i am a son of boston, but i do not go to occupy a seat. i go there to stand for you, to speak for you, to seek change to lift up your families and everyonere, and for in this state, regardless of how you voted. i say to you tonight, this is your seat in the united states senate. [applause] five months ago, at the ymca, we began this campaign. crisscrossed the commonwealth from boston to the tokshires, from new bedford new bridgeport, more than 13,000

miles of tweets, texts, one million doorbells wrong, phone calls made in order to bring us here this evening and i have had a chance to talk to people from all walks of life. they shared with me their dreams for their futures. there hopes for moving our country forward. they told me of their frustrations with gridlock, that they wanted to make real progress, creating an economy that works for everyone, that we put real gun safety measures on the books, that we protect a woman's right to choose. [applause] i am going to the united states senate to build a bold and bright future filled with optimism and opportunity for

every family in the state of massachusetts and across our great country. there is a long history of leaders from massachusetts going to the united states senate. our legendary ted kennedy. [applause] our great secretary of state, john kerry. [applause] now, i'm going to washington to serve with the extraordinary elizabeth warren. [applause] there are many challenges and many opportunities, and i want to lead the effort to launch a clean energy revolution in our country. i want to put steel workers,

ironworkers,, and electricians to work building the new backbone for a new energy economy here in the united states and around the world. we can combat climate change and break our dependence on imported oil and create jobs here in massachusetts and abroad -- across our country. we can put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, tunnels. from coast-to-coast, we can put people to work in every city and town in the commonwealth of massachusetts. we have tos, remember that massachusetts is not just the baystate. we are number one in information technology, number

one in biotech, number one in healthcare. we employee 500,000 people in these industries and we must keep innovating to create jobs here in the state of massachusetts. [applause] at the very essence of our innovation strategy, it is our belief that every person every child in the state of massachusetts and across our country should be able to attend the college of their choice and not have to shoulder the board and -- a burden that carries them into their 30's and 40's. i'm going go to washington to fight so every child can maximize their god-given ability educationally. [applause]

i will promise you this. will seek consensus wherever possible. like you, i am tired of gridlock, but i will never compromise on our principles. [applause] i'm going to the united states senate to stand up for you. values that i've always believed in -- honesty, fairness, and quality. i will be at senator who will fight for you every hour, on every vote, on every issue, to make progress for you and for your families. i will fight for you. i will fight for everyone struggling to make ends meet.

i will fight for immigrant families reaching for the american dream. [applause] i will fight for young people who are our future. i will fight for seniors to build this country. i will fight for our veterans who protected our country. i will fight to preserve our planet for generations to come. [applause] i want, as you want, a 21st century that is more educated, more healthy, more prosperous, -- more fair than the 21st was.the 20th century every day that i serve in the united states senate, i want to

honor the vote and the work that makes it possible for me to stand here today as her next united states senator. god bless massachusetts. god bless the united states of america. ♪ about 1400e monuments and markers on this field. as the men who fought in this battle are getting older, they want to make sure what they have here is remembered.

back in those days, that is how they commemorated service here. this is one human to the and their leaders. the monuments help us interpret the story. most of them are union monuments. especially in a northern state, for monuments. the battle of gettysburg, sunday starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern with historians, scholars, and others. followed at 5:30 p.m. with your

calls and tweets for a --tysburg historian and then a commemorative ceremony with the keynote speaker and dramatic readings of eyewitness accounts and a candlelit vigil. p.m., more calls and tweets for civil war institute director peter carmichael. all day sunday on "american history tv," on c-span3. >> the supreme court ruled today that a key decision from the voting rights act cannot be enforced unless congress comes up with a new formula to determine which states and municipalities need federal monitoring of elections. 4 90 lawices ruled 5- congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on data that does not reflect racial progress and

changes in the u.s. we will get to the supreme court decision striking down part of the voting rights act next on c- span. then the oral argument from the case heard in february. later, president obama lays out his plan to combat climate change. >> greg story is a supreme court reporter for--bloomberg news. greg stohr. >> the supreme court decided that a key part of the voting rights act, a requires parts of 15 states to submit any protein -- any voting changes to the congress.

part of it lifted the preclearance requirement, but it needs it up to congress, if they go back and come up with a coverage formula that does take into account current conditions. >> justice ruth bader ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion for the court. what did it say? >> she said the court should give much more deference to congress. in the 14th and 15th amendment, they lay out that congress has a special role here to protect against discrimination, in this case, discrimination against voting. she also says that congress had ample evidence to show racial determination and voting is still prevalent and, in

particular, in these jurisdictions. >> we have heard reactions from thislon lawmakers that say is judicial activism. what do they mean? >> as justice ginsburg said, they did not differ to congress 's findings that it is still necessary. whengoes back to an era conservatives were accusing that the warren court of judicial activism, because they were striking down state and federal laws, on other grounds. >> what has happened here? >> texas has a voter id law that the justice department stopped through the preclearance requirement. said thatderal court

the law could not go in effect and the state attorney general of taxes said that in the would not go into effect because the court had struck down the preclearance requirement. stohr, supreme court reporter from bloomberg news. thank you. now, reaction from the naacp on the voting rights act decision. this is about 30 minutes. good morning, everyone. good morning to all of our friends and supporters, ldf,ially those at barbara, everyone who has been of our localve units. i'm charles wide and on the national field director for the naacp. -- charles white.

we come this morning yet affirming our belief in section five. much, but theyay gave us, i think, the juice and what we continue to need that preclearance is important. this is the same kind of advocacy work our units across the field will play in making sure the formula in section four is one that is just and fair but represents the people in jurisdictions that it covers. again, we thank all those who have worked hard with us, worked hard on behalf of many people across this country who come from the jurisdiction in which we talk about. they are our members, loyal supporters.

this is a victory for us but there is still a lot to be done. i will now turn to our friends who have been with us leading and i willion part ask them not please come forward. -- now to come forward. >> good morning. and the president and director counsel of the naacp legal defense fund and i'm joined by my colleague ryan. since the voting rights act was enacted and even before, we are part of the team that mitigated the shelby county case. we argued the case on february 27 before the supreme court and we represent black voters in shelby county, alabama.

make no mistake about what has happened. the court has decided that it stands in a better position than congress to determine how to protect voting discrimination. 15th amendment makes clear it is congress that has that power. in 2006 when it was up for reauthorization, congress exercised the power in a bipartisan manner. they determined that the same coverage formula that had been used needed to be extended. we believe that congress is in a better position to determine how voting discrimination plays out in this country.

the ball is in congress's court. we should be turning our attention and cameras across the to do because it is now what it has done so many times in the past, come together republicans and democrats, to reauthorize, to enact, to amend the voting rights act to ensure the protection of minority voters in this country. this is a critical issue of democracy. this speaks to the very poor of values. this decision by the court today is a game changer and leaves virtually unprotected minority voters all over the country. i hope when you report on this case that you will remember that your focus and attention should not be on washington. your focus and attention should be on the town councils and the school board district, the county commission district, the water district, the utility districts all over this country, particularly in the south, where minority voters struggle to have their voices heard and are

unable to participate equally in the process. this is a critical day for participation. strongly that congress can fix it. the supreme court, in its decision, has say that you can fix it. we demand they get to work, come together finding a formula that will respond to the supreme court's concerns that will ensure that minority voters in this country continue to have their voting rights protected and participate equally and fully in the process. >> this strikes the coverage provision of the voting rights act. the first is a substantial act of judicial activism and overreach. the court today diverted from its own precedent of over four decades, four times, the supreme court has upheld section five as constitutional and upheld

the provision that covered the provisions in section five as constitutional. the second truth is this -- there are now millions of minority voters covered by section five of the voting rights act which are now ofnerable to the types intense and pervasive voting discrimination that section five had protected them from for more than 48 years. the good news is this. as we are providing these remarks, we are facing the nation's capital which houses members of congress. in an overwhelmingly bipartisan effort, 98-0 in the senate, they voted to reauthorize the voting rights act for another 25 years. it is the judgment of congress to reauthorize section five, which should stand, and not the overreach of the supreme court today. if there is any moment, it is now that the country can unify

around the importance of protecting those voters who have been made most vulnerable neither stays persistent efforts to discriminate against them in the voting process. they must see this in a bipartisan way and seek to reenact a measure that will protect the voting rights of those voters who have been vulnerable since 1965. haygood from the naacp legal defense fund. haygood. arm.e a separate we work very closely with the naacp, but since our founding we have maintained a separate board and an entirely separate organization. >> good morning, everyone. i am barbara, the president and

executive director of the lawyers committee for civil rights civil rights under law. i'm here today to speak to this decision. i want to say two thing straight up about the decision. one, it is deeply disturbing. it undermines and puts our democracy at risk. nothing is more important than ensuring that every single voter is free from racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination in the exercise of their vote. today's decision severely undermine the legal protections that have been vital for more than almost five decades of voters of all nationalities. say the second problem is that this decision is a betrayal of the american people. there is nothing more critical than making sure that the highest court in our land gets

it right when it comes to what the appropriate coverage is for protecting american people. four of the voting rights act, by saying that the formula is outdated. the court has made a misstep of tremendous proportions by making that decision when congress had 15,000 pages of records that it from hearings. they looked at the states that were covered. all lawsuits involving voting rights have been generated from these states. the state accounted for more that2000 plus findings there have been racial violations in the proposed

