was on good morning america. is good at talking about these things. she will go in and engage parents on these issues. it is so critical for the parents and teachers to be involved. teachers have not had as much exposure sometimes as they need to. if they are going to be of the talk to the kids about this, we need to find ways to engage them as well as the parents. >> what should be taught in schools? at some point, you have to hope you are getting some lessons at home, but also hope that you're going to have a reinforcement in school. what does the panel think about grade school, high school, and money issues? is it a course that needs to be in the curriculum? is it something else? how do we get to our kids at school?

anybody? >> two points. grade school -- parents can probably learn a lot from their kids these days. schools can educate parents. we need to be creative. it is not just the financial literacy courses or class. we need to find new ways. world bank is putting different entertainment education -- entertainmenterent actor education, new ways to get the kids that might be more effective. >> that is a great point. byron, have you seen the kind of reception you wanted to see? you have those entertainment vehicles out there. for a kid, it cannot be, "go eat

your broccoli." it has to be the kids who want to do it. >> entertainment works. we're exploring with marble and "spider-man -- marvel and "spider-man" and it can be very engaging. >> benjamin budget. >> congratulations to those students. how smart and fabulous were they? [applause] the smart money week winners. charlie, do you want add to how we can reach parents? >> i want to pick up on what ian said. engaging children, students, adults -- this is not just young people who have these problems. it is people who are contemplating retirement. as you get older, things become

-- i wish we remembered everything. memory is better. your ability to do these tough financial calculations, at about best3, that's when you're at that. as you get older, you're not quite as good at that, but you have the benefit of experience. engaging people to think about it -- the teachable moments are so important. what are those teachable moments? that interplay is really important. >> when you're talking about money, often times, we get emotional. this is something that you brought up to me when we were talking. you do not want to get emotional or make important decisions when you have a problem, when you are excited or upset about something else. >> that is one of the tricky part about this education. our theme -- we have a turtle as a logo to remind everyone that patience wins.

slow and steady wins the race. i would love to get young people thinking about investing for the long term. they can watch money compound for eight years, until a great, and get the sense of what the magic of compound interest is all about -- until eighth grade, and get the sense of what the magic of compound interest is all about. the crash of 2008 kind of ruined that for a couple of classes. [laughter] do not let the moment deter you from sticking with your investment program. people do get frightened at exactly the wrong time if they're not trained and taught about the importance of sticking with it for the long run. >> we see that all the time. knee-jerk reactions. i want my stuff yesterday. you make decisions about short- term, rather than thinking, ok, where am i going to be in 20

years? will i need this money next week? will i be better off keeping it where it is with compound interest and getting it in 20 years? >> there are certain superstars who are great at communicating that. i know they're interested in these issues. warren buffett, the greatest investor of all time, constantly reminds us of thinking long- term. we have the greatest capitalist society in the world's history. we overcome our crisis of the moment. the best days for america are still ahead of us. we need those kinds of messages reinforced time and again from readers who know how to communicate effectively -- leaders who know how to communicate effectively. >> how can we take action right now, people listening in the audience -- making sure that they also have the right lessons and they have the right solutions in their heads,

working toward the long term? what should we walk away from this conference with today, ian, in terms of how can i participate in making a difference to this very important topic? >> i would make two comments on that. the first -- and this is true i think for both policymakers and private people -- what is your realm of the influence? a lot of people who make policy do not know how to translate that to their own home. how do you look with that immediate circle to immediately -- who you interact with? the single most important feature globally and domestically is how do we improve savings, create opportunities to save, create resources to save? i think savings is at the core of this. having some asset that you can

control. >> one thing you mentioned earlier, in terms of your list of important things to think about, was consumer protection. rosie brought a very important point. when kids get to high school, they are bombarded by credit card applications -- out of high school, they're bombarded by credit card applications. where does the issue of consumer protection come in? >> charlie can answer that. >> since you brought it up, why don't you start and then he can add? >> this is an important policy issue globally. the financial infrastructure -- you need transparency, information about what you are agreeing to when you sign your name or accept an obligation. how do we make sure that the information is clear to the consumer, that the consumer

knows how to complain, that there is a mechanism in place to take the complaint seriously and act upon it? this is something that is largely going to be a government or public-sector to function, hopefully done in conjunction with the private sector so that the balance is struck right. this is a place where we need public leaders and the federal reserve banks and u.s. treasury to play a leading role. >> there are some areas of financial literacy that government can put guard rails and an infrastructure in place. there are other areas where there will be regulations. there is the consumer protection agency. >> well, we are not the consumer protection agency. >> right. but that is where we are going? but it is important that users understand -- >> it is important that users understand the terms and complexity of the products. the products can offer tremendous value for certain types of individuals, certain

types of purchases, certain types of behavior, but not every behavior, everybody at every point. i certainly agree with ian. throughout the history, savings has always -- it has always come back to, savings is important. putting together a budget. when you are presented with an opportunity -- it is an opportunity to have a credit card, get a loan at a certain interest payments -- have certain terms that you understand, how much consumption you have to defer, although you're having higher consumption today. we need to make sure that financial institutions are careful in how they prepare that, do it in the uniform fashion, so that you can compare across products to pick out what is most appropriate for yourself. >> one good story out of the

financial crisis is the fact that the savings rate is up now. americans are saving more money, no? >> that is complicated. the increase savings comes from writing down consumer debt on credit cards. it has happened, but it is not through higher savings. when i think about current monetary policy, we're not exactly helping provide incentive to everyone on savings, because interest rates are very low at the moment. john probably found it somewhat easier to see his -- the kids get excited about the 4% from 5% from 6% interest rate, seven basis points, what ever they were offered, as compared to what they would get today. it is part of the learning process, i guess. >> another benefit of this

financial literacy commitment is that it will help our democracy. it is sort important for citizens to be financially better it's a they can engage their congressman -- it is so important for citizens to be financially literate so they can engage their congressmen and political leaders. >> that is a good point. the one thing we are learning from this process -- we hear about access to capital. in my opinion, investing, savings, etc., but it is the human capital that is the most important part. you're trying to find that connection, whether it is three or teachers, your financial institution. -- whether it is through your teachers, your financial institution. this needs to be something that is ingrained, part of your dna, something that you take with you from the time you are a youth all the way through your

adulthood decisions. how do we make this -- connect all of these pieces together? >> which is a great insight. make it mean something to us. >> can i jump in here? john and rosie touched on the fact that is important for citizens to understand what is going on. we become better parts of our democratic process when we can hold others accountable. when you go to work and you earn a paycheck, it is also important. part of financial literacy is understanding what the pay check is delivering to you. is is -- is it a wage for the hours you worked, does it include benefits, does it include contributions for retirement? if it does not, your total compensation, if you thought it was supposed to help you toward retirement, you have to do that on your own.

there are some jobs where they offer you something, but there may be less benefits. you have to understand the different options and understand your compensation pick it is critical. it is difficult to think about being tired -- or compensation. it is critical. it is difficult to think about the entire retirement process. >> when you are in the job, you do not necessarily have the wiggle room to call h.r. -to call and understand what your paycheck encompasses. that is a great point. >> i think that is critically important. we're all busy. how do we automate some of these decisions? how do we move beyond this at an individual level and look at what we have learned on literacy and education at the macro level? are there things in the behavioral sciences that we can automate?

that lets you start to make those decisions. >> we have about seven minutes left. as we wrap up, i want to ask the panel to think about one very basic lesson that we all need to know. we can give folks in the audience something they can get their arms around -- this is what i need to be teaching my kids. this is what i need to be talking about at school, in communities. this morning, we had a show where of the were called in and said, do i need -- where a viewer called in and said, do i need a roth ira? i said, i don't know enough. my number one rule is you absolutely have to save. most people do not save money. every time you get paid, whether it is every week, every two weeks, whatever it is, a portion of that check must go to

yourself. every time it is going to be a different amount because we have different expenses from week to week. maybe $25.10 week, maybe $100 week, maybe$25 one $100 the next. people need to start getting the mentality of having a nest egg. as we get older, teens, 20's, the retirement vehicle needs to be started, whether it is 401k or ira. i call it three buckets. one for savings, one for retirement, one for what you want to spend on yourself -- buying a home sunday, sending your child to college. that is my number one rule. if you can give one practical piece of advice for everyone in the audience, that would be very

valuable. >> the number one thing i would emphasize is that we need to go back to our local communities and encourage the local public schools to have really rich financial programs in classes and curriculum. we think that is absolutely critical. i had four years of french in my high school. i think at princeton i had three semesters of french. i think i have been different about three times in the last 30 years. [laughter] >> that is a great analogy. >> i did not have one course that taught me about investing in the stock market. >> so you speak great french? [laughter] >> i have the identical french experience. >> great. >> touching on some of the points we have made about investing in yourself, certainly, young girls -- when it comes to mass -- you have

probably heard about president obama's plan to prepare the future by preparing -- to win the future are preparing 100,000 great math and science teachers. we need to think about budgeting, whether it is 50 cents a week or $100 a month. we need to go through that exercise with our children about what it means to deal with revenue and expense. what does that look like? i never buy gadgets for my kids. they buy their own gadgets. i refuse to do it. whether they say their own money or earned their own money, they need to be able to personalize how to manage their own money. i can never start too soon -- that can never start too soon. >> i agree. i will add on that learning never stops. financial products are going to

innovate continuously. we're going to be offered new opportunities all the time. i think we always have to be thinking about where we can learn about what is best for us in the moment. i think that means that, with partners like everyone here in the room, we need a strong partnership. we need a lot of experimentation. 1000 flowers blooming is very important. we will find the ones that are best and work with that. it is a continuous evolution and we need to stay on top of it. >> i think i will still that line you used earlier -- steal the line you used earlier, "pay yourself first." it has indications for how we invest in our future -- implications for how we invest in our future. >> pay yourself first. we learned a lot today.

thank you everybody -- thank you, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> and now more from the financial literacy summit. this summit is about the level of knowledge that parents and kids have about their finances. the moderator is janet bodnar, head of kipling years personal personal-- kiplinger's finance magazine. this panel is just over one hour. >> in addition to overseeing the magazine, janet has written extensively about a wide range of topics on investing, personal finance, and the economy. she is also a nationally- recognized author and expert in the field of family finance. her latest book is "money smart

women -- everything you need to know to achieve a lifetime of financial security." money smart kids column appears regularly in kiplinger's. she has. regularly on a number of tv shows -- appeared regularly on a number of tv shows. with these sterling credentials, janet, i will turn it over to you. [applause] >> thank you very much. speaking of sterling credentials, we have a panel full of shining credentials. i will introduce them briefly. we will move right into some very interesting questions, some of which grew out of the first panel. others are specialties of these folks up here. others have been submitted to us by members of the audience. we would get right into some nitty gritty personal finance -- will get right into sunday

gritty personal finance of -- some nitty-gritty personal finance stuff. these people all have financial jobs. carrie schwab-pomerantz has a great interest in the financial literacy. richard ketchum is chairman of finra. he has a lot of financial stuff in his purview. here we have ted beck, head of the national endowment for financial education. they have tools available to teachers to teach thousands of kids about the things we have been talking about today. at the end is roland arteaga, also known as artie. his particular interest on the

president obama's advisory council on financial capability is access for consumers who are unbanked or low-income consumers who are not part of the financial system. i want to start with the world of research and how this can klan to our concerns about financial literacy. in conjunction with the president's council, you have been involved with the latter research on financial literacy. tell us what we found out. what do we know about the financial capabilities of children and adults? >> a key part, and ted will talk about the vision and where we're going with the research and evaluation subcommittee of the council, the first thing is to understand what we do not know. and really where the greatest

challenges are and what they are that is what we try to do with the thinner investor education and working with the earlier president's advisory council to put together three discrete surveys are looking into financial accounting capabilities. the first survey was done via telephone and the second was state-by-state to look at differences across the country, and third of was to look at the military with respect to people in the military to get a basic and better understanding of the financial capabilities of adults in the united states. the initial findings are daunting and, i think, valuable as a starting point. a key thing about the capability is to provide the basics for additional research studies to drill in on the information. 49% of those being surveyed said they had difficulty just covering monthly expenses. >> and these are all adults?

