lundberg dying at the age of 89 today. that's all for [audio clip] today.gton journal" thank you for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> president obama today hosting a conference of the white house focusing on mental health issues. part of the president's promised to bring more attention to the issue following last year's shootings in newtown, connecticut. health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius, education secretary arne duncan, and veterans affairs secretary eric chin seki, along with vice president joe biden all taking

part today. the president this hour is delivering opening remarks, which you can watch live on our companion that work, c-span2. we will also carry today's white house press briefing with jay carney on c-span at 12:30 eastern. in congress both chambers are back in session today starting at 2:00 eastern. the senate this week resumes work on a bill setting policies over five years for farm subsidies, crop insurance, and nutrition programs. the geordie leader harry reid says he is hoping to begin for consideration of a bipartisan immigration bill. house lawmakers have begun the work of writing bills to fund the federal government for the next fiscal year. two of those, homeland security and military construction veterans affairs, have been approved by the house appropriations committee and are awaiting floor action. you can watch the house live on c-span and the senate on c- span2.

coming up in just under an hour, we will take you to capitol hill for the national academy of social insurance, hosting an 2013 socialsing the security trustees report. the report, released on friday, shows that the program long- term is on a fiscally unsustainable path if congress does not take action. the chief actuary of the social security and ministers will be among the panelists. that will be live on c-span starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern. she makes the first speech by sitting first lady and becomes the first president of the daughters of the american revolution, designed her own china and establishes the white house china collection, and is the first to have a christmas tree in the white house. meet caroline harrison, wife of the 23rd president, benjamin harrison, as we continue our series on first ladies with your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter, tonight and i neglect eastern on c-span,

c-span3, c-span radio, and cspan.org. the ethics and public policy center thursday posted a discussion where state legislators talked about clashes between local government and religious groups. some of the issues included the rights that religious organizations on public universities, same-sex couples, and the rights of religious employees. u.s. faith leaders, politicians from both sides of the aisle, and experts in constitutional law took part in this hour-long discussion. >> good morning, everybody. if i could invite everyone to sit down we'll go ahead and start our panel discussion. my name is gene sheer. i'm a lawyer here in washington and have been asked to chair this panel. i'm sure all of you are familiar with the u.s. supreme court luis brandeis, who is famous for lots of reasons, but one of the reasons is that he once had a very memorable analogy about the

states and their role in our democracy. he said that the states are the laboratories of democracy and nowhere more true than in the arena of religious freedom. but wait, you might say. doesn't our federal constitution already address the issue of religious freedom and do so definitively? and the answer, as a good rabbi might say is yes and no. yes, the first amendment sets a floor on religious liberty but no, it certainly doesn't set a ceiling. and to the contemporary, as the supreme court pointed out in the famous or programs infamous decision known as smith vs. employment division, dealing with the use of peyote. as long as the state gets the first part of the amendment,

legitimate subjects of democratic debate and legislation by the people's representatives, including those who serve in state legislatures in that regard, i'm pleased to report that the america religious freedom program has been actively working with state legislators around the country to enhance protections for religious freedom under state law and here to update us is arfp state legislative policy director tim schultz. tim, if you'd like to come up. >> thank you, gene. one year ago at this conference, we announced plans to help legislators in every state form a religious freedom legislative caucus. envisioned as a platform for hosting multifaith and

bipartisan discussions of religious freedom and for promoting and protecting religious freedom. last october nine states announced they had formed the nation's first-ever state religious freedom caucuses. today a bipartisan group of leaders in nine more states are taking that step. this includes states on the eastern seaboard, only the midwest, south and west. the nine caucus-forming states are delaware, georgia, maryland, michigan, nevada, ohio, south carolina, texas, and west virginia. most of these states are represented here today by their caucus founders and many of other state legislators are here in the audience today. i'd like to ask all of the state legislators in the audience to stand and be recognized for the work they're doing. [applause]

on behalf of the religious freedom movement, many of whole the leaders are here in this room, we do offer our congratulations and gratitude. the 2013 legislative calendar in the states is drawing to a close so it's appropriate right now to give a breach report on what has happened in state capitals to date in 2013. before 2013, 16 states had passed a version of the freshman religious freedom restoration act, which is a comprehensive measure modeled after the bipartisan law signed by president clinton 20 years ago. before this year, no state had passed such a measure in four years, but this year, two more states did so kentucky and kansas, both with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. i will take a moment to mention just one more category of legislation. adds many of you know, in 2010,

the supreme court ruled in christian legal society vs. martinez that government-funded colleges and universities can bar student religious groups from using religious criteria in selecting their leaders. before this year, no state had passed stand-alone legislation preventing this practice. this year, tennessee, virginia, and idaho did so one of the authors of that legislation is here to tell you about it and all of those votes before thoroughly bipartisan and all of these measures protect all faith communities. the four panelists whom gene will introduce shortly are among those at the forefront of successful efforts to protect religious freedom. i'm honored to be here on stage with all four of them. with gene, all five of them. they and dozens like them are doing the hard lifting in the states. they deserve our deep thanks for everything they do to protect religious freedom for americans

of all faiths. thanks, and at this point i'll turn it back over to gene. [applause] >> well, congratulations to tim and your team for those marvelous successes and we'll hear a lot more about those this morning from our panelists. let me introduce each of them to you. alan to my right is the executive director of the church state council of the seventh-day adventist church in the western united states. the council that he leads represents persons of all faiths and primarily victims of discrimination in employment and al and i have had the opportunity to work together. among other things, cases involving religious freedom. alan also directs the council's legislative program, monitoring legislation for its impact on both institutional and image in religious freedom and often testifying before legislative

committees. he hosts a radio program entitled "freedom's ring," this is -- which is nationally and internationally syndicated. he regularly publishes religious periodicals and the like and is in demand on speaking on matters of religious freedom and discrimination. he is a graduate of the university of north carolina law school and a good friend of religious freedom and a good friend. next to him is jennifer kraska, the vice president of the national association of state conference catholic directors. in 2008 jennifer became the first executive director of the colorado catholic conference, which is jointly operated by the

three catholic dioceses in the state of colorado. in her role as an advocate before the colorado legislature she's been as the result in formulating policy in a whole range of policies and also been a national leader responding to state religious threats to religious freedom. she holds a masters degree, among others, from the university of st. thomas in st. paul, minnesota. to my left is curt mckenzie, a member of the idaho state senate and he has chaired the state committee since 2005. last year he became a founding member of idaho's religious freedom caucus and earlier this year he spearheaded passage of a bill that guarantees religious groups to use religious criteria to select their leaders, something which has come under attack in the supreme court's controversial ruling.