practices and procedures. this big preventative stop sign that is section five has now lost one of its arms. what we have done today is go forward. we will go to congress and we will ask congress to do everything that it can to come up with a new coverage formula. we will also have to renew our efforts because when we have seen with all of the new voter suppression laws that have come out in the last couple of years, and really makes it imperative for there to be a formula to .top the states this has plagued our democracy. so i say, today to our nation, that the fight goes on. i say to our nation that we have to fight like ever before to deserve our democracy. i implore everyone to become

active in calling upon their congress people to pass a new coverage formula. this court must look to the future. this court must protect every single voter. thank you. much.nk you very i just want to say again naacp, and aa cp legal defense fund, and the lawyers committee, we will be calling on all of our naacp units to be on the lookout for jurisdictions who will try to implement any kind of electoral changes in the interim. with our partners, we will be setting up a national hotline to receive complaints, reports of jurisdictions who are trying to take advantage of the interim. again, the naacp, the naacp legal defense fund, and the lawyers committee, we will all

be vigilant during the interim and we will be asking our units all over the country to do so. i thank all of you today. if there are specific questions you may have for our partners, i ask that you ask them now. >> what would make you think that congress can fix this given the divisional nature of congress? >> congress has been dysfunctional before. thank you, sir. thank you. congress has been dysfunctional before. this is not the first time. we are talking about the voting rights act of 1965. it was not a model of unity at that time, nor was it over the last several reauthorization to the voting rights act. it wasld remember that signed by president reagan, it was signed by president bush. this is a piece of legislation that we recognize goes to the fore of our democracy.

what has happened today is the ball has been thrown not only in congress's court but in ours. we call, if we march, if we pressure to make clear that we do not intend to go backwards on voting thomas some of the people standing behind me today with these signs and are interned at the naacp legal defense fund, they were not even born when the voting rights act was enacted. they have lived their whole lives with this protection. they have this expectation that they are going to participate in democracy that protects all voters. this country will only go forward, not backward. the supreme court failed

minority voters today, but now congress has to do the right thing. the only way they have done it is because the ball is in our court. americans of all races and of every jurisdiction in this country feel like they have to stand up for the future of .his country when people look at this country and they admire what america has been able to do over the last 50 years, they admire the progress we have made despite our history of slavery, racial discrimination, and exclusion. .ot what makes us special are we prepared to protect that legacy? are we willing to let that legacy go? we call on all americans -- this is not just an issue for civil rights activists, african- americans, or latinos, those in the south. this is the america we have all come to expect and come to enjoy.

the question for us is -- are we willing to fight for it? we believe this is the stance american voters have to take today in light of the supreme court's decision and they have to pressure congress to do their job. thank you for your question. , congress has the ability to correct this decision today by passing a new coverage formula. it will obviously have to undertake a different kind of consideration than it did in 2006, meaning you will have to go state-by-state, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. but i think is important is that , weevery person in america pride ourselves on our democracy. we pride ourselves on the american people's ability to go to the polls and elect a candidate of their choice. it is absolutely imperative that if you believe and care about your democracy that today

is stand up and you say to your congressman, to your senator, that this decision is wrong and that you want to make sure that every american has the right to vote so that you demand that they pass a new section four double into the court's demands and will protect everyone. it is absolutely imperative. spend the next how many ever months it takes, the next however many years it takes. we will not sit down. we will not be silent. we will not accept the evisceration of our rights. we will fight every step of the way. we will make sure that voting rights are available to every single american and we will use every tool -- legally, --to dotionally

whatever is necessary to protect the rights of each and every american citizen. thank you. >> we are glad to have wade henderson here and i will now call in him to come forward. american democracy suffered a blow. disappointedly that a narrow and activist segment of the the supreme court has turned its back on the contemporary problems of voter suppression in america, but on the history that brought us to the point we are today. fortunately, a bipartisan majority in both houses of congress responded to that history in 2006.

we authorized an act that was strong and meaningful under the section five of the 14th amendment of the constitution. today, the court upheld the constitutionality of the most important provision of the voting rights act, but they have challenged us yet again to go back to congress to demonstrate once again that the evidence is that voterrrefutable district -- voting discrimination occurs today in the united states and must be addressed to respond to the demands of a healthy democracy. we are very confident that members of both houses of congress, who helped lead the effort in 2006, many of whom are still there, will respond to those challenges and will help to restore the power of section four. this is the 50th anniversary of

the march on washington. the march on washington was a game changer of a political moment in time and because of that catalytic role of the march, the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act became law. ,e will use this anniversary not just to commemorate the history of what brought america to this day, but to rekindle our commitment to ensure that every person, regardless of their race or economic circumstance, is given the full privilege of citizenship in this country that the constitution guarantees. while we are angry and disappointed, we are inspired to .espond to the challenge

naacp, along with those legacy organizations, will gather here in the nation's capital on august 24, for a commemorative march on washington. now i turn to a passionate legal advocate of voting rights.

>> it is also a slap in the face .o congress the voting rights act is one of the few pieces of legislation that has enjoyed bipartisan support. 1960 5, 1970, 1975, 19 82, and in 2006. it was disappointing of the supreme court would think it is the best decider of when racial discrimination and voting has ended in our country. says it shouldn .e made by congress area of the law, the supreme court would never have done what it did today.

i join with my brothers and sisters to say that we will go to congress and we will fight because we have been in this fight a long time. .e are not turning back now i am confident because i know that one day, we shall overcome. this is an outrageous slap in the face of congress. , severaln congress times, has recognized that we as a nation are better when all of us am a white, black, and every , -- when an ethnicity

all of us, white, black, every color and ethnic city. said,e court has congress, you are out of bounds. the 14th amendment and the 15 empowered -- congress has the power to eliminate an end racial discrimination voting. this act is on its way to doing that and now the supreme court has crippled congress halfway through. there is a precedent for this back in the 19th century. it is the last time the supreme this is a30 years, , the30 year novelty supreme court said the same thing. to the civil rights act and said

no, you do not have the power to do that. that decision ushered in three generations of jim crow in this country. we do not expect this decision to bring back jim crow, that it country.abilize the things that we have gotten used to. effortstrying to make to end discrimination. congress, we believe that congress will step up to the plate as it has done again and again. and overcome this outrageous and disgraceful decision. they represent over 80 years of passionate work in this area. we thank you for the work you have done. the naacp, legal defense fund,

all of us will be calling on passionate advocates across the country to keep watch and keep an eye open for jurisdictions who may try to implement some kind of voting changes during this interim period. we will also be setting up a hotline number and that number will be released soon. our organizations will be taking complaints from citizens who may have continued complaints. i want to thank all of you. our work does not end here. , keepl say to congress this act together. we believe that we are right and on the right side of history as we have always been. we believe in the basic fundamental right of democracy. thank you very much.

>> do you still believe that the south should be stigmatized when congress acts on this? >> the issue is not geographic. section five of the voting applies to alaska, new york, california. it applies to those jurisdictions with a history of past discrimination and who over a decade has failed to come out from under the voting rights act as the law permits. those jurisdictions, the over , --restrictions jurisdictions, have never been denied. this is not about a geographic stigma. we are talking about the act at the guarantees the to vote for every american. ae voting rights act was in porn tool to complement the 15th amendment of the constitution --

was an important tool to complement the 15th amendment of the constitution. all americans to celebrate the importance of our democracy would be there in support. >> [inaudible] clocks i do not think that is accurate at all. -- >> i do not think that is accurate at all. >> we represented black voters in shelby county and we argued the case and the supreme court on february 27. the premise of the question reveals the problem with the decision today. the 15th amendment does not pass go with the courts think about how to deal with voting discrimination. it does not matter what i think or what you think. the 15th amendment gave congress

the power to make the determination. the only question, did congress act responsibly? holds 52 hearings, 15 thousand page record, and looks since the laston reauthorization and finds what it found, over 600 objections to voting a stone intentional discrimination. to allow congress to exercise the authority it was given by the framers of the 15th amendment. that is what they did under section five. whether the court thinks it is a long ass irrelevant so congress acts responsibly. in 2006, they acted responsibly. now we are calling on them to do

it again. >> i would like to respond to that question. come to my state, ok? part of the problem is most of the justices who wrote this opinion to not live in my part of the country. with senators who voted in 2006, they do live in are part of the country. we know the job is not done. in south carolina, mississippi, a help to bring about the end of discrimination, the end of practices that were found -- human change does not come overnight. somebody, it takes from somewhere else to think that we do not have a problem

anymore. we do have a problem. we do have a problem, the voting rights act can help us overcome the problem and what we have today is a decision by justices who sit far away -- who lived far away in the city. they read the record differently than congress so exhaustively did. >> any message to the department of justice? [inaudible] tremendous -- what we do call upon the department of justice to do is to use its toolbox of litigation, its toolbox of providing guidance, its toolbox of speaking to the

states, to make sure they do not run roughshod over the rights of racial minorities. it is important to understand stigma,this question of this court, it's a guarantee of equal justice under the law means that it has to look at the rights of the people. what it did today was it went decades, almost a century backwards. talking about state rights again, the sovereignty of states. protecting voters, protecting the american citizenry. it is important for us to not go backwards to the states rights doctrine.

we know the chief justice ideology has been. it is no surprise that we have seen what he had predicted he wanted forever. to strike down this provision of the voting rights act. i am disappointed that his that they joined him, ran over the rights of congress, and they forgot about their obligation, their deference to congress, and that they have once again played the shell game of coming up with a new standard of review. to come up with a news coverage formula. it is definitely -- this fight over states right is something that we will indeed address.

at the same time, the tragedy of the decision is that all of this continues to happen against the backdrop of modern-day voter suppression. yesterday, justice ginsburg talked about, you have to be an ostrich with your head in the sand to have not understood the necessity for affirmative action programs as a remedial device. ostrich with the his head in the sand ignoring all of the states that have been passing these voter suppression laws. the court erred in letting shelby county, which not only discriminated in 2002, the discriminated again in 2008. found by the courts to have discriminated.

these -- to come before an court and undo such important law is absolutely an american tragedy. ,t calls upon this congress call upon the american people to do what we must do to rise up and demand the court deliver what its duty is and that is the duty of justice. >> if you have individual questions, you can approach people individually. >> [inaudible] >> we have no confirmation. director hear from the of the project on fair representation who helped initiate shelby county's lawsuit. he spoke for a few minutes outside the court after the decision.