>> yes. all adults. 12% said that household expenses over the past year were greater than their income. the 36% said household expenses were about equal to income. fewer than half, fewer than 50% had a rainy day fund that would provide enough savings to provide expenses for three months in the case of sickness, job loss, or other emergencies. 42% said they had tried to figure on how much they needed to save for retirement, and even more terrifying, half of americans over the age of 45 and began the process of figuring out how much they needed in the retirement. a 12% reported they had neither a checking or savings account, the fundamental core of the banking and to create additional set of challenges. we put all this information, not only available, but on www.financialcapability.org for

researchers to really move this forward, to begin the process of drill down and to see where our greatest problems are and how we can think differently about that. >> you are also on the research committee for the president's council on financial capability. would you like to add to anything that rick has said, especially as it regards to younger people. he talked about the younger population, but one of -- the older population, but what about the younger? >> there have been popular trends in research. we are heavily involved in research, and there are a few things that have happened i digger very encouraging for us. the personality of research has changed. i think a couple of the key things are that we're looking very much and behavior. i think, we've come to the conclusion that we will lot of the perfect so we need to understand where people are coming from, so the concept of looking at behavior and behavioral economic summit in a

very positive factor. the second in his application. researchers in to application and testing, the first panel spoke about that. we're not on the coming up with ideas, but testing them out in the community in trying to figure out what we can bring back that applies to a broader part of the community. i think the last thing, and this may be the most important, it is evaluation. many of the research projects, many of the initiatives don not only with the adult population, but very much with the youth population, we feel good about it, but we have not done a very vigorous evaluation of the affected. that is one thing we are very pleased to say that is changing. people are trying to figure out what works and how that can be applied more broadly. >> with the back to that a little bit later. that is actually one of the questions we got from our audience, but i do want to finish up with some of the opening question for the panelists and just to introduce a.

kerry, you were on the partnership and your interest as in the partnerships. you stand in both rounds here. your car the private sector and you're also part of the government capital. how did this two masher. >> if you think about it, in the private sector, and in the public sector, resources are slim. i am a big believer in that we have to be created and we have to be scrapped been with making more changes or more efficient changes in our society. this is particularly financial literacy. this is really where the government can partner with the private sector and the non- profit sector and we can really make changes. as relates to financial literacy, my belief, and i know my colleagues also feel the same way, but there is a plethora of

of the financial curriculum out there. some are absolutely wonderful, but some are not so good. the bottom line is that it is not that we need more curriculum, but we need more distribution channels were we have constituents to have a sense of trust with the organizations that they are working with. for example, at charles schwab, it is a private non-profit relationship that over the last eight years i have overseen a partnership with the boys and girls club, the largest youth agency in the united states, serving of two to 5 million kids. we took schwab the's financial acumen and combined it with their distribution channel and their ability to engage kids and we created an after-school financial education program. we have seen that it absolutely works and we are changing behaviors.

a partnership is critical. we are seeing this with michelle obama's work on child of the city. you can bring all avenues society together to make the change. that is where we can be successful in the government and the private sector working together. >> i could add on that? i think that point is so critical. when example of a great effort of a government-led partnership that the fender of investor education foundation has been involved in is the defense credit union which has been the department of defense effort from the standpoint of a financial readiness. i think is a great example because it is a classic example of when an organization determines something as fundamental to their basic vision and strategy. the defense department recognizing the challenges of young adults coming in often with a range of education defines this as fundamental to the morale from the standpoint of the military. they involve 27 different

organizations in the campaign. from our standpoint, we work closely to get to the point that carey made -- carrie made, that it is all about delivery. it is helpful to have someone like the military who can put the bullets in seats. they are very effective at that. beyond that, the military has another unique advantage of that is somewhat different and that is the chronic problem from the standpoint of underemployment with respect to military spouses because the continual moving challenges of those spouses. we were able to work and train rangeouse's to deliver a of financial capability, materials, and tutoring. it has been enormously successful. that is a real great example of when an organization becomes focused on something and what can be delivered. i no party can speak on this from the defense credit union

council because they have been central. >> if i could add one point to that? rick has been spot on. the defense credit union council is a charter member of the department of defense financial readiness campaign. the success of that has been because of one word -- commitment. the department had a commitment from day one with the troops and their families, not just the soldiers and sailors, but the troops and their families to ensure that a compact of some sort was developed and made between the department and each one of them. throughout their years, they have done a tremendous job since 2003 calling this together with the fantastic partners such as nra, and the other 25. commitment was the key factor to

make sure that this is succeeded. >> rick had alluded to research that had been done among defense and military personnel. what did you identify as some of the problem areas with that particular population? how does that relate to the general population, especially those who have limited access or even to the rest of us in? people even who have access after with financial literacy or we would not be here today, right? >> you are asking me about the defense population and issues there, time was the biggest issue. when you stop and think about it, the soldiers, sailors, and marines did not actually have the time. that is of the primary function in life. he is not there. to teach financial information. there to ensure that our national security is maintained. finding time was a real obstacle, quite honestly, and a barrier that they had to overcome. in 2003, the then undersecretary

of defense for readiness, dr. chu, king met with the social compact, an agreement between the department and every soldier, sailor, and marine to say we did give you that time and we would mandated during basic training. in our general society, especially in the area that a the quite honestly when it comes to the underbanked, time is critical. the biggest issue is trust and convenience. when you look at the military, convenience is always there because they are in a military installation and are confined. the have trusted, that if the partners that work with them on a day-to-day basis such as defense credit unions that are vetted before they are led to of

beyond a military base. -- before they are allowed to be on a military base. i hope as we move forward that we continue to discuss in the unbanked and underbanked world. >> have you been surprised at anything that you have discovered as far as how they do or do not get financial services? >> it was a surprise that something, are tralee. one always assumes that the infrastructure is not in place which is why they did not have access to mainstream financial institutions. i did read a research study that was done for the brookings institute and it actually in mind me a bit and it suggested that there was a credit union branch or a bank branch within 1 mile of 90% of the alternative financial providers in the united states. the infrastructure is there.

you have to dig one level down and try to ascertain what the issue is. that is my suggestion that trust maybe the issue. >> carrie, i wanted to get back to you. you were talking about a partnership arrangement you had with the boys and girls club. when the we heard from the earlier panel is that i think this idea of engagement of the young people, all the people as well, but certainly the young people, how you get them to listen to this or interested in this? entertainment is obviously something that works, but did you use entertainment to engage the kids or were there other things? i think that would be a benefit to the teachers listening and anyone involved in financial literacy education. how do you get to their minds and hearts? >> it is an after-school program and it is a very comprehensive program. a lot of people think is about sports.

it is also about doing your homework, education, leadership building, working in the community. financial literacy, to be honest, the money matters program is the fastest during that they have. i am convinced, and our research shows, that kids want to learn about money. one panelist shows that they think the same thing. kids want to learn. if it is fun. the colleague of the council says that kids do want to learn how to make money legally. there is a little bit of bribery here and there with pizza, but the boys and girls club really knows how to make any kind of program, alive. again, bringing speakers, taking them out, making nine games. we do have scholarships for the top kids in bed that in their lives. -- embed it in their lives.

we have prizes who act out the material. several have stores. entrepreneurialism as part of the curriculum. they're learning how to start a business. it is fun stuff. >> can i just add one thing? we did a research peace with the university of arizona that talks with motivation and how do you make this interesting thing. but we are continuing to study 2000 young adults in college. we look to see what 0 where they were having risky behavior, but we also looked to see those students who were not demonstrating in risky behavior and what the positive influences were that caused that. they were, in order, family where the family spoke about money and it was ok to bring it up at the dinner table and get some idea where many comes from

but how many hours have to work to buy something. first of all, family comes second education, so the basic tools, and the third was having a part-time job. they can equate the work into buying something and how many hours that they have to work and. one thing i would like to encourage, especially for employers, is to find real part- time jobs for high school students because that sinks and in financial education, as much as anything. >> i would just, the boys and girls club hires a lot of their kids and our research shows that schwab that kids to have jobs are much more likely to be higher sabres. there is a correlation between part-time work and saving. if i had my choice, one thing i want them to do is it to save and make it in their dna like brushing your teeth. you just do not even think about it.

>> also i would like to add, and i ride on the subject of children in "to blinkers -- to blinker -- "kiplingers" is how do i get a job to earn money? this is in middle school ages. they want to know how to earn money. they really do not know how to get a job or how to manage or market skills. they think they do not have skills. the idea they could have a resume with extracurricular activities, they did not get that. if you are a guidance counselor or a teacher or a parent, just telling them that they're really do have skills that they can market or suggest to them, if it

is an 11 year-old, that water some things in the neighborhood that you, as an adult, would pay for? would you pay them to take the recycling down every wednesday night? we do pay for someone to water your plants and pick up your newspapers when you go on vacation in the summer? this is where that thing is really important, then transition that into the high school years. if you are an employer, go to your local high school to the guidance counselor there. if you have part-time positions to fill during the summer, you do not even have social media skills, for example, computer programming, that kind of thing. i think there is a way to address, again, the partnerships there. maybe in this case, it would be between schools and employers. that would be my two cents. see this all the time. they do not know how to earn money.

they always want very easy jobs where they can earn $600 in four weeks. think like a kid. i think it is really important when you talk about financial literacy to do that. you were talking about thinking like a kid. some of the programs that offer actually are available to reach literally hundreds of thousands of kids out there, right? >> yes. we offer several programs. there are many organizations doing good work and a lot of them are represented in the audience here. i do not want to do a big club, although i probably will eventually, but there are softly programs out there and there is a common factor in many of them which is the dedicated teacher. there is not a lot of shelf space for financial education in schools. despite that, our program alone reaches over 600,000 kids per year. we are one of many that does very good work. most of that is because the teacher takes initiative.

there are really trying and looking at this to say that these are live skills that their students need. so often, they sneak them in for social sciences. we had a physics and an english teacher come to some of our teacher training programs as they try to figure out how to get financial education into their classrooms. there's a really admirable effort being made, but is not being supported anywhere as much as it should be. in coordinating the effort is, i think, one of the key efforts we can do in our positions to make sure that the teachers are supported. >> a good segue into my next question. what teachers will often tell you is that either they do not feel comfortable dealing with the subject themselves because they do not have a specialty in finance or financial education or that they do not have the time. they have so many other demands on their time in the classroom that, how they fit that into

their day? i am presuming that maybe some of your program should be able to help them in that regard? do you have advice for them? >> we need to take a step back. i will pull out some research here. we funded this research project and the really asks the question about how to prepare for teachers in the middle and high school areas to teach personal finance? this was a study that was done by eight universities around the country that university wisconsin lead. the numbers were disturbing and they confirmed what we hear from teachers a lot, that there one chapter ahead of their students. 64% of the teachers said that they did not feel capable or comfortable teaching their own state standards. less than 20% of felt capable or comfortable in teaching six key subject areas ranging from savings to investing to careers and income. some work needs to be done there. on a positive factor, 89% of the

teachers said they felt was important to have financial education in the schools. i thought that was very interesting to tie into the number that byron gave earlier, 85% of the parents who said this was important. there is clearly the man down there to be incorporated in the school system in some way. be that in the curriculum itself, after school programs, i am kind of an differ on that as long as it is available and emphasized. >> one of the things i find that i like to tell teachers and parents to kind of reassure them is that no matter how little you think you know about money coming always no more than your kids. they will always ask very basic questions. every april, financial literacy month, i always make a point to go to the schools programs under during this with kids to find out what they're doing.

last year went to high school program in the d.c. area. one of the questions that they were asking was what the difference was between a checking account and a savings account. they were not asking how does the federal reserve board can create money or about qe2. it went to the difference between a savings and checking account. even if we can give them basic knowledge, i think that is a step in the right direction. you should go confident that you actually can teach kids and a small steps have incredibly big results. just knowing the fact that a credit card is not money and a loan is something that is important for kids to learn. that is what your research has shown as well. a family discussion, really, makes a big impact, right? >> absolutely. one word you used was a "continuous" which i think is critical. if and they thought if we could get some one and sit them down

for a classic to be good for go. it is inoculations you will know for the rest of your life. it is a continuous progress that starts from allowances to decision to make any retirement. small bits of information, be it at point-of-sale as people are contemplating large transactions, just making sure there's enough information available to them so that it fits into their time schedule is very important. one of the things that we tell parents is the first time your child asks you about money, do not feel that you need to sit them down and give them a two hour lecture. >> exactly. >> like sex education, that will not work. try this in little bits. you may want to do some homework so you're actually telling them good advice. >> and aukland. >> may i make a comment there in terms of financial education? absolutely it is very important. over the past month, i attended

two financial reality fares. i am not sure if you are aware of those, but it put into practice what they teach in the classroom, but i think it is critical. you go through a curriculum, whether it is a credit union for reality program, the smart, whatever the case may be. at the end of the curriculum, you go into this huge auditorium and you have 5, 6, 7, 10 tables set aside and the youngsters that go through that, whether they are middle-aged youngsters or high school youngsters, which was about four weeks ago on capitol hill, there shall receive a piece of paper that gives them their occupation. they decide what they want to do for a living. it puts a salary on there and it is a rude awakening to realize that there are really making $50,000 to as uncle sam takes a piece of that, as is the state. once they have that net income, then they go to reach table -- transportation, lodging, a pet,

entertainment, although loans, they go for all of these tables and the end of the exercise, obviously the key is to come up with a positive balance. if they do not, they give is a financial counselor. last week when i was in new hampshire and i attended the middle-age school at the credit union museum, the head high school students during the financial counseling of eighth graders. it was absolutely successful. they came from the academy of finance there in manchester, new hampshire. they knew that they were doing and i thought it was excellent. >> it has been my observation that anything that has to do with the real world, it just clicks for them. small steps. mortgages. they can figure out how much mortgage payment will be after they pay taxes. they can really learn this. what do you thank, and i think barbara mentioned this earlier,

that there are only a few states that actually require some form of financial education in schools. what do you think how big a difference that would make of this type of education were required to? a corollary question is that if it is not going to be required for server -- for whatever reason, how can individual teachers or schools make a difference? >> i could start? there is another step that needs to happen first. dave reference the core competence rees have been working on with the agencies in washington. first, we need to agree on what we want people to know and then build standards or recommendations around that. then you can start to track whether it is making a difference or not in the education being provided. the first step is to agree with what we want people to know. this is not only students but the entire population.