he is a aggravated assault to-- graduate of the georgetown law center and practiced here in washington for a while before returning to hollywood and according to his official bio he has two exceptional children and two below average dogs.[laughter] rebecca hamilton is a member of the oklahoma state house where she represents oklahoma's 89th district, which includes south oklahoma city. she was first elected in 1980 and served until 1 6 when she-- 1986, when she left to have her first child. she was then re-elected in 2002 and since has authored laws to protect battered women. she's attained funding for the first statewide program for adult day care and the first statewide program on domestic violence shelters.

she was the only oklahoma legislator to address last year's stand up for religious freedom rally and last october she joined with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in founding the religious freedom caucus in the oklahoma legislature. she regularly writes on faith and religious freedom in the widely read patheos.com blog. to begin, alan will give us a brief overview of the law of religious freedom and then we'll turn the time over to each panelist successively to share some experience and insights they've gleaned from working to protect religious freedoms at the state level. alan? >> thank you, gene, and thanks for inviting me to be speaking at about 6:30 california time after getting off a redeye flight, but i'm delighted to have made it, thanks to united airlines. when i was in law school in the late 1980's, my professors

thought that the future of individual liberties would be in the states, not in the supreme court and it was rather prophetic, i think, certainly in the religious freedom arena that shift has most definitely taken place. today we hear a lot about religious freedom issues that are largely symbolic, issues like a lonely cross on a mojave desert hillside, a war memorial that a supreme court battle is fought over and yet how many lives the those really impact? the most significant religious liberty issue today that the media largely ignores is that every business day there are several americans who lose their jobs and many others who are never hired because of their desire to obey god. because they wear a yamaka, a turban or programs observe a sabbath.

there are two supreme court decisions. gene mentioned one, the smith case. two that have been tragic in eroding the legal and constitutional protections for religious liberties. the 1990 smith case is the better known of the two but in 1977, the supreme court jumped in surprisingly early after congress enacted a specific protection in 1972 to clarify that under the civil rights act, employees' religious beliefs and practices had to be accommodated by companies. they jumped in very quickly and completely watered down the legal standards of how employers have to accommodate religious workers.

the standard that congress enacted was to provide reasonable accommodation short of an undue hardship. harnessen was a sabbath observer who lacked seniority to demand a favorable schedule and the court couch protected religious accommodation and still found that t.w.a. had met its obligation. i'm reminded of the ebberson case where the court announced a hugely vigorous establishment clause standard of separation of church and state, all the while permitting public funding of bus transportation of parochial school students, apparently a complete contradiction to the vigorous standard it had announced and in hardessen they

could have said, yes, we have a standard but t.w.a. has met it. but they completely watered down the standard, saying that the undue hardship required on employers was diminus. and that means not much. latin, of course. and there was really no justification for the court to water down what congress has done. especially since congress, in testimony leading to the enactment of the 1972 amendments specifically discussed sabbath observance as one of the reasons that religious accommodation was needed. well, efforts to overturn it did not begin in ernest until the 1990's until the passage of the american with disabilities act where congress again imposed a reasonable accommodation short

of an you undue hardship standard for accommodating persons with disabilities but took the extra step of defining undue hardship in terms of significant difficulty or suspense in order to clarify that they weren't looking for a watered down standard. and i was involved in early discussions within leaders within the seventh day adventist church about the kinds of language that we would like to borrow from the disabilities act and how to toughen religious accommodation. and we've been lobbying for such a measure here in congress for pretty much my entire career, almost the last 20 years, with some bipartisan support but with very little success in congress.

and so the battle has shifted to the states. back in the early part of the last decade, new york passed a workplace religious freedom act. new jersey passed one. oregon, i think, was next, passed some vigorous standards and last year we were successful in passing really the toughest workplace religious freedom act in the nation in california. and i have to say, you know, hats off to tim and the work that this organization is doing. coalition work is everything. you don't get bills passed without building coalitions and getting support and typically left, right, and center. the left alone or the right alone is unlikely to get bills passed. we have to build support across the political spectrum. well, california's bill did several things. it clarifies that the tougher

significant difficulty or expense standard was the law in california. it also added language about dress and appearance that arguably was already protected but it clarifies it and specify that is employers really do have to accommodate employees' religious expression -- through their appearance. but then california went one step beyond what any other state had done. what the bill author described as the rosa parks measure of the 21st century, that employers can't shunt workers who express their faith through their appearance, can't push them into the back of the store into the stock room away from customers because of their appearance. it's critical that we create a climate in america where people of all faiths are welcome to

participate in the workplace, regardless of their appearance, and the corporate image standards no longer trump our rights to self-exception and self-determination. well, i've been dinged with time. i had a whole lot of material here about the erosion of free exercise as a result of the smith case. you heard from tim about the efforts through the states where the action has shifted to a religious freedom restoration act in many states and it's a tragedy that we no longer enjoy vigorous protection for religious freedom at the federal constitutional level, that we do have to shore up these protections at the state level, and it's become increasingly difficult. i have jurisdiction in five states.