>> ready? ladies and gentlemen, my name is edward bloom and i'm a visiting fellow at the american enterprise institute. the purposes of this conference today, i am the director of the project on fair representation. we are the not her profit group that provided counsel to shelby county in their challenge of section 40. i would like to begin by saying the supreme court's opinion testament toeat the character of the american people. those living in the north and especially those living in the south who have labored to ensure the goal of racial equality in voting has been fulfilled. can you hear me ok?

is everybody ok on audio? distorts --n restores an important constitutional order to our system of government. wires that all 50 states in every jurisdiction have the laws applied equally to them. our nation's laws are one-size- fits-all and each state is entitled to the equal dignity and respect of our congressional statutes. the court correctly confirmed that there are no meaningful differences in minority voting opportunities between the covered and noncovered jurisdictions. the american south long ago laid down the burden of racial dissident tribesmen -- of racial

disenfranchisement. >> we will get reaction from eric holder on the supreme court's decision to strike down part of the voting rights act. he spoke for about five minutes at the justice department in washington. >> good afternoon. the united states supreme court announced a decision in the case of shelby county the holder invalidated an essential part of the voting rights act. a cornerstone of american civil rights law. now, like many others across the country, i am deeply disappointed, deeply disappointed with the court's decision in this matter. this decision represents a serious setback for voting rights and has the potential to

negatively affect millions of americans across the country. in the nearly half century since its initial passage in 1965, the voting rights act has consistently enjoyed broad bipartisan support in congress as well as the executive branch. after extensive hearings, sections 4 and 5 of this important law, were re- authorized. most recently in 2006. just seven years ago. with the unanimous support of the united states senate and the near unanimous support of the house of representatives. this is a uniquely legislative function and responsibility that the constitution expressly gave to congress. the last re-authorization was signed into law by president george w. bush. just as prior re-authorizations had been signed by presidents ford, reagan and nixon in accordance with core nonpartisan american values. after all, as congress correctly recognized in the hearings held in 2006, racial and language minorities faced significant voting discrimination in some parts of our country. given the successful decisions

in the departments of voting rights cases over the last 18 months, over the last 18 months the need for a vital and intact voting rights act remains clear. last year a federal court cited the texas congressional redistricting map on the grounds that it discriminated against latino voters. in that case, the court noted that the parties -- and i'm quoting. this is from the court. the court noted that the parties provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space or need to address here. provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space or need to address here, unquote. the federal court that reviewed south carolina's photo i.d. law

also noted, and i quote, the voting rights act played in prompting the state to play how it will implement the statute in future elections so it would no longer disproportionately impact black voters. without the section 4 coverage formula, neither of these discriminatory voting changes would not be subject for review and both could have been implemented immediately. these are just two of many examples demonstrating that these problems have not been confined to history. they continue to exist. their effects are real. they are of today, not yesterday, and they could erode the foundations of our democracy. our nation has been better since 1965 but the destination we've seek has not been reached. in reading of today's opinion demonstrates that every member, every member of the supreme court agrees with this fact.

as the chief justice wrote, and i quote again, voting discrimination still exists. no one doubts that, unquote. this is why protecting the fundamental right to vote for all americans will remain one of the justice department's highest priorities. the department of justice will continue to carefully monitor jurisdictions around the country for voting changes that may hamper voting rights. let me be very clear. we will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action using every legal tool that remains to us against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the supreme court's ruling by hindering eligible citizens full and free exercise of the franchise. as the president has made clear, congress needs to act to make sure that every american has equal access to the polls. the department also will work with congress and other elected

and community leaders to formulate potential legislative proposals to address voting rights discrimination. because existing statutes cannot totally fill the void left by today's supreme court ruling. and i am hopeful that new protections can and will pass in this session of congress. the voting rights act has always had strong bipartisan support on capitol hill, and today's ruling should not change that. this is not a partisan issue. this is an american issue. because our democracy is founded on ensuring that every eligible citizen has access to the ballot box. finally, we need to be clear about what happened today. part of the voting rights act but not all of it was struck down. the constitutionally protected voting rights of all americans remain fully intact, and the right to vote, free from discrimination based on race or language, requires our vigilant

protection. we know from many decades of long, hard struggle that the best way to defend the right is to go out and exercise it. so no one should conclude that today's unfortunate decision has rendered her or his voting rights invalid or made attempting to cast a vote on election day futile. to the contrary, it is incumbent on all american citizens to stand up for their rights by registering to vote, by going to the ballot box, by exercising the most fundamental of all rights and by voting for their preferred candidates of any party. our democracy is dependent on each of us and on our active participation in the electoral process. although today's decision represents a serious and unnecessary setback, the justice department remains committed to moving forward in a manner that's consistent with the art of american history which has always been a story of increasing equality, inclusion and access to the franchise.

this is what makes the united states of america truly exceptional, and this is what we will zealously guard. thank you. >> now reaction from the congressional black caucus. we will hear from congresswoman and civil rights activist john lewis of georgia. >> this is a day that will go down in he the history of this country as one of the worst days for civil rights an civil discourse in this cupry's history. i am marcia fudge, the chair of

the congressional black caucus. i was hopeful that today would bring better news but the decision that came down today is certainly one that has disappointed us all. i would like to begin by having our assistant democratic leader, jim clyburn, give us a few words. mr. clyburn? >> thank you very much, madam chair. colleagues. about four years ago, i sensed the supreme court sort of gave us an indication that today's result could be what it is. i don't remember the case, the i remember the case, the court seemed to signal at that time, that the kind of history that we used in 2008 when we re- authorized the voting rights act, they considered to be

outdated. and that something needed to be done to update the formula we used. now we in the congress did a study, to my memory serves, it was 15,000 page study. and the vote in the senate was 98-0. the vote in the house, i believe, was 390-33. and we decided that enough evidence was there in front of us to require a re-authorization of the voting rights act. that was just 2008. now, if we were to look, in my opinion, if we were to look at the reason that the supreme

court gave in talking about our failure to take into account the progress that had been made, i believe the best way to take into account the progress that's being made in this country on any subject is to look at the actions as well as the debate that is undertaken by those who are elected every two years, and in some instances six, but the house is re-elected every two year. wore still very close to the people. we then issued our opinion. but we saw, when this case was being discussed, justice scalia seemingly wanting to eninject himself in the -- and the court

into this, saying to the effect that the congress seemed not to be able to get it right. i think this is a very sad day but let me conclude by saying this. if we were to accept the supreme court's reasoning that we didn't take into account the progress that's been made, i want all of us to remember that in 1865, when we had just after emancipation proclamation, been this way for two years, people of color were elected to legislatures all over the south. in south carolina, 2/3 of the south carolina general assembly was african-american. so in 1870 and 1880, the same assessment should have been

made, look at the progress we have made. then in 1890's, you started getting legislative actions and we started getting a united states supreme court decision, plessy v. ferguson, which started us down the road and then by 1900 there were no african-americans left. so what i'm saying here today is, i can envision that the beginning of next legislative session, a lot of states, including my own state, will be taking a look and probably will be having some redistricting, not just for congressional seats but also legislative seats, because we found out in the texas case that it's not beyond

some of our friends to have special lennell slative sessions and special redistricting in the interim of the 10-year period, that was done in texas several years ago, and i can envision this supreme court decision leading to that for next year as well. it's a sad day. i would hope that the congress would step in and in the bipartisan manner in -- and i might add in the house there were more republicans than democrats than voted for the re- authorization in 2008. i would hope that kind of bipartisanship could take place at this time. with that, i am pleased to yield to the chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, ms. judy chu. >> as chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, i joan my colleagues of the tricaucus in condemning today's supreme court decision as a setback for all americans.