then you can start to build effective standards and guidelines so that schools can build against something in evaluate against something. it is a very important thing to have this in the schools, but it is a two step process. we are the schools and guidelines on what we want to achieve. >> may be bent to mention the financial literacy or capability challenge which the president's council has sponsored over the last two administrations. it is a 35 question test is administered by teachers and available for kids their home school. i actually took the original test and i have been in the business since 1983. it was a pretty hard test. the average grade was about 50% and we needed a little bit easier so that kids could feel some sense of accomplishment, but what i personally believe

liked about it is that there are so many issues in terms of getting personal finance into the schools. and in seven states haven't been down teachers do not know how to teach it and we do not even teach them after reading right now. we're not even good at that. this challenge in the way is an incentive. it makes it exciting. it is a contest, fun and games. we have had a couple hundred thousand kids go to the program. we have teachers teaching a before school starts. we have one teacher in florida that teaches at 7:30 in the morning and it all the kids cannot take it because there is not enough room. there are other avenues including after-school programs, boys and girls club, that kind of stuff to get to the kids as long as we can and get it in schools. schools would be the most impact fall, but we have so many issues going on. i wanted to mention that for

anyone who happens to be in the world of education. there are all so scholarships for the top winners. it is going on right now for another week? >> april 8th? >> and this is at the high- schoollevel? >> yes. we have these wonderful questions that we got from audience folks in advance of this. they are all very interesting, and some are very provocative. i want to toss this out to the panelists and see what they think. we were just talking on the subject of age. what is the youngest age that the government would be encouraging teaching financial literacy? the challenges for high-school kids, but how early and what does the president's commission think about this? >> i have my own personal opinions -- >> the government i do not think

has made a statement about this, so i will make a statement about the spirit and it is continual process. you start thinking about money when they are four, five, or six with allowances. then it goes throughout your life. decisions around assets are so critical at all income levels. i think it is a continuing process with a different age appropriate pieces at each time. yes we can teach how to do a mortgage to a 16-year-old. they're much more interested in how you buy a car. let's make sure we make it interesting for them. we could make this the brightest object in the world, but we have to be more creative than that. -- we could make this the driest subject in the world, but we have to be more creative than

that. we are talking individually. i think ted's point is really important. and it's important your building 3 route school and beyond. in the financial capability has be a critical decision when the decisions are being made. often critical errors without understanding government versus private student loans and the different factors involved in each and a lack of understanding with respect to career choices and opportunities tied to student loans as to carry on the master's program to the savings issues from of a 401k standpoint. that is one reason we're so pleased to be involved in the partnership side at looking at this and trying to provide clearer guidance on how to

effectively either inspire or create a solid partnership. this only works if there is a support for individuals as they grow throughout their lives. from elementary to high school and the decision to make throughout your professional career. >> does this tie into what you said about trust, that there are financial institutions within a mile of everyone in the country but they do not trust them? >> they have either had a bad experience with them or a language barrier. in the research we have done, we have basically identified that low-income and minorities quite honestly are the under bank in the united states. -- under banked in the united states. the hispanic population is a great percentage of that.

so it is the trust level, how do you bridge the trust level that carries what i call a b.d.r. for the partnership community. i am a member of that. in my dealings with my subcommittee i have come to the realization that partnerships with a non-profits in the low- income neighborhoods are the only way to bridge that trust to be honest with you. we actually have a credit union that went out to southeast washington, opened up a branch there and enlisted the support of 50 non-profit organizations to help bring the community together in wards 7 and 8 so they could at least provide some financial education, understanding of the banking system, and bring them into the credit union movement. thus far they have made many inroads.

they have not reached all the objectives, but you can see that progress is being made. when you talk about trust, you need to look at the partnerships that are out there, because there is no way the government will do it as -- will do it on its own and no way the banking institution can do it on its own. >> what role this technology play? if you are talking about a teachable moment, what role does the internet play on this? do your progress faster into this, and this is something they can go and take 20 questions on what they need to know about line for a mortgage before they do it? is that something you read thinking about? >> the technology side has this huge opportunity for us. last weekat a meeting in washington where we saw a new technology system that was using a system to reward people when they decided not to make an impulse buy.

>> behavioral finance. >> coupling that with education could really make this fund and encouraging and try to make sure it gets to people on a continuous basis. technology is a huge opportunity for us that we are trying to make sure we embed in this. at the emerging technologies. even those that exist today, i sat down with the center for financial service and innovation with partner -- a partner with us in the hill and showcase three of those innovations, and that is what our subcommittee is looking at. we certainly will make technology a part of this answer. when you look at everyone around here, i can probably ask the question who does not own a cell phone? i would suspect one or two would raise their hands.

probably not. everyone here owns a cell phone. you have to look at those technologies, because that will be a factor in addressing this issue. >> here is a potentially controversial question. japan, hong kong, taiwan, and china have strong math scores. guarantying financial literacy in most asian countries. is it possible that america's financial crisis is due to our widespread mass of literacy? -- math illeteracy? >> it raises some interesting points. yth based,f this is mask base and how much is not? >> we looked at underlying

literacy on mouths or the ability to read english. the linkage between poor financial literacy scores and poor understanding of mouth was very strong. the more restraint than the school system, the easier our jobs will be. people are very intimidated by mouth. >> i was going to change the subject for a minute if that is ok. we have been talking a lot about kids, but we have also talked about relevant moments and when to teach. the area that our subcommittee is working on is -- we are looking at a lot of partnerships and the way we can make a big difference. i wanted to share on another point of relevancy. that is a workplace financial education. this is an area that the prior

counsel was working on. our partnership committee is carrying on. we find this is a huge opportunity. if the kids do not lose -- learn in school -- your first job is when it becomes relevant. workplace as a huge distribution channel. it has 155 million people. we talk a lot about trust. our research shows that 70% of employees would like to have financial education given by their employer. another interesting fact is they have historically been a cultural game changer. if you think about it, and that is really what we're talking about, changing the culture, taking on responsibility for ourselves, if you look at the civil rights and diversity and the way we interact with one another in the workplace, gender differences, ethnic differences, those lines blur in

the workplace. hopefully the workplace can also change the culture and the portents of financial literacy. our cancer -- council is right now looking at large partnerships on how to do that, how to engage corporations. i can go on and take the rest of the time, but i will mention one particular one that i think is very interesting is that the new york stock exchange foundation is sponsoring the creation of a financial literacy diagnostic for employees in which going back to using technology basically is devised by a couple of experts in this area, and you answer six questions regarding your financial knowledge and needs, education will pop up. in there is a way for an employer to customize it so that

if you are wanting to buy a home, your employer can say here are some reputable companies that we feel good about the new york stock exchange is run by michelle green who to be the executive director of the council. so she is going to make that available to all the new york stock exchange members, which i think there are thousands puritan i said we are also partnering with the financial agencies as well. i said to you think this diagnostic would be available for the fed? she said i do not see why not. i mentioned elizabeth warren at a dinner, that we were going to engage in education and the treasury and labor and engagement with o.p.m. and

they're all raising their hands. anyway, i just point that out that workplace is a huge opportunity. all of us art in the workplace and can bring it back to the employers. >> obviously the challenges from the standpoint of enhancing math skills and the challenges of building financial capability skills is critical, but as someone who has spent most of his life in the regulatory side, you can deliver lots of disclosure, but if it is not delivered at a time when a person is focused on it, when it is a learning moment, it tends to slide right by. one of the great things of the workplace is your timing things with a person who now has a stake in a variety of way and .sked to make a decisions

if that is a time when there is way greater incentives for information to learn. the other piece is to give up the challenge that exists in the worst place, which is most of us try to make sure and try to emphasize how committed we are and that the day job exhaustless from the standpoint of the amount of time. -- and that the day job hyksexhs us from the standpoint of the amount of time here ye. >> your research shown that yemployees to trust their employer to do this. they actually do want them to do this. >> that is a common theme here. there's so much curriculum but

where are the distribution channels that people trust? an employee trust the employer. in some of us trust our government. [laughter] it depends on who you ask. and so it is the trust factor and distribution channel. it is a big opportunity. i was going to comment on one thing. in we provide 401k's, so we have a lot of research. we found people that have one on one consultations that saved twice as much as those who did not. you ask about technology, and it will be interesting to see how technology compensates for the human interaction come up of human interaction is the number one feature. and i know howe all know the

expert in this area, and she said testimonials is the second most important ways to get people to change behavior just talking about your story can motivate another person. >> testimonials of people who have been through the experience? >> yes. i was not saving and took 401k.age of the swscwab things like that. >> the thing that i went to last april in d.c., this seminar was being given by a gunman in his 20s. he was also telling his own story. -- the thing that i went to last april in d.c., this seminar was ining given by a young man his 20s. he started washing cars on the street, made about $500.

enough to chip in for rent and then started looking for a job. the kids were just open mouth. anybody who is listening in this age group is very interesting. there was one other question i wanted to get to. on the subject of curriculum and teaching kids, one thing i have found is that, and this is kind of sad, but the consumer math class is given in schools are often given to the kids that are at the low was on academic level. -- the lowest academic level. if you are not at that level, you get the consumer mass. it seems to me the consumer math is just as important for the kids. it is interesting that that is the way when schools do have consumer math, they divided like

this. it is not necessarily the best way to go. it is an observation that i had. another question that we got that i thought was rather provocative came in two forms. regulation and education. one question was can regulation and education be designed to complement each other? that was one question. there was another one that was a little more provocative. as we move into an era of dodd- frank, few think it is prudent for our government to continue to move away from the fiscal consumers' choices as well -- rather than promoting fiscal consumer responsibility. that is an interesting way of framing the question period to g.

>> i think the first question is extremely valid. i think it was addressed in the first panel as well. absolutely, there is a coincidence between effective regulation and financial education. as was noted in the first panel by charlie, the range of financial products becoming ever more complex the set of issues from the standpoint of finding effective ways of disclosure more difficult. with that, along with all the challenges in the respect to dealing with serious and committed and well-controlled financial providers is the risk of fraud. you cannot operate on the regulatory side without recognizing how important financial education is. another classic example is we work in a partnership with aarp

looking at the results of some financial studies and delivering a program throughout the country with respect to try to identify key things to look towards for concerns with respect to fraud. with that noting that what the most exposed group is, which is or minorities, it is white males in their 40's and 60's. you cannot really address a range are fraud issues if you are just swinging in and trying to sweep up the bodies at the end. education is a key piece of trying to ensure a populace that is more resistant and willing to ask more questions and recognize if something sounds too good to be true. >> did you want to say

something? >> know. -- no. >> this questioners use that obviously there is a difference in do not necessarily agree that somehow taking away financial choices -- i am not quite sure what she means by that. how about this? people sometimes get world into a false sense of security. if there is a regulation that pertains to appear to reach a particular subject, they think it will not happen to them. exactly. and so i guess that is perhaps what -- >> i think they are probably referring to the classic concern of regulation, which is in balance. if you put too many restrictions and the cost, you will reduce choice. i tend to be a big believer in a combination of disclosure and

oversight while insuring the consumers to have choice. choice has to be in the end of choice across things that are not toxic. there are some products that simply create risk that deserves to raise questions as to whether they should be sold. >> we are just about at the seven minute mark at the end of the presentation. i will take a little cue from marinia. i would like to ask about a tick away from audience. if you want to tell these wonderful people who have come here and are listening in and watching online one thing they should know about financial literacy, what would you say? to dump i said this earlier. i think the worst place -- workplace financial education is a huge opportunity. -- >> i said this earlier.

i work for a financial institution. i think many of us in this room do. the majority of the employees do not understand the basics of personal finance. they are not all brokers. guys gettinge the taken. take of that is a testosterone factor. >> i did not know if that was politically correct. [laughter] >> politically accurate. >> men are more overconfident. i was going to say do not assume your employees and no about budgeting. in fact, we did a study of 20- year old and they all wished their parents taught them about savings and budgeting. so that is an opportunity in all

walks of life, including the workplace. >> we have many people in this room who are professionals in this area. they are not to be preached to, but to me the real challenge in the next days is all about delivery and evaluation. we have a lot of content. we have many incentives for people who care a great deal who will continue to develop very sophisticated content from the standpoint of financial capability in financial education. what we need to do first is to make sure the content and the best of the content gets effectively delivered, and that is were partnerships can happen. partnerships in the schools and partnerships with the government and partnerships with the business side. and the other piece is a valuation. it is equally critical to do the type of forest and needs to be done to regulate. to demand to know what works and what does not work to be able to

drill down and demand the accountability with respect to programs as to what the yield is and what they're actually delivering. if we make progress in those areas, i think we will have gone a long way. >> i agree with all of the points in the first panel, so i will take it a little bit different direction. i asked the same question of the group of college students last summer. i said what is the one thing you learned that has been the most important component of your keeping out of financial trouble? these were students that happen to be at a meeting i was asked. they were not of the class. they have nothing to do with financial education or capability at the moment. one woman said to me that i have repeated, if your child asks you how should they figure out financial issues, she said her

father had told her whenever she was thinking about buying something, sleep on it. then you will decide overnight to whether this is something you really want. she said that kept her out of more financial trouble than anything she has ever had. i do not mean to boil it down to one basic thing, but it is talking to your kids and giving them to stop and think about where this fits into their financial life, because i can tell you i am a little older than the people at the table that day, and i still do that and this has kept me out of some really dumb things. >> in gauge of the parents. i think that is where i am really going with this. -- engage the parents. one of the other arguments we're looking at is the fdic

partnership that was signed in november of last year. it is promoting use financial education, youth access and use savings. we went to the department to discuss the overseas environment and how you they're becoming financially educated, and the feedback received by one of the deputy assistance was and gauge the parents. we have talked about the financial education as school. we have talked about financial education at the workplace, but it all starts at home. it all starts at home. if we do not understand that point, then we're going to fail. because i truly understand, and i recall when my three kids were my wife sat down and gave them the facts of life on earnings, spending, borrowing,

protecting and saving. she did a wonderful job of that. i think if we look at schools as an extension of our homes and looked at the workplace of the final end product of what we've done in our lives, then i think you'll really understand what i am talking about. talk to the kids. kerry is right, or someone said wish my parents have talked to me more about balancing a checkbook. my message to you is do everything you were doing, because you're doing a badly as job -- a fabulous job, but in gauge the parents. >> i would wrap it up by saying have confidence. basic lessons go along way. everyone has been saying pay yourself first as a way of encouraging savings. i would also say have someone do it for you. take it off the top, so it does

not have to burn a hole in your pocket. fund. the 401k that is the only way people can really safe. i would like to thank the panel here. even absent a lot of requirements that states have about teaching financial literacy, there are huge amounts of resources available in the classrooms and partnerships. if you need help, there are plenty of places to get it. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> another thought-provoking discussion. the panel has left as much to sleep on. my appreciation as well to all of our attendees, both in person and on line. your efforts are making a difference in ways that will pay

dividends for generations to come. with that, we conclude this summit, and that is the route. -- that is a wrap. [applause] >> live, tomorrow here on c- span, ben bernanke holds the first federal open market committee news conference on its economic outlook. in the past, they have released a brief statement and did not offer reporters the chance to ask questions. this will be the first of four briefings this year that he is planning to hold to answer questions on the view of the economy. that is tomorrow beginning at 2:50 -- beginning at 2:!5

eastern. -- beginning at 2:15 eastern. >> screaming at c-span.org. the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio come on line, and social media networking sites. find are content any time through the video library. we take c-span on the road. bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way, the c-span networks. now available in more than 1 million homes. >> now from the university of southern california, a look at same-sex marriage in america. you will hear from chad griffin, the political strategist who

helped spearhead the federal lawsuit to overturn proposition a. the event was organized by the jesse institute of politics and took place in los angeles on april 13. it is just under one hour. >> welcome. i am the senior director at jessee m. unruh. i am joined by our representative of the editorial board as a co-moderator for our panel discussion.