we've enacted a bill in one of those five and it's very difficult. we're working in nevada this year. very difficult climates in many states to protect religious freedom. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the invitation to be here today speaking with you about such an important topic, a topic that is especially relevant to those of us working in the trenches at the state level. if colorado is any indication of what the trend is regarding the issue of religious liberty, then we all might need an adult beverage or two after this conference is over. i wish i were here today reporting on all the great victories we have experienced in colorado regarding the issue of religious liberty but sadly, colorado has been home to an unfortunate trend that is

increasingly intolerant of religious beliefs and practice and seeks to marginalize in silence those who participate from religious speech, behavior and practice. that isn't in the confines of modern society. all of us here are aware that this is not a topic that affects just one religious denomination or one set of religious beliefs. the issue of religious liberty is one that affects all of us as americans. it is a foundational principle upon which our nation was founded, and for these reasons and many more we all must be vigilant to the threats that seek to diminish this tremendous liberty. with that being said, let me tell you what has been happening in colorado. it was just one year ago this month when the colorado court of appeals ruled that the content of gubernatorial proclamations in reference to a colorado day of prayer are "predominantly religious.

they lack a secular context and there effect is a government endorsement of religion as preferred over nonreligion. the court pointed out that it's neither "sacrilegious or anti- religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning religious prayers and leave that up to the people themselves." this decision was an inappropriate response to what was a long-standing practice of the governor of colorado recognizing the national day of prayer and acknowledging the right of an individual to play pray and to worship. the decision was an unfortunate setback to religious jury in colorado. but the silver lining is that our current governor has decided to appeal this case and just last week, the colorado supreme court granted on this issue.

unfortunately, this was not the only attack on religious liberty that colorado has been privy to. last year we were dealing with a ballot initiative that was sweeping in its disregard for religious liberty. it sought to amend the colorado constitution to say -- "in assessing whether government has burdened freedom of religion, a person or organizations ice right to act in a manner regarded by a seriously held religious belief is an ability to engage in religious practices in the privacy of a person's home or in the privacy of a religious organizations established place of worship. in essence, the initiative sought to confine religious believes or practice to a place of worship or in the home.

we know it is never solely relegated to a place of worship or home. almost every faith tradition compels believers to take their message out into the world. faithfully this initiative was removed from consideration before it made it to the ballot, but as you can imagine, the consequences for having something like this on the ballot would have been devastating to religious liberty and the colorado constitution had the people voted to approve it. and it's not over yet. one of the most alarming developments in colorado this past legislative session was in regards to how partisan and political the issue of religious freedom became and this sentiment was on display most prominently during the debate on civil unions. this was the third consecutive year that civil union legislation was introduced in colorado but year there was a significant change.

the change was in regards to the lack of religious liberty protections for organizations providing adoption and foster care services. in years past there had been robust protections for entity that is limited adoption and service care only to heterosexual couples. the 2013 version of the bill did not include these protections. there were many legislators who courageously attempted to put these protections into the bill and argued the case for religious freedom eloquently. unfortunately, there was nowhere near a majority of support for the amendments to protect religious liberty. but it wasn't just a lack of support for religious liberty that was so alarming. it was the outright hostility that was shown to this issue. during the debate on the senate floor in response to amendments offered to protect religious liberty, one of the senate

sponsors of the bill said to defenders of religious liberty, "so what is to say to those of you who say religion requires them to discriminate? i'll tell you what i say. get thee to a nunnery and live there. go away from modern society come away from people you can see is equal to yourselves, away from the stream of commerce, where you may have to serve them." other legislators made references to nazis and the taliban and these were a couple of the many astonishing comments that were made. but as discouraging and as heartening as those remarked

were, the real disappointment was that no one in the majority stood to defend principles of religious freedom or to disagree with the sentiments that were being expressed. the clear political divide that existed in colorado's past legislative session regarding initiate that should never be defined by politics was both disturbing and shocking. as undesirable as this trend is in colorado, i have not given up hope. there is a great deal of education that needs to happen in this area. but i am hopeful that, in colorado, we will some day soon put an end to these sunless attacks on religious liberty. i know that for the vast amount of people in colorado, the issue of religious liberty is not a partisan issue, rather a constitutional value that must be protected and cherished. as ronald reagan once said, our insistence on speaking up the

cause of religious liberty. i know by our residents here today that we will always do whatever we all can do to protect and defend religious liberty. thank you. >> i was invited to speak at here on idaho's experience and how they program can be used as a tool to help shape alysia the state level. in particular, -- to shape policy at the state level. in particular, to help legislators communicate and act in a way to shape the way policy is developed as a result of that interaction. idaho was one of the states that form religious liberty caucuses after the program last year. we formed a small caucus and i

tried to invite those who are thought leaders on different issues and well respected in both bodies as part of that. lynnnk representative luker is here from the house in idaho and others have come to the last program. i will give you two examples of the way that caucus helped us develop policy on religious liberty during the session. two examples, one was a proposal to add an amendment to idaho's state constitution using referral type language and then the other one was the protection of religious-based student groups on our public universities and campuses. with respect to the first issue, there local groups who said we should add language to protect their liberties, similar statute that we have had

in place for over 10 years in idaho. when that proposal was brought up as a caucus, we invited tim schultz to share experiences that other states of had. thingsd two different that made us pause on those efforts. one of those was the fact that, in other states, one that issue had gone on the ballot, the permanence -- the proponents had been heavily outspent in degrees of 20 or more to one and a hadn't done well on the ballot as a result of that. the other issue was, because we had a statute already in place from a litigator's perspective,

there wasn't a huge difference between having that protection and statute or constitution. as a result of that, we deferred action on that and focused on the other issue, which was a pressing problem in our state will stop one of our public universities was -- in our state. one of our public universities was to ban from our dissipation a group that had a profession of faith by leadership. so would be any good news group and many national organizations required that if you're going to be a state-level member. that was brought to my attention from the christian legal society who litigated a lot of these cases because i was a caucus member and they knew i was interested in that issue. as soon as i heard about that, we used the caucus in order to put a coalition together in

order to get that through the legislature. first, we vetted the language and sent it to tim who dispersed it so that we could craft language which is effective, very defensible and very concise. i think it's model language. we then got an attorney general's opinion from our state has to wear that state -- where that fit in the constitutional bounds in the decision of the 2010 case mentioned earlier. we find in idaho those opinions from our state attorney general can be used as a sword to try to defeat things. so we wanted to get that early and invited him to have

discussions with tim colby and others in order to draft their opinion letter. we got that early on. we used the caucus. we got bipartisan support come including members of the democrat party who had been a member of the organization at issue here, a strong supporter of it. with that, we got it through committee fairly easily. it went to my committee in the senate. because we had the groundwork waste on strong language that was vetted by the organization that litigate this on a daily basis, it got through fairly easily and was signed into law by the governor two days after we got it to his desk. underestimaten't the ability of this program and

the connections made here to influence policy at the state level. policy makers who don't deal with this on a daily basis find input from you as thought leaders and valuable on this issue. we often want to do the right thing, but we don't always know how to craft the language in order to do that. and to choose between different alternatives as we had in idaho. so i found the caucus to be a huge assistance for us. we wouldn't have been able to get that through our legislature without it. i found that it was a useful tool. i would encourage other states to form caucuses and use it as a tool when they get issues before them on religious liberty. with that, i think you and turn it over to rebecca. [applause]