it is with a heavy heart we see this erosion of the voting rights act that ensures the promise of democracy for each and every citizen. the 14th amendment provided equal protection for all of us under the law this e15th amendment made the right to vote color blind. both were undercut by poll taxes, literacy tests and voter intimidation. but it was the voting rights act that put an end to all of that it ensured an impartial review of new voting laws for regions that have a history of discrimination at that ballot tox box. when that section was renewed in 2006 it passed by bipartisan vote of 390-33 in the house and the unanimous vote in the senate and was signed into law by george w. bush.

despite this overwhelming bipartisan support, today the supreme court struck down one of the key commonets of the voting rights act on the ground that it's outdated. while the asian american community knows all too well how easily the right to vote can be taken from a group that is not protected. when congress passed the chinese exclusion act of 1892, it prevented any chinese citizen from becoming a naturalized citizen and it stood in effect for 60 long years. we are now only at the present time overcoming the scars of disenfranchisement and that's why we know all too well how precious the right to vote is. passing the voting rights act was the right thing to do in 1965. renewing it was the right thing to d in 2006. updating the formula to ensure the protections remain intact for the american people is the

right thing to do now. i urge every member of congress, regardless of party, to join us in ensuring that the voting rights act remains the pillar of our democracy that it has been since its inception. >> it is just truly mind- boggling to me today that we have the highest court in the land that can't really make the kind of decision that this country deserves. they want to have their cake and eat it too. they recognize that discrimination and racism still exist in this country yet they would strike down the very -- parts of the very law that have changed what they say has made this country better. it is disconcerting at best to know that just in 2012, there were 22 laws and two executive actions restricting voting rights in 17 states across this country. even worse, there were 176 restrictive bills filed in 41 states.

and they say that things need to be cheaged, yes, they need to be changed. they should not have struck down section four, they should have expanded it. i would ask that my colleagues from texas -- my colleague from texas, mr. pete gallego, please join us. >> hello, i'm pete gallego, the congressman from the 23rd district in southwest texas, member of the congressional hispanic caucus and vice chair of the caucus' task forced on civil rights. sad day for the democratic possess. the disenfranchisement of voters based on race and ethnicity still happens. in the 23rd district of texas, which i represent, a federal court found that the map drawers deliberately weakened the voting strength of hispanic voters. they made the 23rd a voting district in neam only.

latinos with high voting turnout were taken out of the district and replaced with latinos with a low history of voter turnout, in essence, gaming the system. that was the safeguard to latino voters. today we see the communities of color, communities of interest have always had a referee. they've had someone who will call a foul ball a foul ball. and today that opportunity to go to that referee or go to that um peer has been stricken by the court. 15 million latinos across the country are safe guarded by the preclearance provisions of the voting rights act. the preclearance provisions protect voters in arizona, texas, portions of california, new york, and more. 32%, nearly a third of latinos in the united states, live in jurisdictions that are covered by preclearance.

in 2012, the preclearance provisions blocked texas from enacting a discriminatory map and a law that would have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of texas voters, mainly latinos, african- americans and asians. let me say one thick, the voting rights act, it's not about political parties and it's not about politicians and it's not about candidates. it's about the opportunity to give voters a chance to elect the candidate of their choice. someone who will allow their voices to be heard in a district where their vote will count. today, the supreme court has turned its back on those voters who are disenfranchised. they've gotten rid of that umpire. that referee who, whether it was a democratic justice department or a republican justice department, who through the years has served as that umpire, that referee, that decision has

essentially taken away that safeguard in states with histories of discrimination. i urge my colleague on both sides of the aisle to develop a system to take the voting rights of americans into account and protect them and safeguard them as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of any american. thank you so much for being here. >> for those of you who may not be aware, since 19 2, approximately 2,400 discriminatory voting changes have been blocked as a result of section 5 objections. and today work this decision, the supreme court chose not to acknowledge any of that information, nor the success or the effect section 4 or 5 has had on our democracy. we have been joined by our whip, mr. hoyer.

>> thank you very much, congresswoman fudge, the chairman of the congressional black caucus. i join members of the asian pacific caucus, members of the hispanic caucus, but this is about all americans. not just particular americans. particular americans are protected. but in a real sense it's about all of us and the kind of country we are and want to be. today's ruling is a disappointing blow to voting rights in america. and will have a real impact on voters. in 2006, congress in which i serve re-authorized the voting rights act in a bipartisan fashion and under a republican president. significantly bipartisan support. overwhelming. there was a broad consensus then, as i believe there still is today, that sections 4 and 5 of the voting rights act were

both responsible and necessary answers to the lingering problems of discrimination at the ballot box. if anybody thinks there are not continuing efforts to make voting more difficult for some people, they haven't been reading the papers, listening to the radio, watching television, or, frankly, listening to what's going on in america. in america, no state or local authority should be able to make it easier for some people to vote and harder for others. in america, nobody should have to march for their most fundamental right, the right to vote. john lewis, an extraordinary american, beaten bloody, almost died, marching for voting rights.

march 7, 1965. here we are some 60 years later, 50 years later. almost. and the supreme court says the problem no longer exists. the formula needs to be reworked. we marched across the edmund pettus bridge 10 times together to memorialize how much work it took to get the voting rights act passed and that highlights its relevance to this day. the first time john marched he nearly lost his life, as i said. american responded. that's not what they thought america was about. the ballot is the instrument by which our repub elect is sustained and congress has a duty to protect ballot access and exup and down opportunities for all eligible americans to vote and have their votes

counted accurately. today's ruling is a setback. but congress still has a mandate and a responsibility under the 15th amendment to the constitution to secure and protect the franchise for all americans. let me quote quote that provision of our constitution. the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. frankly in 1965 and subsequent authorizations, congress took that responsibility very seriously.

and as i said, with jim sensenbrenner as chairman of the judiciary committee, overwhelmingly passed the 2006 re-authorization. after thousands of pages of testimony and findings which the supreme court in a 5-4 decision has essentially set aside. 113th congress must make addressing today's unfortunate decision a top priority. and that's why democrats and republicans, as we did in 2006, ought to come together to begin a process that ensures political jurisdiction where the history of discrimination cannot impose new barriers to ballot access. i came in when pete was talking, he talked about the significance for a lot of the people he

represents and i suggest at the begin, all the people that he represents. so i'm looking forward to joining with those on this platform and those in congress on both sides of the aisle to make us sure that america is what we say it is a land for all with opportunity for all and protection for all to cast their ballot. now it's my prive lem to yield to my friend, the assistant leader, he's already spoken? i yield to marcia fudge, who knows what's going on. >> thank you. we will now be joined by the co- chairs of the civil rights task force of the congressional black caucus. in this order, representative john conyers and representative john -- >> when i first came to congress i went immediately to the speaker of the house, john

mccormack and asked to go on the judiciary committee and the reason that he -- as he and i both knew was the civil rights act that was so important. but today, citizens united has been eclipsed by the decision in the united states vs. shelby and holder, this case takes us back to a civil rights act of 1866 which didn't give african- americans the right to vote.

and then in 1965, president lyndon johnson signed the voting rights act into law, permanently barring barriers to political participation by racial and ethnic minorities, prohibiting any election practices that denied the right to vote, and requiring jurisdictions with a history of discrimination in voting to get federal approval before the changes in election laws can take effect. what the supreme court has done with the ruling that was issued only hours ago is to obliterate that collection of jurisdictions that were under review.

so the voting rights act signed by lyndon baines johnson in 1965, then by president nixon, president ford, president reagan, and president bush have all signed them. and this is what makes the bipartisanship of where we dust ourselves off and start all over again become so important. we can rise to this challenge, we don't have any alternative. and it is up to us to see that we remedy this in as meaningful, as fair a manner as possible.

there were members on the supreme court that wanted to take out section 5 while we were at it, and i can't remember who it was that restrained that from coming in too but our job is big enough as it is. this is a day from which we will be planning, strategizing, working with both bodies of the legislature, and of course everyone in every party to get this right. it's been done before. we faced challenges like these. but the voting rights act must be continued. i haven't heard anybody say yet that we don't need it.

obviously the record is replete with those that have been challenged or actions taken that have prevented it from happening. and so i join these members of which we are only a small number but i think that we're up to the task. we've got to be up to the task. this may be the most important civil rights action that we take. >> thank you, madam chair. today the supreme court stuck a dagger in the heart of the voting rights act of 1965. they're saying, in effect, that he'sry cannot repeat itself but i say come and walk in my shoes.

as justice ginsburg described in her dissent, the history is relevant because voting rights have been given in this country and they have been taken away. after the civil war, slaves were given the right to vote by constitutional amendment. they were elected to congress and served in this body. after a few short years later, those rights were nullified. in one of the worst, most brutal periods of discrimination followed those digs. it took exactly 100 years from 1865 to 1965 to get those rights back. the nation turned a blind eye to legalized seggeags and racial discrimination for 100 years. it took organizing people who feared for their lives, it took

standing in unmoving lines. it took people struggling and dying for the right to vote. just 49 years ago, three young men that i knew on june 1, 1964, andy goodman, nick and james went out to investigate an african-american church that was burning. a church that had been used for voter registration workshops. they were detained by the sheriff, later taken to jail, taken out of jail, beaten, shot, and killed by the klan. we don't want to go back, we want to go forward.