i. anderson and the college republicans election is a week from tuesday, so we will eagerly await the results of those elections as well. -- i understand the college republicans election is a week from tuesday, so we will eagerly await the results of those elections as well. some of you juniors and seniors may remember in november 2008, immediately after proposition 8 was passed, we convened a luncheon with the proponents and opponents of the initiative.

here we sit more than two years later, and the debate has shifted from the ballot box to the court room. we will talk a little bit today with our panel about how that debate is progressing, where it is headed, and how it is likely to resolve itself. with that, let me introduce our panelists. sitting to my right is matt clink. he has published more than 30 articles in state and national newspapers and magazines. he is a frequent commentator on local and national broadcast news on various political matters. sitting immediately to his right is adrena hidalgo. m michael milano, and finally way down at the far end of the table is chad griffin. he is the managing partner of a

strategic communications and strategy firm, but also the board president of the american foundation of equal rights, which has been the sponsor of the legal challenge to overturn proposition 8. as we do every week, we will ask the panel was questions first, and then at about 2:30 we will open it up to your discussion. with that, the first question is yours. >> this is more for chad. as someone relatively well informed on the issue, now that proposition 8 has reached the courts, could you give us a quick update on where everything stands? >> next month is the two-year mark from when we filed the case. we had a trial a few months after that that lasted about three weeks. this past august, august 4, we got a historic, sweeping victory

in federal court that proposition 8 is in fact unconstitutional. that led to an appeal by the opponents in our case, and a few months ago we had a hearing before the ninth circuit court of appeals, and before the ninth circuit two issues had to be addressed. the first issue was standing and our case. could the intervening defendants who were attempting to appeal the case actually have standing in several court to be there? because those who lost, the governor and the attorney general, actually agreed with the decision and agreed with the decision and our case and refused to appeal. there for an independent group that have been co-found did lead the appeal. they had to make the case that they have standing to appeal the case. the second hour was about the

merits of the case. a few weeks, if not a month later, the ninth circuit court of appeals certified a question to the california supreme court. we then took a brief diversion and what from federal court to state court. the question that was certified to the california supreme court actually had nothing to do with gay marriage. the question is under california state law, do proponents of ballot measures, meaning those that filed them, have standing in court to appeal when the state refuses? so essentially it's the attorney general and the governor refused to appeal a decision that was against them, can an individual or small group of individuals act as the attorney general or act as the governor and appeal? the california supreme court said what they called an

extradited schedules and we will have those oral arguments in september. then they will send their answer back to the ninth circuit court of appeals. it is our belief that very quickly the ninth circuit, as they did in the first round, will move this case quite quickly. >> adrena, you have thoughts on not only the legal ramifications, that is the case on who has standing to act on behalf of the proponents of proposition 8 in this case, if anyone. you have given thought not only to the legal ramifications, but the political ramifications as well. what does this mean politically? >> this is a very important case politically.

if the california supreme court rules that they do have a portrait of -- authoritative entitlement, it means that the ninth circuit can address it, and they can either uphold the district court decision for the can overturn it. if it is upheld, that is huge. it takes the same-sex marriage out of the state level and into a multi-state level. the ninth circuit is responsible for multiple states, including arizona, which is a very conservative state. it will be very interesting to see how it plays out in court. if it is tonight in there is no authoritative entitlement, the ninth circuit says they cannot look at it because there is no standing. while that would be as small- it is ultimately --

it could have negative ramifications politically, because that pretty much means that if the attorney general and the governor decide they do not one to defend the proposition that the people of california have voted for but they functionally have a secondary bidault, up in the idea is to be the case is something that is negative towards democratic systems in california. those are the ramifications even though the end could be the same, the means for which they are obtained could cause negative ramifications. you see this partially taken place at the federal level. although it is different because one is passed by the legislature and the other one is passed by california people, the idea of standing while not being offended -- defended by the

people that are elected is something that will come into question. >> you raise a couple of interesting points. i want to come back to those discussions in the minutes. i know you want to broaden out the discussion of little bit before we come back. >> i want to reach out to anyone that wants to wait in on this about the various implications of tackling this issue at a state level versus the federal level. how you feel that has been handled? -- how do you feel that has been handled? >> i think this is ultimately a decision that needs to be decided at the national or federal level. clearly california has been a trend setter in this issue. unfortunately the issue is buddy at best.

until its winds its way through the court, it will not be solved in any short amount of time. -- unfortunately the issue is muddy at best. there are reports i have read about saying that everything is going well with do not ask do not tell. some of the proponents of this appeal are not bearing fruit. similarly with d.o.m.a. it is not the president's job to determine constitutionality. to say you will not in for something -- it may work for people who believe everyone should be allowed to marry, but subtract the issue and put in something that you find equally troubling -- the flip side could have negative ramifications as

well. ultimately, just to shorten my answer, this is a policy. we need a national policy that same-sex chapelcouple should be allowed to marry just as men and women. there should be no difference. it is more of a legal, financial issue. i think it should be resolved as quickly as possible. >> i want to come to you on this in just a minute, but i want to bring michael milano into this conversation first. michael, before we get too far down the road in the state versus local discussion, i know you have other thoughts on where this broader debate is headed. >> the broader debate is on going obviously, but it is not a question of if any more as a matter of when and how. as you get younger and younger, the support for same-sex

marriage becomes greater and greater. it just past the majority when surveyed nationwide along all voters. it is really a question of do the no on 8 proponents want to stay with the court ave. or push for a national legislation or any other law or if they would rather wait for the state of california to do a ballot initiative? it is more a question of the tactics and the timing rather than the actual issue. the issue is rather inevitable. >> chad, if that is the case, and certainly there is public opinion polling that suggest that young voters are much more likely to be supportive of same- sex marriage and older voters -- than older voters, maybe you can talk to those various venues. >> first of all, i think it is a

born to put the human face on this. there are real life consequences every single day when a group of people are specifically and intentionally discriminated against in our laws. gay and lesbian people are directly discriminated against in our federal and state laws, and the message that sends and the license that gives to discriminate leads to the horrific consequences we see across this country. whether it is teenage suicide, or the incident in southern california, the murder of lawrence king simply because he was gay. time matters. there should be a sense of urgency to gaining full and complete equality for all people. i think it is important to make progress at the state level, as well as the federal level. at the same time, i do not think we should let our guard down on any front, because there is an

opposition, and they are trying to make progress every day just as we are, and we need to fight this on all fronts and be on the offensive. however, i think it is important to note that i fundamentally believe that an initiative is the wrong approach. it is playing on the playing field of our opposition. it is a place that one's fundamental rights, particularly the rights of a minority, should never be put up to the votes of the people. in 1967 with the court decided it was unconstitutional to bar african americans from varying caucasians, a gallup poll was done the following year that said 74 percent of americans disapproved of interracial marriage. i do not think public opinion or who has the best fund raising or television advertisements should determine fundamental rights. should your students' freedom of speech be put up to a vote? if you have $1 million, we can

put that on the ballot. there are certain fundamental rights that should never be put up by a vote of the people. i do not believe this is an issue that should be determined by public ballot measures. it should be determined by the courts and legislatures. >> just to hone in on that last point, because i think it is an important one that broadens the discussion to a much larger level, if the opponents of proposition 8 were begin to collect signatures for an initiative to codify same-sex marriage in this constitution, you would not be comfortable with that approach either? >> i do not believe there should be a public vote on one 's fundamental rights on any subject. i am someone who works in the ballot initiative world.

there are lots of things i think are appropriate to be voted on by the people, but the fundamental rights of the minority are to be determined by a court. we do not determine the rights of any minority by a popular vote of the people. that is counter to the principles upon which this country was founded on, and i believe it is a mistake to take this back to the ballot here for quite frankly, in any state. >> that brings up are really good point. you also think about the resources that gets expended on the ballot initiatives. $40 million was spent. that is a lot of money, especially for a ballot proposition on a social issue. with that money be better spent towards litigation, which is where i feel it needs to be decided or take a risk with the ballot initiative process in the state of california, which can

get really volatile, especially the advertisements that were run, the amount of money that was spent on it, and you are leaving it up to the california people to decide when it should be with the courts. that said, it is going to be a system that is upheld by our state and supported by our state, that it should receive the full support of the government. that is why we have the courts. that is why it will be interesting to see in august when the california supreme court makes their decision. like i said, if the ninth circuit takes it in strikes it down, -- takes it and upholds the district court decision, that will be a much bigger win in the end then another california proposition. >> maybe you could approach the topic of the cultural implication of defining marriage.

>> cultural implications is an interesting -- can you brought in the question just a little bit? >> yes -- >> may be here is another way to look at it. at the same time the debate is taking place in california there has been an ongoing discussion in washington over don't ask, don't tell. so if we step away from one particular policy debate, -- >> i think -- i will quote part mechanic who work for george w. bush and john mccain when he said the wage has lost its edge. i think at various times over the last decade we have seen

wedge issues like same-sex marriage issue being put on the ballot or being raised legislatively by one side or the other because they perceive the they could achieve either some legislative victory or to motivate a certain group. let's not forget that the defense of the marriage act was signed into law by president bill clinton. -- let's not forget the defensive marriage act was signed into law by president bill clinton. even look at president obama who in 2008 came out in support of proposition 8 and now has changed his position to say his position is devolving. i think if what we've said on this panel is any indication, as the young people in america age, they are more receptive to and willing to be tolerant of same-sex couples marry him. i think what barack obama is

doing for a purely political, and also truly does believe it, he is loosening up his grip on this issue, because he sees the population moving on it. you also look from a republican perspective. john boehner said he would look into taking over the legal side of the defense of marriage act. fiscal issues are running the day right now. the last thing republicans want to do is getting involved in a heavy social issue to split people down the middle. i think we're winning the date on fiscal issues and tax cuts first is growing governments. i do not think we want to get involved in those issues, which i think is ultimately a good thing for gay and lesbians to be able to get the rights that they deserved. it is all wrapped around into politics. california was at the forefront, but there are two active federal

issues. do not ask, do not tell is for all of the screaming and crying, it is turning out to be nothing but a little whimper because even the commander of the marine corps has said the training schedule is going well and not that big of a deal for the troops. >> a question for michael, and perhaps chad as well. this is not an issue that breaks down not only on partisan grounds, but even to a greater degree on demographic grounds, not only on age differences and different racial and ethnic communities. maybe one or both of you can talk a little bit about those demographic challenges for building a coalition? >> as i said in my opening statement, the number you go in terms of voting ages, the greater support there is for gay marriage.

so as the 18 to 35 voting block becomes a larger portion of the voting electorate, it will be elect -- it will be shown in the elected officials. there is also a recognition that there is not some quality that gay men and women lack to be a soldier, to be a good spouse. there is also a very big indicator that on your support of gay marriage if you have any gay friends. that tends to be a good indicator on what your response will be on support of those issues. >> i would add to that. this issue has, for to italy over the past year, up become incredibly bipartisan. when we launched our case, the lead attorneys are ted olson who represented president bush in

the bush vs. gore and al gore, and if those gentlemen can agree on these issues, so can the rest of america. president obama has indicated movement on this issue. he actually did come out against proposition 8. it was not widely known, and perhaps more should have been done to let the public know that some of but i do think there is no question that this issue has become -- it is no longer bipartisan. it is actually non-partisan. those who i would call the extremes on the other side who spend their lives trying to stop gay marriage are a dwindling minority. just this week we saw a team member from the national organization of marriage leave that issue and say that they had felt guilty and realized they were taken the wrong position on this issue. i will let you in on a little

secret. whether you know it or not, every single one of us has someone in our family, in our friends circle, a church, neighbor, that is gay or lesbian. the more and more of those people that come out over time, the more likely that people are regardless of their political religious affiliation. there was a major national poll that came out last week that showed those who identified as a religious individuals have crossed over now in their support of gay marriage. it showed a majority of catholics now support the freedom to marry. show we have made tremendous progress in this country -- so we have made tremendous progress in this country in making this a non-partisan issue. the judge that found doma unconstitutional, was a judge

that was founded by president nixon -- was first appointed by president nixon. there have obviously been democratic judges in the other cases, but it really is becoming bipartisan, not only in terms of voters, but as well as state legislatures and some of the bubble elected officials, although some of them we would like to move more quickly than they are currently moving in both parties. >> i would like to make one more point. i am not sure it will go away as a wedge issue. it will certainly come up and be more vocal in terms of the republican jockeying for the presidential election. some of the evangelicals and in iowa and other states. >> in just a moment we will open the floor to questions.