>> on rebecca hamilton, member of the oklahoma house of representatives. inm starting my 18th year the body. that means i have more seniority than anybody else. i don't know if that means that there is a sanity or intelligence test that i failed or what exactly, but that's true. i had something unusual happened when i was looking at the program today it says about me, as a public intellectual. in all these years, that is the first time anyone has ever called me an intellectual. find unusual for me to something new that someone hasn't called me before after 18 years in office. i am very proud of this one. i have on my hard drive on my computer home a file called the crazy people file. and how you get into the crazy

people file is you send me an e-mail that calls me names or is pretty much wacko. unfortunately, the crazy people file is huge. after 18 years, it is enormous. unfortunately from a large number of the things that are in the pretty people file came file camezy people from the central committee of the oklahoma democratic party. i am a democrat. i have been a democrat longer than some of the people who are writing me these things have been alive. i'm going to tell you some simple stories. a few years ago, i was lobbied by a member of organized labor. this individual was not lobbying me about labor issues.

i am a true believer about the rights of working people. that is why i am a democrat, things like that. lobbyre was no reason to me about that. this person was angry me because i was the author of pro- life legislature and -- pro-life legislation and had voted pro- life on several pieces of legislation. when this individual said to me "go to church all you want, but leave it there." what they were really trying to say to me is don't vote according to your values. don't author legislation that reflects your beliefs. i want you to vote according to my beliefs and my values. it is pretty common for anyone talking to the a legislator that you want them to represent you. however, the arrogance of telling me to ignore my religious beliefs in this and

clicking into saying it is a look into the ether those of the culture that we live, in which it is ok to attack people because of their faith. i think any member of any legislative body in this country has probably many, many times heard things exactly like that. the reason why is because we have a culture that teaches people that it is ok to harass people of faith. as a result not of that particular conversation, but of that attitude within my party, the democratic party in oklahoma tried to censure me. for passing a pro-life bill. they came within 50 those at the statewide democratic party. this had no legal force. it didn't really bother me. it bothered my colleagues in

the house who were democratic a lot more than it bothered me. i don't care. but it says something about how far people think they can go based on religious faith. my party went into my district and took a picture -- i am a catholic -- and they took a picture from our catholic newspaper that i was in and put out a fire saying this is rebecca hamilton -- rebecca hamilton's church is against birth control. and here is rebecca hamilton speaking to her church telling them how she will make birth control in illegal. it shows again the degree to which attacking people on faith and faith alone is tolerated in our society. another story i want to tell you is, if using -- a few years ago, i was visiting a friend of

in san francisco. we were at a friend of his at his home. and they were talking about the problems that they were having on the job with a supervisor. "youhe friend remarked, know, i ain't that -- i think that she is an evangelical. i don't, but i think. if i can hang that on her, i can get her." what does that tell you about the culture of which these people work. aboutoes that tell you the culture in which we live? what does that tell you about religious freedom as a matter of practice and faith for individuals? a few weeks ago, gonzaga university, which is a catholic university, ruled that the knights of columbus were not

welcome as a student group on their campus because it is a whole fleet -- a holy catholic organization. there was such a public outcry that the president of the school review this decision and overturned it. but it was the vice president of the school who had made the original position. what that says to me is that the attitude and the belief that religion should be driven from the public sphere has become so widespread in this country that even schools that purport to be religious schools have fallen into it. the question that we are faced with at this moment -- the persecution of any sort doesn't begin by killing large roots of people, by singling them out and killing them. you don't start by lynching.

you don't start by programs. you start by bashing. you start by hate speech. you start with sibling out a group of people based on a certain thing. in this case, the religious faith. and limiting what they may or may not do, what they may or may not say. jennifer gave you some very good examples of bashing and hate speech. on those were just things the street corner post up those were in the legislative body on the mike in outlook by elected officials -- on the mike in public by elected officials. that again points to where we are on that continuum of religious discrimination. we have reached the point in this country that dashing people verbally -- that bashing people verbally is tolerated and applauded.

you can be reelected doing it. you can have big writing on your television show doing it. that is a line. that is a mark. toward violent persecution, which is where these things always end up simply because that is human nature. if it keeps going far enough, you dehumanize a group enough, you marginalize them enough, it is easy to do anything to them. what we are dealing with in this country is that we are moving on the progression. by saying that religion, religious faith, religious belief, religious practice must be confined to your home, that you may not discuss this in public, that you may not act on

it as a belief, you are discriminated. that is the factor discrimination. and that is the argument we are having in this country. it has evolved to that point. -- devolved to that point. the question is does the first amendment, the second half of the first amendment commanded the second sentence of the second half half of the first amendment apply to individuals and everyone in this country or does it only apply to formally organized religious groups within the buildings where they practice their faith? thatis the real question we are facing. there is a large number of people in this country who are taking the position and they're doing it very aggressively and right up front. there is no point for us to pretend that we can see this. they are taking the position that the second half of the

first amendment only applies to institutions and it does not apply to people. billout of time, but the of rights has to apply to all of us. the bill of rights is about individuals. it does not apply -- if it does not apply to the people of this country, then it really does not[applause] >> thank you to all of our panelists. one of the things we heard from all of them is the depth and the challenge that we face as we try to advance and protect religious freedom in this country will stop and we have discussed a number of those challenges here today, especially the "get the to a nunnery" sentiment that seems so prevalent. but i would like to focus on in the remaining 15 minutes that we have, however, is how can we effectively combat that and