the only thing i did, a few short years ago, i gave a little blood on that bridge, but others, brothers and sisters of mean and other people in the struggle gave their very lives. the record congress produced demonstrated the clear need for voting rights protection in our country. even the court did not deny that discrimination still exists. the american people should use the 50th anniversary of the march on washington and other opportunities to say, we still need voting rights protection in our country. they must compel each and every member of congress to act in a bipartisan fashion, to fix or repair what the supreme court

broke. we must do it. we must do it now. before another national election takes place. it is our calling. it is our mission. it is our mandate. and we have an obligation to act. >> thank you, we're going to be joined by terri sewell from alabama, hank johnson from georgia and steve cohen from tennessee. >> thank you, madam chair. this is indeed a sad day for our nation, but it's especially a sad day for my home state of alabama. as a native of selma, alabama, and as a member of the currently represents the civil rights

district of alabama, i can tell you that i know that the injustices suffered on that bridge, the he had monday pettis bridge on bloody sunday, 1965, has not been fully vindicated. i think it's ironic that the very state that caused us to get the voting rights act is now being used by our supreme court to dismantle that very -- that very law. but i think that as long as there are facts like the facts in the shelby county case, which so clearly demonstrate that there's so much work to be done, the fact of the matter is that without preclearance, clara, the county of shelby, redrew the lines such that an african- american city councilmember would lose and the discriminatory effect was that he lost. he lost that election. this wasn't in 1965. this wasn't in 1970 or 1980. this was in my lifetime. this was but a few years ago.

i think it's unacceptable, and as long as there are voters whose rights need to be protected, there is a need for the voting rights act. now, we in congress have an opportunity, an opportunity to develop another coverage formula, but i can tell you that whatever coverage formula that is developed, i can't imagine that my state, alabama, would not continue to fall under it. it's disheartening for me because i know that so much progress has taken place, but the unfortunate reality is there's still so much work to be done. i look forward to joining with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get that work done so that the effects of section 5 will continue to be available.

i would have never thought that i, a beneficiary of the civil rights movement, would be on a stage today with john lewis, steny hoyer, jim clyburn and so many of my colleagues fighting still for the protections of the fundamental right to vote. the right to vote is sacred, and we who are in congress, republican and democrat, should be fighting for that right, not looking to restrict it. and the very fact that in this past election we had 38 states, including alabama, that had voter i.d. laws, looking to restrict people's right to vote. we have to stand up. we have to stand up. and i look forward to joining my colleagues in standing up for the voting rights act of 1965 and for the protections of

minority rights. >> good afternoon, everyone. today an active u.s. supreme court cynically legislating from the bench jim crow-style engaged in historic overreach, ignoring their own precedence and disregarding clear and convincing evidence of ongoing discrimination at the polls. a call for strong, swift action by the congress is now front and center. i will work with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that all voters

have their precious right to vote protected from state and local enfringement. in 2006 during the last renewal of the landmark voting rights act, congress conducted more than 21 hearings with nearly 100 witnesses and amassed a 15,000- page record developments ongoing discrimination against minority voters. this is occurring, ladies and gentlemen, not only in states with a history of discrimination, the 2012 elections saw voter suppression taken to an entirely new and

despicable level. >> thank you. i just wanted to join my colleagues here today. they have all spoken and covered the territory, particularly my friend, congressman conyers, this in conjust with citizens united this is the second attempt by the u.s. supreme court to destroy democracy as we know it in our country. when you put this money into politics it diminishes people's votes and the wealthy have more votes because dollars have power. and we should have redistricting that is not political, that's not covered by state legislatures and politicians and that's what we've seen over the years. there is a bill that john tanner had, heath shuler had, that would have nonpartisan judicial groups to redistrict which is

what we should have. mr. clyburn mentioned this is probably going to affect states that will try to go and redistrict like texas has and i fear that will happen. my home is shelby county, tennessee. in each of the last two elections we've had at a minimum misfeasance and many people think malfeasance and that is to thwart the population, the majority, which is african- americans. it's been a risk in this country and the republican party has admitted, the reason having voter i.d. laws is to suppress votes. for the supreme court to admit discrimination but then throw this out and ask us in the judiciary committee to come to a resolution that promotes civil rights, it's a bad day for america. thank you. >> thank all of you for coming. we have been joined by emanuel cleaver from missouri.

>> this will be short. the fact that the supreme court did the wrong thing should inspire congress to do the right thing. in august we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. please understand this. this time it will not just be predominantly black. this time we will have the rainbow of this coalition here in congress. this time we will have republicans, democrats and the sons and daughters of the dixicrats. people who are for right will come here to washington because what was done today is wrong and the people of this country, the good and decent people of this country need to speak out. >> mr. veasey from texas. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. let me make it clear. i know that the supreme court

has said there is no need for the voting rights act, is basically what they summed up. what i would say is look at texas. i represent fort worth, arlington and dallas. and two republican judges -- it was a three-judge panel, because texas wanted to bypass the justice department to get our maps precleared and to pass a discriminatory voter i.d. law. the majority of the court on this republican-dominated panel said that the discrimination that happened in texas redistricting and voter i.d. was blatantly discriminatory. and that's enough said. if they had taken the texas case and rolled it in with the shelby case, it's hard to believe they could have reasonably came up with the same conclusion. i want to echo what my colleagues have said.

this is a very sad day in america because we have taken a step backwards as it relates to civil rights and as it relates to justice in this country. like we have overcome bad supreme court decisions in the past, we can have congress balance this out. and so now is the time for us to act and do the right thing and restore equality and justice for all americans. thank you. >> again, thank you for coming. i think that all of us today understand there are two americas. whether you can agree with the policies of our country or not, we live in one america that goes outside of our borders and says we are going to fight and defend democracy. we're going to do for others what they will not do for us in our own country. and today we have a supreme court who will not fight for the rights and the democracy of the people who live within our borders. with that we will take any questions you might have. >> the gridlock that's taken congress right now and how close this issue is, how do you have

confidence that congress will address section 4 of the voting rights act within the next year? >> i still believe in america. i believe that we will all get together and do what is right. this has been historically something we have done in a bipartisan way, and i certainly believe and hope we will continue to do it that way. and anyone can respond. >> i have a question and perhaps representative lewis is the best to answer it. a couple hours ago i asked congressman jeff session -- senator sessions of alabama, section 5 was upheld. he said i don't think shelby county -- shelby county has never had a history of denying votes and to my knowledge not now. do you think the denial of these issues might play in the opposition to a legislative path forward? if so, is there anything that the administration can do outside of congress given that again the principle is constitutional but the formula is not, to try to continue to uphold some of these measures?

>> i'm going to let my colleague from alabama speak to the specifics of it. let me just say this. to the senator whom i respect greatly. you can have your own opinion, as they say, but you can't have your own facts. and the fact is that shelby county in fact has had a history of discrimination. and certainly i would say that if what they want us to do is march again we are up to the task. i certainly do believe that the president and the white house and every person of good will in this country have an obligation to do their part to see that this is corrected. >> well, i just have to say with all due respect to my senator whom i respect a lot, the reality is that the shelby county case was an overt example of racial discrimination. the reality is that in the city council, this was an indumbent black elected official who was redistrict out of his seat and he lost re-election. so with all due respect, i think while much progress has happened in our

state and i'm proud of the progress that we've made in our state, i think this case, this very case ironically is a bad case to have nullify section 5. look, those of us who love the state of alabama, like i, we have to claim our painful past for what it was. it was because of our painful past that we had a civil rights movement, a voting rights movement which ultimately led to a global human rights movement. but the reality is progress has been made but decisions like today have eroded those progress by -- progress and set us back. so i look forward and i'm sure that many in the state of alabama look forward to getting the protections, the full protections of the voting rights

act. >> i was born in alabama. i lived in alabama most of my young life. i saw the signs that said white waiting, the clerk will designate waiting. white men, the clerk will designate men. white women, the clerk will designate women. in alabama, the same year that president barack obama was born, white people and black people couldn't sit together in a bus station and ride together in a taxi cap cab. we had to change that. i stood with those people in the lines in selma, alabama. people had to go through a set of steps, go through double doors and get a so-called literacy test. teachers, college professors, lawyers and doctors. and they were told they could not read or write well enough.

they failed the so-called literacy test and they could not register the right to act until the voting rights act was passed in 1965. we made progress, yes, but we are not there yet. it is still needed today in alabama and throughout the 11 states of the confederacy and other parts of our country. >> knowing that the supreme court was looking for a rewrite of the formula in the 2009 case that they sought, why not take the opportunity to address this year when democrats controlled congress? >> i don't know. i wasn't in charge. maybe i can give it to somebody else who was. what i can say to you is congress doesn't always act unless it is forced to. that has been my experience, and i've only been here five years. maybe now that we're forced to we will act now. but let me also say to you i think all of us have some type of a moral compass we know when something is right that it should prevail, and i believe that to put in place whatever is necessary to make sure that people have the right and the opportunity to vote without some form of discrimination or some way to block them is right. and so i believe we will do the

right thing at some point. if someone else wants to respond, feel free. >> only thing i can say, madam chair, after martin luther king jr. received the nobel peace prize in 1964, he came back to america, had a meeting with president lyndon johnson at the white house, and told the president that we need a voting rights act. and dr. king said, mr. president, we need a voting rights act. and the president said, we don't have the votes in the congress to get a voting rights act passed. i just signed the civil rights act. then president johnson said, make me do it. make me do it. and that's what the american people must make us do it. and we will do it. >> the other thing, history is one thing. to look back and try to decide why something wasn't done, who knows. why wasn't immigration done when george w. bush was president? why don't we do a lot of things?