before we do, i would like to ask adrenna and michael had to see it playing out on the presidential election stage? >> michele bauchman has already been speaking out. you already see it coming up here again do i think it will be something that influences the general too much? no, off because the focus is the economy and the budget and getting things done, but also this is currently affecting obama now. the reason he came out against doma was because he faced a lot of pressure from his own party. within his own party there are people that want things to get done, and there are others that may not. it is the in between. not pushing legislation, which cannot do because republicans

control the house. he has to get something done because you risk alienating the part of the party. >> the party i think will be more forgiving of the president than that. it will certainly play out in the republican primaries. the primary -- it will not be as big of a factor in the general, but the primary voters will have to be talked to in a certain way by the ones who want to actually want to win -- when the nomination. the it will be a delicate balance. >> let me ask you this before we open it up to questions from our students. in addition to the primary ramifications that were talked about, there actually may be some impact for these issues and

the general election. in other words, a democratic president who is proposing a very broad deficit reduction plan who is overseeing military engagement in libya might benefit to some degree by having an issue like this, not as a persuasive mechanism, but as a motivational mechanism for which to rally his party's with loyal troops who may be concerned about a move to the center on other issues. is that fair? >> there is no question there is polling that shows there is republican polling that shows young voters. those of you in this room and the millions like you across the country, regardless of your partisan affiliation, religious affiliation or the regional country you live in, you find it ridiculous in preposterous that this is an issue we're talking about in this country.

i think it can be perhaps by some to motivate the vote to get out and vote on this issue. perhaps in some of those republican races and regional races, it could cause some young voters to stay home or to vote the other way. polling shows more democrats support this issue than republicans, but it is changing very quickly. amongst the youth vote, it is quickly becoming an equal number. i do think it could take that social issue off the table and benefit the party that was willing to take a stand. >> george will has written that her daughter -- his daughter and her friends on this issue to be an interesting -- find this issue to be aninteresting --

uninteresting. >> the reality is, where this plays into their own grander political role -- the grander political -- the general boating audience -- voting audience will look at how far to the right any republican candidate it's pushed, -- get pushed -- gets pushed. if you look at where the electoral votes moved from 2000 to 2010, there were some pretty conservative states in that mix. it could have some impact. i'm willing to bet -- and every poll that i have seen, what the california, arizona, or national -- fiscal issues are top of the heap.

tax policy, spending, the debt. the war is far behind. social issues and environmental issues are way down the list. it is clearly an important issue and one that i think needs to get resolved. it is ultimately going to get resolved in the courts. it will not be the alone deciding factor or even a major influencing factor -- be the lone deciding factor or even a major influencing factor in the 2012 election. >> we want to open up to questions. we will have to reminders first, -- we will have two reminders. remember to identify yourself. as a reminder, if you're posing

a question to someone who you may disagree with, we remind you that they may be your opponent on this issue, but not your enemy. we ask that you treat them with the same level of respect that you would hope they showed you. because of our circumstances, we will ask that you wait for the microphone before you speak. with that, who has questions for our panelists? >> hi, my name is melanie. i am a junior here at sc. last night, we watched "12 angry men." the decision was initially based on prejudice or ignorance of his circumstance. i am wondering what you all

might feel about gay marriage. do you think people are opposed to it because of how they feel about the constitution of marriage itself, or because they might be ignorant or prejudiced against gays and lesbians? >> it is a great question. did you see the original or the remake of "clothing reman -- of "12 angry men"? i think melanie has asked a great question. the point you have made about demographics, as it relates to age, is important. that said, there are people who disagree with the idea that people of the same gender ought to marry. they have come to that decision for reasons based in their own religious faith or morality. you might as agree with those

individuals were coming to that conclusion -- you might disagree with those individuals for coming to that conclusion. how do you approach someone who has written and thought about it and come to that conclusion for a different reason? >> we have to respect our fellow citizens. on this issue, we have seen drastic movement, including from those who disagreed. those people moved their support for marriage equality because someone talked to them. they heard a message that resonated. more times than not, that message was a personal story, someone in their family, in their church, a neighbor, a brother, sister, daughter, son. what you quickly find out, once you peel away all of the political rhetoric that we often hear, you realize that we're all

human beings, going bank the way we are -- born the way we are. to treat someone unequally because of the way he or she is born is not something we do in this country and it is not something that religion teaches us to do. research shows that when those people who are either undecided or perhaps on the other side are reached and talk to in a convincing way, they will often times move their support to marriage equality. it was mentioned earlier that there are now three national polls in the last year that show that a majority of americans support gay marriage. it is now a minority of americans who oppose gay marriage. it is our job to further those

numbers and to tell those personal stories and to show the consequences of any quality -- of inequality. we need to be more aggressive and do it more quickly. >> what i hear you saying, just to simplify, is is it is not so much a lack of intelligence, but a lack of exposure in terms of personal circumstance, and popular culture. maybe you can talk about that. we will correlate the "will -- call it the "will & grace- ification." [laughter] >> there is a certain part of

the population that is bigoted. it is not on this issue. there are certain people that, if you're giving away gold, they hate goal. they want silver. it is a gross oversimplification. that is the way it is. a large part of the initial opposition to same-sex marriage was borne out of fear or being uncomfortable. from a communications perspective, where political campaigns have been effective is where they humanize the issue, putting it to the person next door or someone in your church. as you see over time, the taboos of being gay or lesbian in the african-american or latino communities -- as those barriers get broken down, again, it is all through humanization and communication of the issues. it is not an in-your-face, you have to take it, swallow this

bitter pill. it does not mean the ones who screen the loudest -- scream the loudest get the most ink. it is not want to be chaos when this happens. it is going to happen. >> for those of you from outside california, in this state, we call the alternative that "knew some -- the "newsom approach." we will come back to that later. i know you have more questions. >> i'm a sophomore majoring in broadcast journalism and political science. i have a question on the court side of it. let's say the supreme court does ruled that they have standing and takes the hearing for the -- does rule that they have

standing and takes the hearing for this. let's say overturn the ruling. i would not affect the timeline and argument for same-sex marriage -- how would that affect the timing and argument for same-sex marriage? >> it would set it back within the legal realm. there are other federal cases -- other cases going on across the country, like in new york. i think it would set it back for california. it may not set back the national debate as much as people think. if there is a win in that case, it would be a huge gain. i think it is less a risk and more of a gain. >> i know other panelists want to weigh in, but we have a lot of other questions. we will keep moving forward. >> i am a political scientist major, sophomore.

you mentioned earlier that gay marriage is potentially -- has potential financial implications. it is not clear to me that is the case. where are the arguments that people are going to use in court -- what are the arguments that people are going to use in court? >> i am not a lawyer. i do not give legal or accounting and rice. i wrote an article before prop. 8 was even put on the ballot about the economics of gay marriage. it is as true then as now. i never stated my preference for or against a ballot major on the subject -- ballot measure on the subject, but there are a number of economic studies that show gay marriage would be an economic boon for california in terms of the fees you pay to get the marriage license, the celebrations -- that is one economic argument. the other is a lot deeper.

it goes to the actual economics of family. same-sex couples, in many respects, are not allowed to do some of the things that are just normal. it deals with money, taxes, insurance, retirement. all of the things of being able to assign social security benefits over to a spouse -- you cannot do that now. visitation rights, adoption rights. there are a lot -- it is much deeper than simply saying someone should be able to say i do and get married. there is a litany of ramifications that go along with this. if you do not look at the issue on a deeper level -- if you have a life partner and you're with someone, you should be able to do all of those things. it does not matter if you're a two man or a man and woman. there are financial costs -- you are two men or a man and woman. there are financial costs.

if the state wants to be cynical -- if eight people get divorced at the same rate that street people get divorced -- it gay people -- if gay people get divorced at the same rate as straight people, that could be a lot of money as well. >> there has been discussion over whether or not judge walker should have recused himself from the hearing on prop. 8, because he is, in fact, gay. what are your opinions on that? >> the idea of a refusal would not have stemmed from him actually being -- recusal would not have stemmed from him actually being gay. is about the 10-year long relationship he has within -- it is about the 10-year-long relationship he has with another man and whether or not that would cause a conflict. the main issue is that there was

no disclosure during the trial. it was not until after he retired that he announced that, yes, he was gay and was in a relationship with this man for over 10 years. the only relationship -- reason that would cause, but is the only reason that this would be accomplished is because he might have wanted to get married. .t is not because he is agay it is more about the long-term relationship and that he had something to gain, potentially. it may not have been that was how he felt. if there is a reasonable argument for him to have some sort of conflict, then there should have been some sort of disclosure. nothing is really going to come out of it. the only way it could is if the attorneys general -- attorney general filed the motion.

that probably will not happen because they are not supporting the litigation as is. it will not cause anything, but that is the controversy. >> i think something else is important to note. those who end up with an outcome that was not what they wanted tend to attack wherever they can. in this case, some, not our direct opponents, but some who are affiliated with them chose to attack. it is a slippery slope. we could do a whole session on refusal -- recusal. should thurgood marshall have recused himself from cases involving african-americans? should ruth bader ginsburg have recused herself from every case involving women?

should the catholic judges recused themselves on issues coming before the court relating to catholicism? this is an issue that most legal scholars with any credibility on both sides of the aisle do not believe that judges in a case such as this or the others that i mentioned should recuse themselves. >> we will explore panel on that for the fall semester. next question. >> i am a senior studying political science. regardless of the california supreme court ninth circuit court of appeals decision, there are many who believe this case, at least the issue, will eventually reach the supreme court. if the supreme court remains as it is, the swing vote will go to

justice kennedy. i am wondering if any of you have any opinions on where he will fall on this issue. >> thoughts on potential outcomes for the case in the u.s. supreme court -- i know that you and justice kennedy go on camping trips together. >> we have one coming up. [laughter] whatever the decision comes down to, justice kennedy will be writing it, probably. he is a wildcard. i do not know how he will come down, actually. he could go either way. i really do not know. >> we have a federal case pending in court, so i will not comment on any pretend -- on any justice. the attorney in in our case has often said he will bring the five votes -- the attorney in our case has often said he will bring the five votes he got in

the other case and the other four from another to get to a 9-0 decision. >> i do not see it as being 5-4. >> as someone who recently decided not to go to law school? [laughter] n next questio -- next question. >> i want to take that hypothetical and flip it a little bit. if the ninth ifends up a ferment -- if the ninth circuit ends up affirming the decision, are we looking at a situation where there has to be a quick national or is it-- end game, possible we could see several states that have legalized same- sex marriage and still states

where it is not? >> >you'll probably see a bigger discussion on doma, if that happens. many states fall under the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit. that would probably speed up that discussion. since we'll be coming into 2012, i do not know how many people in washington will want to have that discussion, but it will certainly expedite the discussion. >> it causes a logistical nightmare for congress. is no national policy. -- and there is no national policy. there have to be discussion if doma no longer exists. questions about social security entitlements will have to come into play and be addressed. the problem is that doma still

exists. it is just not being enforced. try to tackle that -- trying to tackle that means it needs to be handled by national policy. >> but handled quickly is anyone's guess. >> i am the brother of a lesbian sister. i did vote yes on prop. 8 because i felt, in my opinion, california and america was not ready for notin 2008 -- for same-sex marriage in 2008. once don't ask, don't tell was lifted, i felt like the momentum was there for this kind of vote. i'm concerned about is getting legalized isa vote. -- getting legalized without a vote. are you concerned that it would be legalized without a public

vote or some sort of court? >> no. first of all, i believe in the courts for an issue such as this, as well as state legislatures. new york, for instance, is moving quite quickly. the principles on which this country was founded do not support a public vote to determine the rights of minorities. should we let a public vote determine a woman's right to vote? should we let a public vote determined press's freedom of speech. should we let a public vote determine whether an african- american can marry a caucasian? public opinion, in many of those cases, was very much the other way when those were decided. it is my personal, not professional, view that that is not the way to go. the logistical issue is that it is also not permanent.