other challenges that we face? let me begin by asking all of our panelists who have worked extensively with state legislatures come either as members of the legislature or working with them and trying to persuade them to pass various measures. if you could give the religious freedom movement in your state want capacity or one tool that toole capacity or none that it currently lacks that you think would help combat some of these challenges, what would it be? >> i think that the number one thing they need is to stop unafraid. think believe it and you it, then do it and stop being afraid. hist>> to effectively communicate, especially on ballot issues, home funding is

such a key part of that. thet of it comes down to funding itself. the states where they come on the ballot and didn't do well, the proponents of religious liberty amendments were outspent by millions of dollars not only getting it legislature. it is being able to communicate the message and having the funding and the means to get the message out.. >> what about you, jennifer? >> i think just playing off of

what other people have said, the ability to educate more people to really have a true appreciation for what religious liberty means and why it is so important. right now there is a general sentiment that it is important, but not enough people are stepping over to really express that publicly. wei serve in a region where have both very liberal voices like california and very conservative like arizona. to me, religious freedom has become a victim of the culture war divide. the left and the writer so sharply are divided and religious freedom freedom is associated with the right side of the culture wars. our challenge has been to communicate across the culture war divide to all sides and say that liberty of conscience is something that belongs to everyone. we all need the right to live

according to our own values and that is good for the liberals, for the gays as well is for people of faith. you can't have the rights of one without the rights of the other. so somehow, bridging this culture war divide for us has been the key to our success. >> in the example that you gave of the workplace religious freedom act in california, you obviously were able to do that successfully. >> we had the support of the aclu, the california employment lawyers association, which i have been serving for a number of years on our legislative committee, so we had the liberal civil rights groups. we specifically omitted the religious right conservative groups from the coalition and focused on minorities. it was sponsored by the sikh coalition big does -- by the c: in in california the cousin to -- the c coalition in california.

>> who else has a good example, maybe even an inspiring example of bipartisanship in the service of religious freedom that you can share with us? rebecca, have you seen some examples? >> i think, in oklahoma, one nice week to the democratic party, we have a divide between the hardy and the elected officials. when i passed that pro-life bill that i was referring to, the one where i was censured for passing it, -- where i was passing it, the governor vetoed it and it -- the senate would not override the

veto. so we took one of my bills -- i'm a democrat -- and put it in the bill and passed it and ran it through the democratic governor, which is what made me so popular. that added to my popularity, let's say. but that was a bipartisan effort where we work together. we have done that a lot of times on different bills like that. >> how do you get that to happen? dovery practical terms, how you organize that kind of a bipartisan effort? how do you create the conditions that would be conducive to that? >> in politics, political necessity will always be a part of it. one of the problems we have is that it is too partisan. when we allow a basic freedom, a basic human right like religious liberty, to become a partisan football, that in itself is a problem.

what i have seen in oklahoma and what i have been discussing with other legislators seen is that, when the two parties are very close in numbers, they are both much more eager to be in favor of religious freedom and other issues because the parties themselves are not really representing the people out in the world, the people who have them on their voter registration card. eachactually agree with other a lot more than the parties do. divideere is a close between the two parties, they both passively recognize this and suddenly start representing the people a little more. when you have too much one way or the other, things like they used to get elected, like religious liberty are pro-life, they just go out the window pretty much.

the order goes away -- the ardor goes away. clinical parties are not churches. in this country, we have made the mistake -- political parties are not churches. in this country, we have made the mistake to think that they are. your look to them to be god. they are just a tool. good people are essential. it is very, very important to elect the people. but that, i mean equal of whichever party who really care about this country and to say things who are honest and tell you what they think. when you start selecting people who have been marked in like a can of corn, you will get nothing but a puppet when they

get in there. so you need to be a little more realistic when you vote. [applause] >> thank you. >> along the same lines, let me ask you a similar question. you told what i thought was uninspiring story in the idaho legislature. how did you and others who are leading the effort on the bill you discussed there, how did you arrange to get the kind of bipartisan support that you got when you may have been able to pass the thing with just the votes of one party? >> and a lot of it was working at the front and on it, especially working with the universities. we have three public universities in the state. i was good friends with the lobbyists on each of them. it enough friends with two out

of him -- two of them that they did not even testify against the bill. and then the third is such a close friend that he knew it wouldn't affect our relationship if he did. so one of the universities did testify against it, but it was very low pressure in committee from the university and not even the university that was to change the policy. with my friend across the aisle i communicated with them early on and got the attorney general's opinion. when one of the senators expressed interest in support, i asked if he would like to be a co sponsor. i added him as a co-sponsor on the bill. asried to be as inclusive possible. i would like to be able to share the credit with them so, i think that definitely helped.

likelad, even if a state idaho where the pendulum is so far over to one party right now it is important to have bipartisan issues, that are not just political issues but are fundamental issues like this one. see went out of my way to if we can do that. >> i know each of you trying to or coalitions and caucuses in your state. thatis the bit of advice you would give to someone who is trying to do that in their state? why don't we begin with you? >> well, put me on the spot why don't you? first of all, it's important to understand the nature of an interface coalition and what this work is about. it's very different from the

movement, which i describe as people coming together and leaving their differences at the door and try to find things in common. when we protect religious freedom we come together because our religious we're willingnd even though wers have disagreements. for example, in california, the catholic church has been under attack for some of its distinctives that we clearly differ with but we respect their rights to their beliefs come to support legislatively and on numerous occasions. you have to understand the

basic you have to understand the basic premise that we're going to respect one another's distinctives. >> jennifer? >> i think it is important to establish a broad coalition of support of many different faith traditions and faith leaders. i think the more able you're able to get faith leaders around the table the influence you can have when you go into the process to fight for these issues. when forming these coalitions, it is important to reach out to people, even if you have had real vast disagreements with them in the past. try to bring all of them to the table to talk about the issue and why it is so important. on this particular issue that is why we all stand together and stand united.