we do them, as my colleague said, because we are now forced to do it. and, you know, some of us say it's a dysfunctional body and to some people say it may be. we do things when it is necessary to be done. now is the time to take care of voting rights. yes. >> chief justice john roberts focused on the fact that he said part of the six southern states have a higher percentage of black voter registration than white and there are, he said, no voting tests, no polls tests at this point. would any of you agree -- clearly you do not believe it's unconstitutional but do you believe that the formula could have some kind of update and how could you update it? >> i think ohio should be included. i absolutely think it should be updated. and i think it's going to be a decision that we made collectively how it should be updated.

i do believe it should not be restricted, it should be expanded. >> i think that chairwoman fudge is correct. if you look at the activities that were taken by, i believe, 38 states and the actions that 38 states took in the runup to the 2012 elections, there are records that have been developed. most of us have very familiar of the voting records of pennsylvania and i'm familiar with the activities taken by the secretary of state in ohio. let's look at their language and the record we will develop this time, we'll bring their words into this record. we didn't have their words in 2006. we got them now. so the intent to turn the clock back is very, very clear.

i think that there are counties in pennsylvania and in ohio that would probably come under any new formula we develop. so i'm not arguing with the fact that this may need to be tweaked. there may be some jurisdictions that because of their recent actions that maybe they reach a point of exclusion from the law. now, remember, in this law currently in existence there is a process by which you can opt out. so if shelby county has such a pristine record, then why didn't it present that pristine record and request for brought out from under the law?

that's what the intent here. the intent here is national movement to find a way to gut the voting rights act. so i think we ought to go look at these jurisdictions and look at the opt out provisions in the law and there may be a county somewhere in the corner of alabama that may be able to opt out of the law. though i doubt it. >> again, we thank you. i think our friend pete said it best. this is not a democrat or republican issue. this is an american issue. we believe that every single person in this country has the constitutional right to have their voices heard. we have our voices heard through our vote. i thank you here for coming and i thank my colleagues. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you.

>> the supreme court ruled tuesday that part of the voting rights act is unconstitutional. it was designed to protect minority voters. of court ruled in favor officials from shelby county, alabama. section four determines which dates to meet federal approval making election law changing -- changes. here is the oral argument from february. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, almost 4 years ago, eight justices of the court agreed the 2005 25-year extension of voting rights act section 5's preclearance obligation, uniquely applicable to jurisdictions reached by section 4(b)'s antiquated

coverage formula, raised a serious constitutional question. those justices recognized that the record before the congress in 2005 made it unmistakable that the south had changed. they questioned whether current remedial needs justified the extraordinary federalism and cost burdens of preclearance. >> may i ask you a question? assuming i accept your premise, and there's some question about that, that some portions of the south have changed, your county pretty much hasn't. >> well, i -- >> in -- in the period we're talking about, it has many more discriminating --240 discriminatory voting laws that

were blocked by section 5 objections. there were numerous remedied by section 2 litigation. you may be the wrong party bringing this. >> well, this is an on-face challenge, and might i say, justice sotomayor -- >> but that's the standard. and why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with? >> well, i don't agree with your premises, but let me just say, number one, when i said the south has changed, that is the statement that is made by the eight justices in the northwest austin case. and i certainly -- >> and congress -- congress said that, too. nobody -- there isn't anybody in on any side of this issue who doesn't admit that huge progress has been made. congress itself said that. but in line with justice sotomayor's question, in the d.c. court of appeals, the dissenting judge there, judge williams, said, "if this case were about three states, mississippi, louisiana, and alabama, those

states have the worst records, and application of section 5 to them might be ok." >> justice ginsburg, judge williams said that, as he assessed various measures in the record, he thought those states might be distinguished. he did not say, and he didn't reach the question, whether those states should be subject to preclearance. in other words, whether on an absolute basis, there was sufficient record to subject them -- >> but think about this state that you're representing, it's about a quarter black, but alabama has no black statewide elected officials. if congress were to write a formula that looked to the number of successful section 2 suits per million residents, alabama would be the number one

state on the list. if you factor in unpublished section 2 suits, alabama would be the number two state on the list. if you use the number of section 5 enforcement actions, alabama would again be the number two state on the list. i mean, you're objecting to a formula, but under any formula that congress could devise, it would capture alabama. >> well, if -- if i might respond, because i think justice sotomayor had a similar question, and that is why should this be approached on face. going back to katzenbach, and all of the cases that have addressed the voting rights act preclearance and the formula, they've all been addressed to determine the validity of imposing preclearance under the circumstances then prevailing, and the formula, because shelby county is covered, not by an independent determination of congress with respect to shelby

county, but because it falls within the formula as part of the state of alabama. so i -- i don't think that there's any reluctance upon on this -- >> but facial challenges are generally disfavored in our law. and so the question becomes, why do we strike down a formula, as justice kagan said, which under any circumstance the record shows the remedy would be congruent, proportional, rational, whatever standard of review we apply, its application to alabama would happen. >> there -- there are two separate questions. one is whether the formula needs to be addressed. in northwest austin, this court addressed the formula, and the circumstances there were a very small jurisdiction, as the court said, approaching a very big question. it did the same in rome, the city of rome. it did the same in katzenbach. the -- so the formula itself is

the reason why shelby county encounters the burdens, and it is the reason why the court needs to address it. >> interestingly enough, in katzenbach the court didn't do what you're asking us to do, which is to look at the record of all the other states or all of the other counties. it basically concentrated on the record of the two litigants in the case, and from that extrapolate -- extrapolated more broadly. >> i don't think that -- >> you're asking us to do something, which is to ignore your record and look at everybody else's. >> i don't think that's a fair reading of katzenbach. in katzenbach, what the court did was examined whether the -- the formula was rational in practice and theory. and what the court said is, while we don't have evidence on every jurisdiction that's reached by the formula, that by devising two criteria which were

predictive of where discrimination might lie, the congress could then sweep in jurisdictions as to which it had no specific findings. so we're not here to parse the jurisdictions. we are here to challenge this formula because in and of itself it speaks to old data, it isn't probative with respect to the kinds of discrimination that congress was focusing on and it is an inappropriate vehicle to sort out the sovereignty of individual states. i could tell you that in alabama the number of legislators in the alabama legislature are proportionate to the number of black voters. there's a very high registration and turnout of black voters in alabama. but i don't think that that really addresses the issue of the rationality in theory and practice in the formula. if congress wants to write

another statute, another hypothetical statute, that would present a different case. but we're here facing a county, a state that are swept in by a formula that is neither rational in theory nor in practice. that's the -- that's the hub of the case. >> i suppose the thrust of the questions so far has been if you would be covered under any formula that most likely would be drawn, why are you injured under this one? >> well, we don't agree that we would be covered under any formula. >> but that's -- that's the hypothesis. if you could be covered under most suggested formulas for this kind of statute, why are you injured by this one? i think that's the thrust of the question. >> well, i think that if -- if congress has the power to look at jurisdictions like shelby county individually and without regard to how they stand against other states -- other counties,

other states, in other words, what is the discrimination here among the jurisdictions, and after thoroughly considering each and every one comes up with a list and says this list greatly troubles us, that might present a vehicle for saying this is a way to sort out the covered jurisdictions -- >> suppose congress passed a law that said, everyone whose last name begins with a shall pay a special tax of $1,000 a year. and let's say that tax is challenged by somebody whose last name begins with a. would it be a defense to that challenge that for some reason this particular person really should pay a $1,000 penalty that people with a different last name do not pay? >> no, because that would just invent another statute, and this is all a debate as to whether somebody might invent a statute which has a formula that is rational. >> i was about to ask a similar question.