suppose you took this to the ballot. the other side could come back the next day and spend millions of dollars and you would be doing the same thing again. i believe this does need to be decided by the courts and our federal government once and for all. >> just to clarify, do you have a preference for judicial bursa's legislative -- versus legislative venue? >> i think the battle has to be fought on both avenues, court battles as well as legislative. i see this as something that has a true sense of urgency. we have to win it as quickly as possible. therefore, i support as aggressive and action as can be taken on the court, federal, state level, as well as legislative. >> it will be interesting to

see, if it does make its way to the supreme court, whether or not the supreme court will change where it classifies people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. currently, it is a rational basis standard, which is the lowest level of scrutiny for the court. it would be really interesting to see if the supreme court raised at the intermediate or made the classifications stricter. >> the courts are not limited -- the arkansas supreme court recently found unconstitutional their ballot initiative defining one man, one woman as marriage. i think it will end up at the supreme court because they want to resolve multiple opinions. >> last question. if you want to weigh in, you can

before we wrap up. if the ninth circuit on ultimately decides that prop. 8 should not stand -- ninth circuit ultimately decides that prop. 8 should not stand, the expect that, it is overturned, we will see another ballot initiative in california in the near future? >> knowing what little of the ninth circuit as i do, they will likely overturned their discussion -- decision because of philosophical leanings. i would be surprised if the people who put it on the ballot did not put something back on the ballot again. we will be forced to endure another five months of aggressive campaigning. i would hope that -- if you're listening, other side, i would hope that the no on 8 campaign runs more aggressive from the

get go -- getgo. whether or not you agree with the issue, the yes on 8 campaign ran circles around the other campaign the last time and that played a significant role in that measure passing. it is so easy to qualify for the ballot in california, which is a good thing, in many respects. i like it, as a consultant. [laughter] you will definitely see something on the future ballot. >> you and your business partner were brought in belatedly by the no on 8 campaign forces to attempt to accomplish what that was just talking about -- matt was just talking about. if an initiative like that was to end up on the ballot again, what outcome would you see and how should the campaign be run differently? >> i happen to think it is highly unlikely this will go back to the ballot.

i certainly hope and and cautiously optimistic that this will go back to the ninth circuit -- and i am cautiously optimistic that this zero go back to the ninth circuit -- that this will go back to the ninth circuit. i do not actually believe this will go before a vote of the people again. if it does, i think we can all agree that the campaign would be run differently and more aggressively. our side should be far more aggressive in responding to the other side. i certainly hope this is never again on the ballot in the state of california. >> for those of you taking political strategy and communication, you will note that he did not answer the question, or disclos -- and to the question or disclose any future strategies -- that he did not answer the question or disclose any future strategies. please join me in thanking our

panel. [applause] >> tomorrow, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke holds an open conference on his economic outlook. in the past, the fed released a brief statement and did not offer reporters a chance to ask questions. this will be the first of four briefings this year that chairman bernanke is planning to hold to answer questions on the fed's view of the economy. it will begin at 2:15 eastern here on c-span tomorrow. >> all this month, we have been featuring the winners of c- span's studentcam competition. meet the grand prize winner and see his video tomorrow morning. watch his documentary at 6:50 eastern and meet the winner live during "washington journal." >> if they send me the bill in its present form, i will sign it. ok. any questions?

[laughter] none? >> are you still here? >> almost every year, the president and journalists meet at the white house correspondents' dinner to make fun of themselves at their own expense. search, watch, clip, and share online at the c-span video library -- every program since 1987. watch what you want when you want. >> according to u.s. customs and immigration enforcement, the u.s. reported record numbers in -- deported record numbers in 2009 and 2010. princeton university recently looked into these deportations and u.s. policy as well as national security. this discussion last just over

90 minutes -- lasts just over 90 minutes. >> let me introduce congressman rush holt, jr., who really does not need any introduction. he is our democratic representative for the 12th district of new jersey. he is well known to you because very few districts in the whole united states can brag that their congressman is a rocket scientist like ours is. if there was any doubt about his extraordinary accomplishments, as you know if you have been keeping up with the news, mr. holt recently played against the imb comput -- ibm computer.

watson. mr. holt is taking time out of his extraordinarily busy schedule in order to open this event with a few remarks. we welcome you and thank you for your gracious acceptance of our invitation. >> thank you. >> thank you. thanks for the invitation to take part in what promises to be a very good discussion. i look forward to taking part in as much of it as my schedule allows. i would like to say just a few ato kick -- few things to kick it off. i should get right to the point. mass deportations are a

manifestation of dysfunctional immigration policy. clearly there are common-sense steps that should be taken to watch four or intercept or prevent terrorists -- watch for or intercept or prevent terrorists.

most of those who are deported are not those who are suspected of being terrorists. in most cases, they are poor people looking for jobs and ways to support their families. our current antiquated and patchwork system of immigration laws makes excruciatingly difficult for potential immigrants to realize their dreams of becoming americans were making their way in america. for those who have come here illegally, other constitutionally dubious laws are making it impossible for them to keep their families together. let me tell you about one case. some of you know these folks. one of my constituents married -- got married two years ago in connecticut where same-sex marriage is legal.

his partner is from venezuela and came to the united states nearly a decade ago on a visitor's visa. as a result of the defense of marriage act, henry is ineligible for spousal be set and will be deported -- spousal visa and will be deported. visa and will be deported. as a u.s. citizen, -- josh should receive the same rights granted to all citizens and should not be singled out based on his sexual orientation, which is clearly what is occurring here, in not allowing him to sponsor henry for a visa. in 2009, dhs put a moratorium on the deportation of widows

whose husbands were killed in iraq before they received their green card. there could be a similar, analogous approach to cases like josh and henry's. in a statement recently released, attorney general holder said that, after consideration, including his review -- his own review and recommendation, "the president has concluded that, given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, a classification based on -- discrimination classification, it should not be based on sexual orientation. for the more the president finds that doma -- furthermore, the

president finds that doma is unconstitutional." i would hope that approach would be taken. right now, the new majority in the house of representatives is not likely to take, in the short term anyway, are realistic -- any realistic steps to solve this immigration problem. we got a case of that when the dream act was derailed in the senate last fall. there are a number of reasons why supported the dream that -- why i supported the dream act. a few months ago, the "wall street journal" published an article saying what they support it. what is to begin by holding otherwise law-abiding and people, who had no say in the coming to this country, responsible for the illegal actions in -- of others?

we can argue about whether such contingencies should be attached. event's interesting that the "wall street journal" can support such a bill, but, regrettably, the senate republicans and some democrats could not see it that way, which is why the bill died. clearly, we must have comprehensive immigration reform. the deportations, which i have mentioned a couple of examples of, are really the result of our broken system. for practical and regulatory reasons, as well as political, i think a comprehensive approach, rather than a piecemeal approach to reform of

immigration laws is what is called for. >> thank you. we are honored by your presence. let me briefly explain what the format of this event will be. we'll have three presenters, julia preston will preside. i have the necessary and sometimes unpleasant job of being the timekeeper. i will have to be draconian in my time keeping. i will not hesitate to interrupt our beloved guests, which it takes a lot of chutzpah to do. i apologize in advance. in order to make this work, we need to be very attentive to time. there are a couple of other people who will probably recognize in the future. recognize in the future. you have been an extraordinary

citizen of this committee. she is here with channel 30. we're about -- proud to have her. i reconize -- recognize the director of the latin american studies program. i want to abolish his presence -- i want to acknowledge his presence. let me introduce julia preston, who is part of the reasons so many distinguished guest are with us today -- guests are with us today. she has been the national immigration correspondent for "the new york times." she is a 1998 pulitzer prize winner for reporting on international affairs.

she will be presiding over both panels. we will have an intermission. a light repast will be served. we hope you will stay. we will bring you back to your seats for the second panel. the first panel is an overview of the challenges confronted by the department of homeland security and immigration and customs enforcement as they tried to implement the law the land. i think this is important, especially in this kind of crowd, because we are sympathetic to individuals and communities who are receiving the brunt of these policies but often do not listen to representatives who are charged with important and difficult mandates to implement the law of the land. that is why we are so pleased to

have among us john sandweg, counselor to secretary napolitano. we're honored by his presence. also with us is set grossman -- seth grossman. they are among us representing those important organizations. our other speaker will be ed our other speaker will be ed alden, a distinguished member of the council for foreign relations. he has recently published a book entitled "the closing of the american border -- terrorism, immigration, and security since 9/11." he will alert us to the significant of placing immigration law under the rubric of national security. have person thought-provoking comments from congress and hold

-- you have heard some thought- provoking comments from congressman holt. julia preston will speak from where she is. >> do you want to introduce amy? >> amy gottlieb is the third speaker. she has been remarkable in her advocacy activities. she is very knowledgeable about immigration. thank you. >> before i begin, i want to make one last acknowledgement that it will not be pro forma . the people have been involved in organizing events like this. you know it takes planning imagination -- planning, imagination, and very hard work. we're very grateful for the hard work and enthusiasm, even

passion, that you brought to this organization. the rapid pace of deportations of foreigners from the united states under the obama administration -- can you h ear? has had a wider, more conspicuous, and deeply felt impact than perhaps any other aspect of the president immigration policy. according to i.c.e., in the first two fiscal years of president obama's term, almost 783,000 people were removed from this country. 2010,th 2009 and he's i.c.e. set records -- and 2010, i.c.e. set records or deportations -- for deportations. they greatly surpassed the number of deportations in the last few years of the bush

administration. in a remarkably short time, i.c.e. has grown into a huge investigative indian see -- investigative agency, second only to the fbi and with the budget of more than $5 billion. dhs has achieved record deportation efforts by intensive, sometimes expedited prosecution of a legal entrants in some areas of the southwest, in some areas of the southwest, by expanding efforts to identify illegal immigrants in jails and prisons through the criminal alien program, by sweeps called enforcement surges, generally in coordination with state and local police, which have often been focused on gangs, and by stepped up operations to locate suspected fugitives, including many fugitives with orders of removal. i.c.e. has placed new emphasis on cooperating with local law enforcement. the 287-g program operates

through signed memorandums with local authorities, which allows i.c.e. to train local police to carry out some immigration enforcement. it is a small program, operating in only 72 jurisdictions nationwide, with a very big political and social echo effect wherever it is activated. since october, 2008, i.c.e. has rolled out "secure communities." it connects state and local police departments to dhs fingerprint databases, alongside the fbi criminal databases already in common use. this is not a small program. dhs's current position seems to be that adopting secure communities will be mandatory for all jurisdictions by 2013. the immigration status of every person in the natives -- nation will be checked.

i.c.e. has set priorities, saying it will use its resources to detain and support -- deport criminal offenders first. by way of starting the discussion, i would make three observations. these deportation programs are conducted under the broad national security framework of dhs, an agency created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. i.c.e.'s primary mission is "to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal law." arguably, not since world war ii as national security concern been so dominant in the american immigration policy -- has national security concern been so dominant in american immigration policy. deportations have cast long shadows in immigrant communities across the country. supporters of president obama have been surprised and dismayed to find out that

probably the most salient action -- aspect of his immigration policy has been building an effective enforcement system, not a comprehensive reform he repeatedly promised. republicans have called for more crackdown measures, although they have generally avoided agree to benchmarks that might help measure whether current policies are working. the operation of these programs signifies be used by i.c.e. and dhs of that discretion in carrying out priorities and deciding who will be -- of vast discretion in carrying out priorities and deciding who will be deported. this discretion seems to be a little understood by the public -- be little understood by the public. discretion varies widely from district to district and region to region. we hope to have a frank and

candid discussion, non- political, practical -- nonpolemical, practical. with that, i will turn it over to john sandweg. >> mr. sandweg, 12 minutes. >> thank you fo rhaving me -- for having me today. i want to get into an overview of some of these things -- what our priorities are and why we are doing what we're doing. let me make clear one thing -- dhs and i.c.e. are not enforcing the law because the politics or because of a desire for down payment. we're all law enforcement agency with a statutory obligation. we have a mandate that informs this law. we have been criticized for

over-enforcement and under- enforcement. i hope to make clear what it is we're doing and why we are doing a. while we have to conform to -- and forced a lot, we do have discretion of deciding what are -- while we do have to enforce the law, we do have discretion of deciding what our priorities are. it is more than just the enforcement of law, just randomly gathering people. over the last two years, we have shown that you can do immigration enforcement in a more intelligent way, targeting populations that present a public safety threat while carrying out your statutory mandate. how have we done this differently? secure communities is probably one of the best ways. let me explain it, because i think there are a lot of misconceptions about it and what

it is and is not doing. secure communities works with state and local law-enforcement agencies. they book an individual into jail for violation of the state criminal offense. the officer has to have independent, probable cause that the individual violated a state criminal law. that does not mean speeding tickets or broken tail lights. as we get further into the discussion, there are a couple of things we can discuss that the department is currently looking at. fingerprints are taken in most jurisdictions and will be sent to the fbi to see if there is a criminal history. the fbi sends to i.c.e. those fingerprints for a lawful immigration check. if they come back as someone who is not in the country lawfully, i.c.e. will notify the local office, who will then take action.

even within that framework, i spent exercises priorities. we have limited attention -- even within that framework, i.c.e. exercises priorities. we have limited attention. we look at the criminal offense and history of the person and exercise priorities with the mantra of public safety first, and we determine how to enforce the law with that particular individual. it does not always look like that on paper. i shouldn't say on paper, but in the churn in the community. we have looked at the numbers. secure communities has dramatically enabled i.c.e. to increase the percentage of people they remove who are convicted criminals. in 2010, i.c.e. deported -- over

50% of the people that were deported had committed criminal offenses. a large part of that was due to secure communities. moving on, we have gotten away from some of the -- the operations that do not result in the apprehension of criminal aliens. we have not done massive worksite raids since bellingham, washington, at the very beginning of 2009. we have done fugitive operations, but they target serious and convicted criminals who have been released prior to being identified. any objective measure -- under any objective measure, i.c.e. as dramatically tightened up the wood is we enforce the law -- has dramatically tightened up who it is we enforce the law

against. unless and until the statute change, dhs is under an obligation to enforce the law. there has been no bigger proponent for statutory change than the president and secretary napolitano. the secretary spent hours on the phone with members of congress on the dream act. she was encouraging passage of the dream act. unless and until the law is changed, we do not retain statutory discretion to do wholesale changes in our enforcement posture. what we can do is focus on the public safety and try to identify and remove individuals were not just in the country unlawfully, but who have committed a criminal offense. you'll see that trend continue to improve. the criminal side will continue

to increase. i would also add that that is largely because of secure communities. >> thank you for your brevity and clarity. in addition to time-keeping, my job is to make sure we do not end up shooting each other. i am sure we will have a response. i give the floor to ed alden. 12 minutes. >> thank you for the invitation to be here. the discussion of immigration and national security is rarely about what it should be about. it ought to be about half the u.s. government can best use the various tools of immigration -- how the u.s. government can best use the various tools of immigration policy.