>> thank you. how about you? >> in idaho, first, i invited legislators who i respected. we would not be advocating specific pieces of legislation, even the bill we just talked about. i individually asked the members if they wanted to sponsor it. but the purpose is for us to discuss legislators about their experiences and have access to liberty. think is a good way to set up the caucus. if there is a bill that is divisive, that should not be a reason why a member would not be a part of nap it is a way to communicate with policy leaders on this issue and that was a good model for us.

>> excellent suggestion. rebecca, how about you? >> i think when people work together it comes down to human nature. we will leave this program at this time. discussion on any report indicating social security is on a fiscally on sustaining path. of the is the chair academy. she was on deck to be the moderator but she could not be here today and send you her regrets. i will try to subacetate for her. in your folders, you should have the new briefed on the our new brief on

the social security program, highlights from a study on social security, speaker bio, form.blue evaluation there are still a few copies on the side table of the complete "rsion of our study, strengthening social security, what do americans want?" to stephenhings goss copies of a one-page summary of the report and a memo on the potential real vacation between the disability program and the old age and

survivors program. we'll leave this room probably at 12:15. thespeakers will be out in hall and you can paraberate our ere.kers th maintaining the program's long- term balance for the 75-year estimate to period that social security works within. basing their reports on the estimates produced by the actuaries, who are as good as better.e, if not it is an occasion for aggressive

partisan campaigns and media coverage. one of the former president used to admonish us to produce nothing except unassailable fa cts. it is not clear that there is a thatin washington, d.c., canopy assailed. assailed.nnot be purpose is to invent solutions to challenges facing the nation by increasing public understanding of social security. you'll find lots of information at the website, nasi.org. a question and

answer sheets but we forgot to bring with us this morning. universals near protection against the risk of living in poverty due to ear are watching helplessly as your savings get wiped out by personal adversity or the high cost of medical care. social security prevents families from becoming impoverished by the death of a breadwinner. social insurance is based on the recognition that there are some risks that most of us could not

possibly handle if there were not some risks. we makeour resources, comprehensive insurance broadly affordable. programs ari 20th-century development. by need for them was written abraham lincoln. that is it, in a nutshell. ouras long since become most important and popular public program. american workers pay 62 cents out of every $10 from their paychecks and matched by their

employers. this year at the cap is set at $137,000. a milliono earns dollars a year pays the same amount as someone who earns $113,000. fairness issue for many people who would like to see everybody contributed to social security all year long, just as they do. theress has not increased tax rate since 1990. the number of beneficiaries has increased and we're still in the early years of the baby boomer''

retirement. the good news is that the actuaries saw all of this coming. security projected long- term shortfall could be closed by gradually increasing the tax and gradually removing the tax cap. social security faces a long term shortfall. concern and there are of course others. the big challenge for congress would be to address the shortfall. folders,bios in your so i will keep the introductions short.

he and his staff are held in high esteem by both republicans and democrats. how he maintains his youthful good looks. i am grateful for his infinite skill. steve exemplifies public- service at its best and he is a grade teacher. tocan be a tiny bit hard follow at times. is an expert on social security and an inspiring person to work with. forne works harder

america's workers today and tomorrow. let's turn to the findings of this year's report. steve first and then virginia. the expected have a microphone. if you'll stand and state your name, and we will go from that system. steve? >> thank you for the kind introduction. years, you didn't have to disclose that -- 40 years. i just want to share with you what a joy it is working in this area and on this material, working first vault with our board of trustees, which are six

folks, including our own commissioner of social security. share with you how impressive it is across administration's that this group of people put on their trustee and and to a remarkable job working effectively in a truly non-partisan way and looking out for the good of the american people and this program. offices that work on this. there is amazing work done in our office, all the economic projections and on the social security side, a number of

people that will be working and they're insured status and benefits. ce and about 50 folks back at the office. couple ofumped into a these slides that we have an share a little bit of the natures of the projections of social security. we wish where comes to projections we did indeed have the real crystal ball. all we can give you are the projections that we have for the future which are based on the best possible analysis that we can come up with. together put it all

and come up with the best estimates. as our to think of them best possible projections into the future. our middle estimates. we have a broad range of uncertainty. look at this first slide. what is actually required by law? to make a report to the congress. are overprojections the next five years. that gets to be an extrapolation taking into account the changing conditions. to speak to the status of the program.

75 yearsrojection of into the future. a long, long time. our youngest participants are people in the early 20's. that covers pretty much the balance of their lives. room wille in this generate the idea is and look at potential changes to social whatity, which is really the report is all about, lay not what the status of the program is under current law as we know it. that instructs congress to have a road map so they can move toward enacting into the future.

the actual type of changes is for them to decide. port.from the trustee re and iticit is described increased exactly as predicted in last year's report. which tells you how much more money will we have over the next 75 years or how much less money we will have that will be needed to pay the full amounts of scheduled benefits. 2.67% of projection of payroll. if we take the tax rate and 2.67%, that would be

enough to put this in balance over the period. and that isises, what we were expecting last year by changing our valuation period. the next 75 years now includes included inwas not the seventh five-year period last year. which was not included in the last year.iod of congress to keep a closer eye on the program separately, which is a good thing.

we will be moving toward depleting our reserves of fully in the year 2033. basically not a lot of big news on that. is the morest fund interesting aspects. we are projecting the reserves to become depleted in the year 2016. ifen they become depleted, there is no congressional action to make changes, changes,80 coming in for every dollar of scheduled benefits for the program. we are confident that they will not do that.

we have brought along some copies of a memo that was put together to put forth a possible approach towards reallocating the tax rates programs and to put them in some status in the future and to avoid the depletion. we do a project the cost for will continue as it has since 2010 to exceed the amount of tax revenues coming in. we predict that to continue to be the case. we project will continue through more in, comeing into the program, which means the dollar amount of the trust fund will be rising through 2020.

it will start to decline in 2021 . we projected basis, at depletion, if that is allowed to happen, we would be able to pay about 77% of scheduled benefits. gradually that would drop to about 72%. our trusticture of fund ratios. this is a look at what solvency means. solvency means at any given point in time do we have enough money to pay all of the scheduled benefits. a perfect indicator it is what our trust fund ratio is.