if someone is acquitted of a federal crime, would it -- would the prosecution be able to say, well, ok, he didn't commit this crime, but congress could have enacted a different statute which he would have violated in this case. of course, you wouldn't listen to that, would you? >> no, i agree with you. >> the problem with those hypotheticals is obvious that it starts from a predicate that the application has no basis in any record, but there's no question that alabama was rightly included in the original voting rights act. there's no challenge to the reauthorization acts. the only question is whether a formula should be applied today. and the point is that the record is replete with evidence to show that you should. >> well, i mean -- >> it's not like there's some made-up reason for why the $1,000 is being applied to you or why a different crime is going to be charged against you. it's a real record as to what alabama has done to earn its place on the list. >> justice sotomayor, with all respect, the question whether alabama was properly placed under the act in 1964 was -- it was answered in katzenbach, because it came under a formula

then deemed to be rational in theory and in practice. there's no independent determination by the congress that alabama singly should be covered. congress has up -- you know, has readopted the formula and it is the formula that covers alabama and thus shelby county -- >> now, the reason for the formula -- of course, part of the formula looks back to what happened in 1965. and it says are you a jurisdiction that did engage in testing and had low turnout or or low registration? now, that isn't true of alabama today. >> that's correct. that's correct. >> so when congress in fact reenacted this in 2005, it knew what it was doing was picking out alabama. it understood it was picking out alabama, even though the indicia are not -- i mean, even though they're not engaging in that particular thing. but the underlying evil is the discrimination. so the closest analogy i could think of is imagine a state has a plant disease and in 1965 you can recognize the presence of that disease, which is hard to

find, by a certain kind of surface movement or plant growing up. now, it's evolved. so by now, when we use that same formula, all we're doing is picking out that state. but we know one thing -- the disease is still there in the state. because this is a question of renewing a statute that in fact has worked. and so the question i guess is, is it rational to pick out at least some of those states? and to go back to justice sotomayor's question, as long as it's rational in at least some instances directly to pick out those states, at least one or two of them, then doesn't the statute survive a facial challenge? that's the question. >> thank you. justice breyer, a couple of things are important. the court said in northwest

austin, an opinion you joined, "current needs have to generate the current burden." so what happened in 1965 in alabama, that alabama itself has said was a disgrace, doesn't justify a current burden. >> but this is then the question, does it justify? i mean, this isn't a question of rewriting the statute. this is a question of renewing a statute that by and large has worked. >> justice breyer -- >> and if you have a statute that sunsets, you might say -- i don't want it to sunset if it's worked, as long as the problem is still there to some degree. that's the question of rationality. isn't that what happened? >> if you base it on the findings of 1965. i could take the decision in city of rome, which follows along that line. we had a huge problem at the first passage of the voting rights act and the court was tolerant of congress's decision that it had not yet been cured. there were vestiges of discrimination.

so when i look at those statistics today and look at what alabama has in terms of black registration and turnout, there's no resemblance. we're dealing with a completely changed situation -- >> you keep -- you keep -- >> to which if you apply those metrics -- excuse me. >> mr. rein, you keep emphasizing over and over again in your brief registration and you said it a couple of times this morning. couple of times this morning. congress was well aware that registration was no longer the problem. this legislative record is replete with what they call second-generation devices. knowess said up front, we that the registration is fine. that is no longer the problem. but the discrimination continues in other forms. >> let me speak >> let me speak to that, because i think that that highlights one of the weaknesses here. on the one hand, justice breyer's questioning, well,

could congress just continue based on what it found in '65 and renew? and i think your question shows it's a very different situation. congress is not continuing its efforts initiated in 1975 to allow people -- >> counsel, the reason section 5 was created was because states were moving faster than litigation permitted to catch the new forms of discriminatory practices that were being developed. as the courts struck down one form, the states would find another. and basically, justice ginsburg calls it secondary. i don't know that i'd call anything secondary or primary. discrimination is discrimination. and what congress said is it continues, not in terms of voter numbers, but in terms of examples of other ways to disenfranchise voters, like moving a voting booth from a convenient location for all voters to a place that historically has been known for

discrimination. i think that's an example taken from one of the section 2 and 5 cases from alabama. >> justice sotomayor -- >> i mean, i don't know what the difference is except that this court or some may think that secondary is not important. but the form of discrimination is still discrimination if congress has found it to be so. >> when congress is addressing a new evil, it needs then -- and assuming it can find this evil to a level justifying -- >> but that's not -- >> the extraordinary remedy -- >> what it did with section 5. it said we can't keep up with the way states are doing it. >> i think we're dealing with two different questions. one is was that kind of remedy, an unusual remedy, never before and never after invoked by the congress, putting states into a prior restraint in the exercise of their core sovereign functions, was that justified? and in katzenbach, the court said we're confronting an emergency in the country, we're confronting people who will not, who will not honor the fifteenth

amendment and who will use -- >> and in 1986 -- or excuse me, 2006 -- congress went back to the problem, developed a very substantial record, a 15,000- page legislative record, talked about what problems had been solved, talked about what problems had yet to be solved, and decided that, although the problem had changed, the problem was still evident enough that the act should continue. it's hard to see how congress could have developed a better and more thorough legislative record than it did, mr. rein. >> well, i'm not questioning whether congress did its best. the question is whether what congress found was adequate to invoke this unusual remedy. >> indeed, congress must have found that the situation was even clearer and the violations even more evident than originally, because originally, the vote in the senate, for

example, was something like 79 to 18, and in the 2006 extension, it was 98 to nothing. it must have been even clearer in 2006 that these states were violating the constitution. do you think that's true? >> no. i think the court has to -- >> well, that sounds like a good argument to me, justice scalia. it was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation. >> or decided that perhaps they'd better not vote against it, that there's nothing, that there's no -- none of their interests in voting against it. >> i don't know what they're thinking exactly, but it seems to me one might reasonably think this -- it's an old disease, it's gotten a lot better, a lot better, but it's still there. so if you had a remedy that really helped it work, but it

wasn't totally over, wouldn't you keep that remedy? >> well -- >> or would you not at least say that a person who wants to keep that remedy, which has worked for that old disease which is not yet dead, let's keep it going. is that an irrational decision? >> that is a hypothetical that doesn't address what happened, because what happened is the old disease, limiting people's right to register and vote, to have -- >> no, i'm sorry. the old disease is discrimination under the fifteenth amendment, which is abridging a person's right to vote because of color or race. >> but the focus of the congress in 1965 and in katzenbach in 1964 and in katzenbach was on registration and voting, precluding -- >> it was on voter dilution as well. it had already evolved away from that, or started to. >> i beg your pardon, but i think, justice sotomayor, that this court has never decided that the fifteenth amendment governs vote dilution. it has said the fourteenth

amendment does, but the original enactment was under the fifteenth amendment. >> well, the fifteenth amendment says "denial or abridgement." what would "abridgement" mean except for dilution? >> well, "abridgement" might mean, for example, i let you vote in one election but not in another, for example, separate primary rules from election rules. abridgement can be done in many ways. i think dilution is a different concept. we're not saying that dilution isn't covered by the fourteenth amendment, but i was responding to justice breyer in saying there was an old disease and that disease is cured.

if you want to label it "disease" and generalize it, you can say, well, the new disease is still a disease. >> well, some of -- >> but i think that's not what happened. >> some of the questions asked to this point i think mirror what the government says toward the end of its brief, page 48 and page 49. it's rather proud of this reverse engineering -- we really knew it was some specific states we were interested in, and so we used these old categories to cover that state. is that a methodology that in your view is appropriate under the test of congruence and -- and proportionality? >> no, i think it is not. first of all, i don't accept that it was, quote, "reverse engineered." i think it was just, as justice breyer indicated, continued because it was there. if you look at what was done and was approved in 1964, what congress said, well, here are the problem areas that we detect. we've examined them in detail. we've identified the characteristics that would let somebody say, yes, that's where the discrimination is ripe. they're using a tester device. the turnout is below the national average by a substantial margin. that spells it out and we have a relief valve in the then- existing bailout. so it was all very rational. here you'd have to say is the finding with respect to every state -- alaska, arizona, the covered jurisdictions in new york city -- is the designation of them congruent to the problem that you detect in each one?

even assuming -- and we don't accept -- that any of these problems require the kind of extraordinary relief, what's the congruence and what's the proportionality of this remedy to the violation you detect state by state. so merely saying it's reverse engineered, first of all it says, well, congress really thought about it and said, we made up a list in our heads and, gee whiz, this old formula miraculously covered the list. there's no record that that happened. >> counsel, are you -- >> suppose -- suppose there were and suppose that's the rationale, because that's what i got from the government's brief and what i'm getting -- getting from some of the questions from the bench. what is wrong with that? >> if -- if there was a record sufficient for each of those states to sacrifice their -- their inherent core power to preclearance, to prior restraint, i think that you certainly could argue that, well, how congress described them, as long as it's rational,

might work. but i don't think that we have that record here, so -- >> well, and -- and i don't know why -- why you even go that far. i don't know why under the equal footing doctrine it would be proper to just single out states by name, and if that in effect is what is being done, that seemed to me equally improper. but you don't seem to make that argument. >> well, i think that -- >> i thought -- i thought the same thing. i thought it's sort of extraordinary to say congress can just pick out, we want to hit these eight states, it doesn't matter what formula we use, so long as we want to hit these eight states, that's good enough and that makes it constitutional. i doubt that that's true. >> justice scalia, i agree with that. what i was saying here is that congress did -- >> why? why does congress have to fix any problem immediately? >> i would like to hear the answer to the question. >> ok.