instead, since the 9/11 attacks, the fear that some immigrants may pose a serious security threat has led to a massive expansion of measures that have primarily affected illegal immigrants who do not pose any security threat. much of what we will talk about today on detention and deportation is a consequence of the unfortunate confluence of two events, the 9/11 attacks and record levels of illegal immigration into the united states. the year preceding the attacks, 2000, saw the highest number of apprehensions by border patrol, nearly 1.7 million incidents, then had ever taken place in a single year. the number this past year was pure than 500,000. -- fewer than 500,000. 9/11 happened in an environment where the government was already concerned about illegal immigration and quite prepared

to tackle the problem. after 9/11, the bush administration focused on how immigration laws could be used to prevent further terrorist attacks here in the immediate aftermath, arab and muslim men who were arrested -- terrorist attacks. in the immediate aftermath, arab and muslim men who were arrested were held on immigration charges, even without being shown to have any connection to terrorism. the visa system has been tightened. the system for tracking arabs and muslims to come into the united states was put into place. given the details of 9/11, these measures made sense. the attackers had visas to come into the united states. five of 19 were out of status at the nintime of the attack.

for what followed in terms of detention and deportation policies, four of the five, including three pilots, were stopped for traffic violations in the months before the attacks when there were living in the united states illegally -- they were living in the united states illegally. the individual who seized on some of these facts is probably known to some of you. he was an adviser to attorney general john ashcroft. he was the primary legal advisor to the governor of arizona on s.b. 1070. he defended hazleton, p ennsylvania. he has been defending the share of -- sheriff in arizona. he is the one who did the most

to launch section 287-g. this sounds odd. it was created by congress as part of the 1996 immigration law. it was -- no agreement had been signed between the federal government and any local or state police force, which is what is required for to go into effect, before 2001. the rationale for the revision was counter-terrorism. one of the pilots, a in shanksville, pennsylvania, was pulled over two days before the attack for speeding. the officer ran the usual ones

and warrants and nothing showed up -- wants and warrants and nothing showed up. he had overstayed his tourist visa and he had no rigth to be in t -- right to be in the u.s. this was true of two other attackers. had such information been available to local police, three of the four pilots might have been identified as illegal immigrants, turned over and deported. perhaps the plot would not have gotten off the ground. the first memorandum of understanding, which permitted this sort of cooperation, was entered into between the doj and the state of florida in 2002. there is a similar post-9/11 story which does much to explain

why the tension has doubled. the old ins did not have the bed space to detain many of those it picked up on immigration violations. many were released and never seen again. catch and release was the shorthand for this progress -- program -- practice. it was considered acceptable in the pre-9/11 environment. post-9/11, authorities men discovered that one of the failed pre-9/11 plots -- authorities discovered that one of the failed pre-9/11 plots was individual who had been released. they took on the sizeable project of ending catch and release by building in that jail cells to incarcerate most of those arrested for immigration

violations while they await their dates before the immigration judge. as a result, on any given day, we have 32,000, 33,000 of these people in jail, up from about 7000 in the mid-1990's. there are certainly some sound, national security reasons for improving enforcement of immigration lawsterrorists weree to exploit the weaknesses in immigration laws. many of the initiatives over the past decade that were launched by the hhs -- dhs, including greater security patch works and biometric verification of identity on incoming passengers, it has made it harder for would- be terrorists to enter the united states. yet we have been able to use these violations to rest and the

port some of those who are believed to be connected with terrorism. the national security argument has been exploited effectively by those whose primary agenda is not pushing national security, but restricting immigration. if you take a look at the publications from the center of the immigration studies -- i looked at everything that they wrote from 1986 to september of 2001. not a single one of their papers focused on national security. post-9/11, there were serious aspects of how immigration policies threatened national security. this can be interpreted in different ways. it was certainly true that september 11 was a wake-up call. but it is also clearly true that

after 9/11 the terrorist threat became and especially compelling argument as something that they have long advocated, a crackdown on illegal immigration. whatever the motivation, two things are clear. first, the united states has greatly expanded its enforcement efforts over the last decade. secondly, an overwhelming majority of those affected do not pose a security threat. terrorist, criminal, or otherwise. what it helped to do was limit by focusing the public line in the access -- in the government. that extremely harsh measures like incarceration and prison conditions were appropriate. until you to be the frame for which the issue was considered.

the administration cannot publicly embrace the notion that all illegal immigrants should be deported. this is an administration that favors comprehensive immigration reform. therefore, the public justification of this policy is that it is aimed only at criminals that pose security threats. some certainly do, the vast majority certainly do not. making genuine progress on this issue is going to be all but impossible unless a strong link between terrorism and criminality can be broken. unfortunately, this is not part of the public debate. for all of their efforts to make these more she maine, reinforcing the link between criminality and garden variety immigration has simply played into the hands of those who are utterly opposed to the

immigration reform that this administration wants. >> thank you very much. amy? 12 minutes. >> thank you. a tough act to follow. i would like to thank the organizers for this. truly, it is an honor to be here speaking amongst the incredible lines here on this issue. sorry. i was asked to speak a little bit on the impact of housing and a deportation on the new jersey community. i have been working with them the lead since 1996, i started as a very young staff attorney. perhaps not that young. learning immigration law, for me, was learning about this incredible claims and structure in how these were processed and

whether people were able to remain in the united states or not. back then i would estimate that seven out of 10 people that came to my office looking for assistance were not eligible for any kind of immigration status at all. there was nothing we could do for people. we had to tell them, sorry, you do not qualify. in some cases there was nothing we could do. in the big picture of the immigration law shifting and changing, but with a sort of constant that has been, in effect, since 1955, showing that immigration law is partially a disaster. there are many immigration law professors in this room.

the immigration law textbook that we use in class, the first sentence is that the immigration and nationality act is a hideous creature. with service as an untangling of the real story. i realize that pretty much everything that has been said so far, including the number of people deported without criminal convictions, the issue for us, i think, is what does the big picture mean? we have a very schizophrenic policy, but how does it affect families and community ouspensky? the high numbers of people that are supposedly posing threats to the community when what we are seeing every single day our families torn apart and communities devastated.

about one-half years ago my office organized a briefing for members of congress, focusing on families from new jersey who had been impacted by immigration detention and deportation. we have four children read their testimony. we have that available on our website. we saw these children speak to a packed room of representatives and staff respond. tears were swelling. we all know that these are heart wrenching cases. i wanted to share one very quick story. "the last time the assault my mother was on a morning of friday, right before heading to school, three years ago. i do talk with her, but i get sad when i do. i imagine that she does not look the same with the passing of time. i often think about what my mother looks like at the present

moment. i wonder how and why she had to go and leave my brothers and die. i remembered our reaction when we learned that she was not coming back. my mother left when my baby sister was about to turn one year old. it is challenging to take care of a baby and four younger brothers. i was a high-school student who is now taking care of her younger siblings, working, trying to finish her high school degree, and her mother has been in mexico, trying desperately to think about a way to rejoin her family. this is one of the thousands of examples that we see. in fact, we know the 1100 people per day have been deported under the obama administration. our perspective is that we would hope that in recognizing current

law is not working, we know that it would be a more trans- national approach. looking at how it impacts the individual societies in the united states, looking more broadly at the causes and why people come here, trying to consider that migration is a global phenomenon and we will not fit our immigration policy through mass deportation. we were having a hard time getting that message heard. as a community i think we have the responsibility to get these stories out there, to talk about the individual. the reality of the 1996 laws and subsequent changes to our system have created havoc.

partially because of the creation of the national security system, but even before that there was a massive increase of people in detention, people being deported. including people that were convicted of crimes a long time ago and there was mandatory detention and deportation of these people that had been longstanding members of their community and had a talent for their sins. those people were also facing deportation and crucially they were not being heard. the impact on those families picked as one that we desperately need to talk about. what we would like to see in the immigration law is an immigration judge that has discretion to look at a person beyond criminal conviction. and that at this stage, while we recognize discretion -- i lived

in new york city, working in new jersey. i think that the same person, depending on when they are, it can be problematic. which is not to say that we should use a harsher approach, but it is looking more broadly at an approach that recognizes the individual in these cases. we meet frequently with officers in new jersey. many of us have been there, we have walked in and seen packed room was full of people who are in there for regular check and see where they might be arrested. they might not be arrested. the fear that people have going into those, of the sense of terror that you feel when you

walk into the waiting room at this deportation office in new jersey, knowing that these are people walking free on the street. even if they had been a criminal conviction, the criminal system had determined that they were eligible to be released, but ice decided that these people must be moved out. when you feel that terror, that fear of permanent separation from a family member, we know that we have a lot to do. any one that works with kids, where a parent has been deported. spreading beyond that individual, teachers, other kids, neighbors, were deeply

impacted by a. >> we are thankful for your comments and brevity. before i pass this on over to [unintelligible] , let me remind you that there are biographical experts -- exurbs. we are not reading them in interest of time, but i would like to bring your attention to these individuals who are truly amazing mines. what a distinguished professor of international law at the university of virginia who has direct experience with the department of homeland security. we also have robert, not only a member of the advisory board of the latin american legal defense and education fund, but also the former deputy inspector general for the department of justice. and i think i mentioned [unintelligible]

who is a member of the department of homeland security. other distinguished attorneys around the table or in the company of the representatives of public official representation. you have the floor? >> i think that what i will do, first, john, have you heard the comments that you want to respond to in the presentation? i will give you that opportunity now. if not i will open it up to the floor. the way that works is raise your hand if you want to speak. you can ask a question or make a brief statement. by brief i mean really brief. >> by the way, there will be time for members of the audience to rest questions towards the end >> i do not

think that we characterize law enforcement on national-security grounds. within the framework, we have to enforce the law caught where are we going to get those people? much of the public safety determination can best be done with criminal behavior. not to say that we talk about it in terms of public safety issues, certainly, but we are trying to change the mechanism. in 2008 254,000 criminals were

defeated, 50/50. the people identified first had committed [unintelligible] >> i have one question about that. when you say that you have an appropriations mandate, what do you mean? >> roughly 400,000 rubles per year. >> is that a goal? >> more of a guide. it is broken down by target in the removal. >> [inaudible]

>> speaking to the microphone. >> [inaudible] >> still cannot hear. >> how much does it cost to remove an alien based on the money allocated by congress? that is how we reach the numbers from before, the removal appropriate with the direction from congress. >> let me be clear, it is not a quota. but it is roughly a mandate. >> thank you. >> first, we still indicate about 32,000 per year. it is only a fraction of those

that are removed that are detained during the process. certainly they will cater to non-criminals. as well as individuals who have been removed previously. it would be misleading to say that the vast majority of the people [unintelligible] >> do you have a question or comment? >> i wanted to mention one thing in response to the introduction. upon the comment was that the emphasis for the obama administration had been done enforcement. certainly there has been something about enforcement. there is an obligation to go forward with that. but there was an enormous amount of work done on comprehensive immigration reform.

with a number of key members of congress it proved not possible to put together the right combination, largely because of the ability to get a second republican co-sponsor. certainly, steps were taken. many hours were a factor. i would also pose a question to ted, taking issue with him. . is not some -- not fair to say that it is larger than the national security issue that has driven the emphasis on enforcement. i think that there is a wall rationale tough that contributes to the emphasis on enforcement. there may be a lot of people

with unfortunate motives for emphasizing enforcement, but they find resonance in the broad middle of society because the people that are here, outside of compliance with of the law. that led to a number of exaggerated reactions, unfortunately stripping away discretion for a minute -- immigration judges. you express worry that the current strategy and forces the difference between crime and national security. how would you change the strategy now? given the congressional mandate and resources provided, would you then go back to a more random collection of people who are not criminals? to throw in with that the priority on criminal subpoena >> i guess, how high is through legal changes that deal with it the demand side of the workers.

i do not think that this works outside of a comprehensive framework. one of my concerns is with the language that we use. what are the threats at the border? terrorism, criminality, drugs and illegal immigration. illegal immigration is not a threat of that magnitude. i think that it works against certain solutions. what you are going to increasingly find is a mandate of 400,000 that is not true. a lot of the criminal offense disputed, most are people that

we can all agree are people that we do not want in this country, but to keep hitting those targets, we will have to define criminality better. that is not a productive way to get at the problem. i would like to see the administration more committed to the comprehensive solution. i understand why you do it. you are in that business, politically and practically. >> [unintelligible] is the founding national director of the american civil liberties union immigrant rights project. i just had the pleasure of meeting him. one of the finest legal minds in the nation. >> with that introduction, i had better have something to say.