havemount of reserves we in the trust fund at a point annual cost by the of the program. it shows what kind of reserves we have relative to the annual cost of the program. ourselves in a position with the tax revenue is moment less.ueles we're going to be tapping into those reserves and using them up gradually. you can see that in the picture. veryicture has not changed much. old age and survivors insurance is in the pink.

is especially interesting. thatis the projection becomes depleted soonest. there was an event. a reallocationd of tax rates. the trust fund was in a relatively good shape. the d.i. trust fund was moving towards depletion. we projected that the new reserve depletion date would be 2016, and that is what we are seeing again today. projectionile a turns out to be true.

we're happy when we have a success like this. the next picture speaks to annual flows of money coming in and money going out. redline represents a percentage of our tax base as a percentage of the earnings. we do not tax all earnings but up to $113,700. look at the total tax base. the percentage of that is total cost of social security? some revenue from the taxation of social security benefits. as%red line is part income of payroll and that is

relatively flat. tax rate is relatively flat. the cost rate was less than the income rate. we were building up the reserves. itt, bp up, but op would have been rising anyway. the baby boom generation has started moving from working ages into retirement ages. increasing the cost as a percentage of the payroll. people moving into a benefit ages.

the recession just accelerated that. then we get back on a long-term track of rising as the boomers get more fully into retirement. then you can see the dashed line. 17% ofises up to about payroll. is theid blue line expenditures and that suddenly drops. we expect the reserves to be depleted. this is under current law. the lot is special for social fromrity trust funds essentially any other federal program.

boring down by the social security trust fund -- down by no borrowing the social security trust fund. the expenditures it would have to be produced, unless congress steps in, as they have always done. look at the drop. imagine you are a member of congress and you see a drop of that magnitude for your constituents in 2033. probably not a place you want to be. think that congress will come to the rescue. to act gives people a chance see them coming and to make them

a gradual. the next slide shows essentially the same thing. it expresses the cost as a percentage of gross domestic ofduct, the total value goods and services produced in the economy. this speaks to the concept of sustainability. total economy is taken up by the cost of a given program? back in 1975 to 2008, we were very steady. there is a jump up because of the recession.

changing age distribution of the population. that is not because we're all going to live to 150. it is because the birth rate dropped. women were having children at the rate of 3.3 and that has dropped down to about two children per woman. sustainability, we have to sustain the projection of the cost under current law being more than the income under current law. vertical,s not going as we have seen for the medicare program. totalojection for the

cost is actually very similar to what it is for social security and fairly stable going to the future. peoples and the american have a choice of going forward. do we want to raise the income or reduce the cost of social %ecurity down to roughly 4.6 or something in between? just to show you why this cost is going up. i mentioned the baby boom generation and a drop in the birthrate. is the ratio of beneficiaries per 100 workers.

you can see the cost goes up iod. the 20, 25-year pero we're having the baby boomers retire and they are being replaced by generations of lower birthrates. that is why the cost is going up. we have a complicated slide here. i will not try to walk for all these numbers. i do not want to put people to sleep. too long onlinger this slide. the just increase to the extent expected. a lot ofot to siay

other things did not happen. , e extension of tax cuts maintaining the lower marginal income tax rates has a real effect on social security. have a third of people those benefits subject to personal income tax and the revenue is split. the lower tax rates had been in the law and cause us to project last revenue coming in, .15% of payroll. there were some other changes that happened. backger drop in mortality in 2009.

mortality did not drop very much in 2010. important andr of significant changes. we are always trying to improve our methods. there were some changes in our methodologies. do a better job of projecting the number of people who receive social security benefits. populations. apart we used to try to project them together. of ouranging mix population over time confound

our ability to do the best possible job. that resulted in having fewer people receiving benefits. benefits of average goes up somewhat. another is the labor force participation rates. report go to the trustee to see more detail. people out there working or reflectwork to better disability changes over time and to better reflect the increase in longevity. as people are living longer and longer, at some point we

project we will be in better health and are ages and people will have a better ability -- other than changing in the valuation period, we had a bunch of things that resulted in higher costs and lower costs and they tend to balance out this year. so there's not much change. the is a picture of mortality rate change. you can see the glow effect on the death rates that we are projecting. a very small projection from the red line down to the new line.

a 5% increase of four deaths over the next 75 years. some of the near term things changed. we like to focus on what is happening in the economy. compare news is if you the 2012 report to the 2013 report, unemployment rates have dropped more than the trustees had expected. that is really good news. we're projecting that we will continue to have lower unemployment rates. 2016 andck in track by a full economy to 2020, 2021. bed period like

with the recession -- we're not in a bad period. more peopleting working in the country. this is very good. it is good for them and the country and good for the trust. this is more people working. we were higher this year and we project will continue to be higher going into the future. the economy has been better. this is reflective of the change in the labor participation rates. andging life expectancies other factors in disability in

the population. that is good news. not quite so it's good news on the near-term economic. the growth in the average real earnings. cpi-earnings is just adjusted. from the 2012n as has to 2012 adn 2013, been expected. is lowerge earnings and will continue to be lower in the future. it turned out to be three% lower. but a lower workers average worker. we're getting a jobs recovery but the average earnings is not

as high as had been expected. reason that of the the annual cash flows are lower in the early years going forward. thee is some balance in change of the levels of gross domestic product in real dollars and inflation-adjusted dollars. more workers with slightly lower earnings pretty much balance each other out. gdp is similar to last year's trustees report. .e will not dwell on this i describe some of the high points in the changing of methodologies.

with moredetails precision in the report. this is the annual cash flow balance of the trust fund. income minus the cost of the program divided by our tax base. our cash flow and how much much tooor how little. numberssee that all the are negative. we are lower in the early years of the projection. real earnings are less than we had been expecting because more people are working. we are looking

on the fully insured aside. we have separated the group's who are undocumented forces the citizens and we resulted in fewer people getting benefits and that is why the blue line is higher. greaterct of having t out.ty tends to winnow dominate. tend to picture which we sometimes put up that shows the cash flow item. show the total

amount of income that the trust funds are receiving. the red lines are done in a lookt approach, when you it the unified budget. theme tend not to give credit for the interest. from the interest trust fund but this approach tends to ignore that. the unified budget approach tends to cancel each other out. you can see the darker red lines grow even more negative.

those are reflecting the effect on the unified budget. had the payroll tax holidays. trust funds were backfilled for that. revenue a reduction of coming into the system. we have far high-cost and low- cost projections of uncertainty. our projections look-alike in the colorful lines of verse is the colorful -- the lines.and dashed seen the slides which we think is important in terms

of the solvency of the program. item to give you a feel for what the value of benefits are for social security recipients. whatis a picture for happens to people who retire at different earnings levels, what the benefit level is the rough their career. 25% tovary anywhere from 50% if they retire at 62. at 62 instead of 65, a majority of people who take

benefits taken at the earliest point.ble 40% for the down to relatively low earners. a further chart if congress does not save the day. the shows with the benefits would be should that happen. we're running at a time rapidly. you might want to take a peek at this later. orhave to raise the revenue bring the cost down to 4.7% of gdp. that are several things have been considered by members

of congress. revenue.ncreased or some combination. two other slides. has happened to the program and why we are in the position we are now? those are put forth as a fix in social security for a good long time. we know that was a good start for the long term. 1982, the blue line. ofs is a number beneficiaries per covered workers. that was rising rapidly.

did bring that down someone in a number of ways, by raising the retirement age. it is lookingrt, similar to what we were projecting back in 1983. we should have lower costs and now. the actual annual cash flow balances -- we move from the line.ne to the green we have a partial fix. of thatlost a lot ground overtime. the reason for that is not from the demographics.

we were showing things to be better. a couple of assumptions remain at the time simply have not been realized. peras been less than 1.5% year. the earnings distribution was projected to be stable going forward. of theas been dispersion earnings levels. we have had a big increase in amount of earnings. our challenge in terms of cash flow is greater than we were expecting. and thank you for bearing with all this stuff. i hope it was not too hard to

follow. [applause] >> thank you very much for that fabulous overview an explanation of what is in the new report. my remarks will be fairly brief. i would like to provide some context, thinking about the role of social security and the larger society. i will try to make six points quickly. looking at the level of arefits, benefits relatively modest but very

important to a large majority of people who get them. security compared to insurances or life for families with dependents is remarkably efficient. the notion that social security is sustainable. its cost is stable. benefits are already being cut by more than most people recognize. in 1983ts were enacted and built on in 1991. the are not notice put in aggregate they add up to quite a bit. willings say they are to pay for social security.

about: is tosearch pay for the system. some results of what americans say they would like to see happen to keep social security in balance for the long term. on the benefits are modest yet essentials. the average benefit is about $1,300 a month, which is not terribly generous. benefits as are so important to many. lift 21 million beneficiaries out of poverty, including 6 million other adults that are not over the age of 65 . this illustrates the importance of social security to seniors. this device the entire population into five equal

groups based on their total income. couples are considered as one union. 40% in terms of total income. the incomes are less than $20,000 a year. for those groups, social security is almost all they have. social security is the red part of the pie. of annual income and social security is roughly 2/3 of their income. pensions is the yellow piece of the pie. earnings is the green card. else.liver is everything

getting up to the next group, those with incomes up to $56,000 a year. social security is 44% of their income. pensions start to have a larger role. only the top income group that social security is not the biggest part of income for seniors. peoplege majority of have not retired yet. earniin, isource of earnings -- their main source of income is earnings.

the next point on social security is remarkably efficient. as we compared to other tools. maybe we do not need as much at social security. currently and for most of its long history, social security spending for administrative because remarkably low it is a national program. a penny of every dollar goes to administrative costs. .t is hard to match that deal on the affordability question, this looks set social security as a share of the entire economy or gross domestic product. 5% of starting a roughly

the economy and it goes up to about 6.2% when all baby boomers are over 65. hen it stays are roughly 6.2% for the rest of the next 75 years. far as to say it is quite affordable. growth in than the spending that the economy babyady absorbed wheren boomers were kids. people did not know and we do not have as good of data. there were three, four, five years old and they showed up for school. much more than 1% of the

economy. if that is a measure of affordability based on demographics, then it is a promising sign. the question of benefits are already being cut. social security spending is close to a flat line. policy makers have already faced quite phased in substantial cuts. this is the result of legislation at two different times. in 1983,st change was a decision to raise the age when people can claim full retirement benefits. e 65.ed to bake 6

it is rising from 65 to 66. for people that are born in 1960 and later. -- about equipment to 6.6%. 3% for.3 pour 3% two years. even ifso true that people delayed retirement, they still get less in social getrity because -- they less than they otherwise would. if you claim them early.

the second change taking place at that lowers take-home income is the taxation of social security benefits. int was a change enacted 1983. at the time, that money can go back to the social security system to help pay for social security. viewed and, it was it could be counted either way. it was a tax increase on beneficiaries that reduce their net take home in ccome. adjustedholds are not to rise as incomes rise. more and more in, is subject to income taxes. an additional change

was made. 85% of benefits above a higher threshold would also be taxed and that money goes to the hospital insurance trust fund. as phasinges as well netn early would lower at to come benefits by about 9.5%. the third change was a small but permit change of delaying six months the due date of your first cost of living adjustment. 8%. 2.estimated today to these three things add up

and theyon in benefits are not widely noticed. there is a lesson there. these changes have taken place. rate's not been a tax that workers or employers pay. enactedent tax rate was effect innd took the 1990. there has been no adjustment in the tax rate since then. there was an increase anticipated because of the retirement of the baby boom. findings.ng to survey survey that recent

was similar to surveys done by other organizations. people say they do not mind paying for social security. of course nobody likes to pay taxes. they value what social security does. and two children and widowed spouses. the overall weight of agreement with back claim was 84%. it is consistent across part is ies. , 86% ofepublicans independents do not mind paying. other questions asked a little harder. agree it is critical to preserve social security benefits even if it means that working americans have to