i wanted to underscore something that david mentioned and that amy acknowledged. what we are seeing not only is 9/11 based on an undocumented immigration, but i am critical respects, such as item number one, it removed an enormous amount of the flexibility that previously existed within the law to allow for someone to gain legal status. secondly, it has the perverse consequence of freezing people into undocumented status by virtue of the operation of the law. essentially saying that individuals qualify for legal status are not pursuing at because of the way that the law is written. they are, in fact, eligible. in addition to that, in my view it is a mistake for the

administration to view this as purely a matter that requires statutory changes. many of the operations of the 1996 law that need to be changed are also amenable to administrative and regulatory interpretation. the administration could undertake that in order to address these perverse consequences. such as the adjudication of labor that would allow individuals to safely apply for the zero legal immigration status for which they are eligible. adopting court interpretations of the statute that will allow for individual hearings that are only slightly risking adjudication rather than requiring mandatory detention of people that do not oppose that kind of a risk. the so-called catch and release program, while it sounds ominous, it has been

demonstrated in the past that the agency made no effort to determine who needed to be detained and who did not. even when they had the resources to do that and the willingness to do that, rather than spending the money and attention and mandating it under the law, interpretations would have allowed for relief in which we had a more efficient system that optimize potential when needed, not imposing it but it is not. one last point for discussion is how to reconcile the secure communities program with the enforcement priorities articulated, wondering how that works in operation. we heard about the traffic stops that could have led to the arrests of terrorists, but traffic stops do not actually trigger, except in some places

in which they do, the incentive to engage in racial and ethnic profiling to bring people into the booking system. the other thing that i would ask, the community operation, as i understand it, it does not mean and that there is not actually a criminal prosecution on the underlying event that led to the underlying event in the first place. even with a booking, how was that reconciled with authority, as my understanding is that once the secure community is triggered, does dhs not pursue individuals brought in to this secure community of those individuals do not have prior

criminal convictions? other people then released by ice on because they do not fit within the priority of having a police assessment? of actually setting the priority? one last point that i would like to ask about, where are the communities now with the relation to those points ha, many do prefer not to participate in the program. certainly the police prefer not to be engaged in immigration screening or to engage in community policing. are they eligible to opt out of the program? or is it mandated by state agreement? >> madam [unintelligible] >> yes. >> there are two [inaudible]

>> remember, you are being recorded for posterity. [laughter] kindly tell i do speak into the microphone. as if he really liked it. >> it is our policy that the program is not involved and that there will be technological changes that we view potentially as legal issues. the second would be the uniformity of the issue. the federal government stepped in because we did not what a task force. at the same time, the same logic applies to other entities. we do not want local jurisdictions deciding immigration policy. many of those same arguments are

there. not only that, these are distinctly procedural questions. the state, the city, the sheriff, the county uniformity rolling out nationwide, does that mean we want to work with local communities? i think that the department's position is that victims in law enforcement organizations, absent a criminal arrest, there is a mission of the fingerprint to the fbi. you are not going to come across the ice in any way. if a local jurisdiction has concerns about low torque -- lower level areas, some of them do desperate. in virginia there are certain jurisdictions where they do not run them through the database.

we will never know if we do not do that. that said, we are still concerned with the issue. we are working on taking a look at the policies in place that will specifically address what do. that said, there are so many cases where we exercise discretion. generally the policy is that if you use apache the matching, we will take enforcement action. the question is, what action will we take? we always the find those of level 1, 2, 3.

level one is a higher priority. a serious felony. usually something violent. level two are also felons. there is a prioritization within that based on who we are going to spend time on. while we will take action against everyone that comes in with a positive match, the reality is that what the action looks like will change dramatically. i would make note that, within the context of the committee, we have the first 1000, 40,000 criminals were removed in fiscal year 2010.

these include more than just criminals. people that were previously removed from the country, entering and then re-entering. we have taken a look at those numbers. the majority of those people do fall into our other priorities. the local jurisdiction is set to release the person and discovers that the person had previously been removed from the country, reinstating the final order of removal and prior to these criminal case proceedings the deadline, the person is removed from the country. although they are never convicted, it does not mean that they are innocent. and they were at one. our priority. finally, there were a number that declared resource allocations made. i will not spend the money

putting this individual in jail. for some physicians that is ok. in other positions with a four essentially events that are triggers for the removal proceedings. we make sure that we are monitoring the data and are prepared to take action. >> thank you. are there other questions from the participants? one of the inspirations for this event was the distinguished immigration attorney in the area that deals directly with such cases. would you like to say something? speaking into the microphone, please. >> there were those that were much more enthusiastic in the welfare of others

[unintelligible] specializing in dui [unintelligible] municipalities [inaudible] >> i think that amy wants to say something. >> it is great to hear all of this. communities here in new jersey, what we have is a directive from 2007 that requires local police to ask about immigrants as far as weather has been an arrest or a dui or an offense that is indictable. what we have seen over the last couple of years since this has been in effect in terms of who we see in detention -- these are

not numbers about who is being arrested, but my office provides data from the detention center over the last three crispus. even a passenger from a car pulled over for a broken tail light. from what we see on the ground every day, it is different. if we are all in agreement that we have paid professional immigration system and we all recognize that there should be discussions, why is there this push for secure communities? clearly, there are questions about the data. what is going to force people

into what is a system? why is it such a mandate to have it in every jurisdiction around the country? >> john, before you answer, i do not think that you knew you had so much power. before you see it -- received the brunt of the responsibilities, let me ask if there are other questions for john. i would love to hear from janet. rutger. -- from janet and rutger. >> i just wanted to hear a bit more about the work cited. a couple of things. first, i would love to understand how you think about workplace enforcement now. particularly the problem in the organizing dryopithecus, where

employers suddenly want to discover the two side effects, after having working -- after having worked on a firm for a long period of time. we know that there is an attempt to protect those workers. >> before you do that, kevin wilkes is here. would you like to add something? >> [unintelligible] [laughter] >> [inaudible] yet to establish a president. [laughter] at the federal level, is largely mystifying, sometimes. despite the appearances of the impact on the community level for people residing in those community groups.

the actual impact that creates fear and suspicion on the streets is quite pervasive and intense. we are interested in keeping the local streets under control, civilized and friendly we have a segment of our population that makes itself invisible to us but account of its fear of prosecution and the fact that the chief of police and i have met with the local population to suggest these regulations and what they are, to a limited amount. anecdotally these stories are described as part of the conviction that causes people to disappear from our society to the extent that it actually becomes hard for police to enforce safety if people will not come out and say what they saw on street corners.

we have had a series of events like this. the numbers that you cite, 400,000, 40,000, it makes it very hard for us. take it away. and >> i do think that we could do a better job. pushing it, we have not done a good job talking publicly. the reality is that there is someone who has a legitimate fear of being caught up in their community. " they should only be fearful of

they have committed a violation of the law, for which your officers would send them to jail any ways. i think that we need to do a better job in beijing with the community. forums like this, before i get the work done, i will take on these questions. i know that expanding and doing it more sounds counterintuitive , but these legal changes are based on our firm commitments, 390,000 removals' per year. we want to do them on an ad hoc basis. resulting in 2008 by an 54,000 non-criminals having been

removed from the jails. some people have been booked and largely convicted of criminal offenses. recognizing that it will go away. the reality is that you want expansion of that community for the first-time, getting further and further up for criminal convictions. in 2010 they drove down the definition of criminal and a number of adults do not necessarily support that in fiscal year 2010. people in jails where there were

only 650 jurisdictions and over 1000 expanding with the ability to identify the people booked in jail on felonies, greatly enhanced if we can focus our limited resources on those people and not others in the community who are not a threat. there are other ways. people have referred to other systems of immigration. a person walking in for a visa is not eligible for a dhs. as long as there is a mandate to remove these people, they will be removed. a criminal offense in our

community. >> thank you. >> we are working on a variety of issues, accommodating situations like that. while there are allegations of workplace violations -- >> i was going to make an observation based on my reporting, which is that the local context is very important in terms of trying out the exposed to 87 program and community program. especially in light of the proliferation of state level legislation with designed to pinkerton illegal immigration punishment at the state level.

the clearest one that i can think of is the state of georgia, who has made a attainable offense, driving without a license in the state of georgia, a mandatory 48 hour detention. that is what many immigrants who are driving without licenses because the driver's license is not available in the state of georgia to the person who does not have lawful status, that person is then plugged into the whole immigration database. although in many cases that person is not truly in the fact -- truly with an offense.

similarly, that kind of local legislation is increasingly occurring across the country. making that observation from the reporting, what is dhs doing to ensure that implementation of secure communities will not be vulnerable to the interpretation of the differing severity of local laws? >> let me just advise you of two things. the first is that there will be overlap with the second panel, so we might want to table these questions for after the break. i would like to know -- we have time for another brief

intervention and two questions from the audience. would you like to say what you have to say? this is the executive director of the web american defense and illegal immigration fund. >> if we were to have some kind of legislative reform that would help to provide relief and restore some rationality, [unintelligible] 212b be desirable? perhaps? >> i will contact david martin.

>> back to you, then to the audience. >> thank you. i began by saying that i do not think we should be planning for major changes in immigration laws in the coming months. the question is, how do we use while we have? one of the things i will be taking back to my colleagues on the appropriations committee coat is that they should make clear to the department should not be about filling a quota that needs to be reached. it is possible that is what they had in mind, but i hope not. i certainly want to take that back.

i have been listening very closely. i think that i detected a significant difference in the approach to the existing law as discussed. mr. fenway, i believe that you began at the beginning -- i am sorry that everything comes back to you, but it is the enforcement agency. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> go on. >> i believe that i heard you say that we are targeting populations of those security threats. there is a big difference between that way of phrasing and the phrasing of individuals,

individuals, individuals. that is what they said over and over again. i think that it has to with whether or not an individual that his pickup is then subject to an evaluation to determine if that individual is a security threat, but this other approached, i am having trouble expressing this. i thought that i heard a difference. i got to thinking, maybe congressional instruction on what it intended might be useful.

clearly we want people who pose a security threat. >> part of the problem is that it is not easy to identify who is a security threat. there are threats in the national security center and also people that windup committing much more serious crimes later on. it is more damaging to the general image of the person who is here illegally than the enforcement policy when there is someone who has been in the system and then commits a serious offense. there was a recent one in virginia. a young girl was attacked and was here unlawfully.

the man the attacker killed a nun in an auto accident. like those kinds of situations immigration reform for those kinds of efforts to go forward. about the driver's license, in my overall judgment, it is not an automatic 48 our defense. but dhs cannot solve that problem. some people stood against it in the state legislature and they could not make the case. the public stood against that in the street -- very strong way. this is not something that dhs

can solve. the point from beginning was to take away the discretion, check everyone and make a decision as to which one will be followed up on. >> it is emphasized, leaving some faces on the side of the line. there could be much better ways to exercise discretion in the system. i would share that view in the near future of comprehensive immigration legislation. it is easy to tax writers on to appropriations bills and exercise discretion in certain ways to trigger legislative reaction. some of the more ambitious suggestions for broad use of prosecutorial discretion would

trigger legislative action. to elsie is a form of discretion that immigration judges could exercise even if it was a deportable offense. that was before 96 pirie & there were some efforts to come back to that. the board of appeals issued a decision that gave a broad and generous application of that discretion. the team members did not like that and cut it way past when it was in house and senate. i offer that as a cautionary note. the tea party effort is to create the right kind of image and build support from the middle of the spectrum. >> thank you.

>> we are glad to close this part. is there a question from members of the audience question them upper >> my question is for the council. my husband, henry is under threat of deportation of now. every non-gay couple would file a certain form when they get married. was suggested that we do the same. hopefully making the statement to call for the treatment of couples like us being similar to potential beneficiaries and widows. >> thank you. >> the question is just -- what

policies can be formulated based on the activism we have done for the congressional and president's statement, with a legislative act in the works? >> thank you very much. another question? >> to the people that know me, i have been practicing immigration law in new jersey for 20 years. there is a perception as a reality cover racial profiling. everyone in this room know 6. you get copies a ticket for riding a bicycle. if you walk down the street and are a certain color, you get picked up. what happens with the quota system is that those quotas are increased and increased so that the point is that what happens

in new jersey is that there is no discretion. people are deported. families are taught -- torn apart. you are not practicing what you preach. come down here and talk to our local ice person and representatives to make sure that they do it right. >> was there a question? >> when are you going to do that? [laughter] >> ok. don? feel free to come to that -- come to the defense of [unintelligible] >> as the law as currently written until the court determines it is unconstitutional, that is where we are going with that. there are a couple of instances where we are waiting for guidance from the field, but the reality is that we will continue to enforce law.

with regards to the anecdotal stories about abuse in the community, all that we can do is monitor numbers overall. we are making sure that we do not find discriminatory practices, rest patterns. we are looking at this from 1000 different angles to make sure that we can use this as a tool in law enforcement practices. that said, in issues like license plate, these are tough questions. we are not seeing any wholesale abuses in the practice. individuals who have committed serious crimes, serious violence on the offender's having remove them from the country, that is definitely a public safety issue. is there any more to that? >> is there anything to add at

this time? >> i think that i was quoting the attorney general correctly when he said -- and i believe this is a direct quotation, that he has concluded a section 3 and it fails to meet the standard for same-sex couples. given that conclusion, the president has been instructed not to defend the statute in such place. in certain places, we will not enforce. i am saying bed by a fairly easy extension, it could also apply to deportation cases. >> we have been working very hard for the last -- be made

this announcement about one month ago. in terms of the litigation position, the u.s. government will no longer to appease in court. but what makes crystal clear is that the executive agencies that the president openly heads must continue to engage bilal. ultimately legal counsel traces findings before the federal government, looking into the issue of service members and guidance being made quite clear. although for a layperson, it seems quite strange, the divide between what you would do in court and agency practice. it is very clear, until congress repeals section 3 as unconstitutional, we have no discussion given the