the answer, justice kennedy, is congress cannot arbitrarily pick out states. congress has to treat each state with equal dignity. it has to examine all the states. the teaching of katzenbach is that when congress has done that kind of examination, it can devise a formula even if it understands that that formula will not apply across all 50 states. >> well, the formula that has -- >> so we accept katzenbach. but in terms of just picking out states and saying, i'm going to look at you and i'm going to look at you, no, that --that does not protect the equal dignity of the states. >> well, mr. rein, the formula that -- that is applied right now, under that formula covered jurisdictions, which have less than 25 percent of the nation's total population, they account for 56 percent of all successful published section 2 lawsuits. if you do that on a per capita basis, the successful section 2 lawsuits, four times higher in covered jurisdictions than in noncovered jurisdictions. so the formula -- you can, you know, say maybe this district shouldn't be covered, maybe this one should be covered. the formula seems to be working pretty well in terms of going after the actual violations on the ground and who's committing them. >> there are -- there are two fallacies, justice kagan, in -- in that statement. number one is treating the covered jurisdictions as some kind of entity, a lump -- let us treat them. and as judge williams did in his dissent, if you look at them one

by one, giving them their equal dignity, you won't reach the same result. >> well, all formulas are underinclusive and all formulas are overinclusive. congress has developed this formula and has continued it in use that actually seems to work pretty well in targeting the places where there are the most successful section 2 lawsuits, where there are the most violations on the ground that have been adjudicated. >> well, if -- if you look at the analysis state by state done by judge williams, that isn't true. congress has picked out some states that fall at the top and some that do not, and there are other states like illinois or tennessee, and i don't think they deserve preclearance, that clearly have comparable records. and second, dividing by population may make it look it look better, but it is irrational. it is not only irrational when we object to it, but note that

in the brief of the harris respondent they say it's irrational because, after all, that makes delaware, a small state, look worse on a list of who are the primary violators. it's not a useful metric. it may make a nice number. but there is no justification for that measure. >> and it happens not to be the method that congress selected. >> correct. >> if they selected that, you could say they used a rationale that works. but just because they picked some other rationale which happens to produce this result doesn't seem to me very persuasive. >> your time is -- >> thank you. >> about ready to expire for the rebuttal period. but i do have this question -- can you tell me -- it seems to me that the government can very easily bring a section 2 suit and as part of that ask for bail-in under section 3. are those expensive, time- consuming suits? do we have anything in the record that tells us or anything in the bar's experience that you could advise us? >> well -- >> is this an effective remedy?

>> it is -- number one, it is effective. there are preliminary injunctions. it depends on the kind of dispute you have. some of them are very complex, and it would be complex if somebody brought -- a state brought a section 5 challenge in a three-judge court saying the attorney general's denied me preclearance. so it's the complexity of the question, not the nature of section 2. and might i say, if you look at the voting rights act, one thing that really stands out is you are up against states with entrenched discriminatory practices in their law. the remedy congress put in place for those states was section 2. and all across the country, when you talk about equal sovereignty, if there is a problem in ohio the remedy is section 2. so if congress thought that section 2 was an inadequate remedy, it could look to the specifics of section 2 and say, maybe we ought to put timetables in there or modify it.

but that's not what happened. they reenacted section 2 just as it stood. so i think that section 2 covers even more broadly, because it deals with results, which the court has said is broader than effects. it's an effective remedy, and i think at this point, given the record, given the history, the right thing to do is go forward under section 2 and remove the stigma of prior restraint and preclearance from the states and the unequal application based on data that has no better history than 1972. >> mr. rein, i just remind, because it's something we said about equal footing, in katzenbach the court said -- "the doctrine of the equality of the states invoked by south carolina does not bar this approach, for that doctrine applies only to the terms upon which states are admitted to the union and not to the remedies for local evils which have

subsequently appeared." that's what -- has the court changed that interpretation? >> i think that that referred in katzenbach -- i'm familiar with that statement. it referred to the fact that once you use a formula you are not -- you are selecting out. the court felt the formula was rational in theory and practice and therefore it didn't on its face remove the equality of the states. they were all assessed under the same two criteria. some passed, some did not. but i think that that really doesn't mask the need for equal treatment of the sovereign states. >> i'm going to have a hard time with that because you can't be suggesting that the government sees a problem in one or more states and decides it's going to do something for them and not for others, like emergency relief, and that that somehow violates the equal footing doctrine.

you can't treat states the same because their problems are different, their populations are different, their needs are different. everything is different about the states. >> well, i think when congress uses the powers delegated under article i, section 8, it has substantial latitude in how it exercises the power. we are talking about remedial power here. we are talking about overriding powers that are reserved to the states to correct abuse. when congress does that, it has to treat them equally. it can't say -- >> would you tell me what you think is left of the rational means test in katzenbach and city of rome? do you think the city of boerne now controls both fourteen -- the fourteenth and the fifteenth amendment and how we look at any case that arises under them? >> justice sotomayor, i think that the two tests have a lot in common because in city of boerne, the katzenbach decision was pointed out as a model of asking the questions that congress in proportionality asked us to address. number one, how does this remedy meet findings of constitutional violation? you've got to ask that question.

they asked that question in katzenbach. what is the relation between the two? and then i think you have to ask the question -- all right, you know, is this killing a fly with a sledgehammer, a fair question, because when you start to invade core functions of the states i think that a great deal of caution and care is required. so i think that the rational basis test, the mcculloch test, still applies to delegated powers. but here on the one hand the solicitor defends under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendment saying, well, if something doesn't violate the fifteenth it violates the fourteenth. and the court's precedent under the fourteenth amendment is very clear that the city of boerne congruence and proportionality

test applies. the court has applied it, but i don't think we -- we wouldn't really need to get that far because we believe that if you examine it under mccullough, just as they did in katzenbach, it would fail as well. if there are no further questions. >> thank you, counsel. our questions have intruded on your rebuttal time, so we'll give you the 5 minutes and a commensurate increase in the general's time. general verrilli? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: there's a fundamental point that needs to be made at the outset. everyone acknowledges, petitioner, its amici, this court in northwest austin, that the voting rights act made a huge difference in transforming the culture of blatantly racist vote suppression that characterized parts of this country for a century. section 5 preclearance was the principal engine of that progress. and it has always been true that only a tiny fraction of submissions under section 5 result in objections. so that progress under section 5 that follows from that has been as a result of the deterrence and the constraint section 5 imposes on states and

subjurisdictions and not on the actual enforcement by means of objection. now, when congress faced the question whether to reauthorize section 5 in 2006, it had to decide whether -- whether it could be confident that the attitudes and behaviors in covered jurisdictions had changed enough that that very effective constraint and deterrence could be confidently removed. and congress had, as judge kagan identified earlier, a very substantial record of continuing need before it when it -- >> can i ask you just a little bit about that record. do you know how many submissions there were for preclearance to the attorney general in 2005? >> i don't know the precise number, but many thousands. that's true. >> 3700. do you know how many objections the attorney general lodged? >> there was one in that year. >> one, so one out of 3700. >> but i think -- but, mr. chief justice, that is why i made the point a minute ago that the key way in which section 5 -- it has to be the case, everyone agrees,

that the significant progress that we've made is principally because of section 5 of the voting rights act. and it has always been true that only a tiny fraction of submissions result in objections. >> that will always be true forever into the future. you could always say, oh, there has been improvement, but the only reason there has been improvement are these extraordinary procedures that deny the states sovereign powers which the constitution preserves to them. so, since the only reason it's improved is because of these procedures, we must continue those procedures in perpetuity. >> no. >> is that the argument you are making? >> that is not the argument. we do not think that -- >> i thought that was the argument you were just making. >> it is not. congress relied on far more on just the deterrent effect. there was a substantial record based on the number of objections, the types of objections, the findings of -- >> that's a different argument. >> but they are related. they're related.

>> just to get the -- do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to african american voter turnout? >> i do not. >> massachusetts. do you know what has the best, where african american turnout actually exceeds white turnout? mississippi. >> yes, mr. chief justice. but congress recognized that expressly in the findings when it reauthorized the act in 2006. it said that the first generation problems had been largely dealt with, but there persisted significant -- >> which state has the greatest disparity in registration between white and african american? >> i do not know that. >> massachusetts. third is mississippi, where again the african american registration rate is higher than the white registration rate. >> but when congress -- the choice congress faced when it -- congress wasn't writing on a blank slate in 2006, mr. chief justice. it faced a choice. and the choice was whether the conditions were such that it could confidently conclude that this deterrence and this constraint was no longer needed,

and in view of the record of continuing need and in view of that history, which we acknowledge is not sufficient on its own to justify reenactment, but it's certainly relevant to the judgment congress made, because it justifies congress having made a cautious choice in 2006 to keep the constraint and to keep the deterrence in place. >> well, there's no question that -- >> counsel, in the reauthorization -- >> there's no question -- >> justice alito. >> there is no question that the voting rights act has done enormous good. it's one of the most successful statutes that congress passed in the twentieth century and one could probably go farther than that. but when congress decided to reauthorize it in 2006, why wasn't it incumbent on congress under the congruence and proportionality standard to make a new determination of coverage? maybe the whole country should be covered. or maybe certain parts of the country should be covered based on a formula that is grounded in up-to-date statistics.

but why -- why wasn't that required by the congruence and proportionality standards? suppose that congress in 1965 had based the coverage formula on voting statistics from 1919, 46 years earlier. do you think katzenbach would have come out the same way? >> no, but what congress did in 2006 was different than what congress did in 1965. what congress did -- congress in 2006 was not writing on a clean slate. the judgment had been made what the coverage formula ought to be in 1965, this court upheld it four separate times over the years, and that it seems to me the question before congress under congruence and proportionality or the reasonably adapted test in mccull- -- or whatever the test is, and under the formula in northwest austin is whether the judgment to retain that geographic coverage for a sufficient relation to the problem congress was trying to target, and congress did have before it very significant evidence about disproportionate results in section 2 litigation

in covered jurisdictions, and that, we submit, is a substantial basis for congress to have made the judgment that the coverage formula should be kept in place, particularly given that it does have a bail- in mechanism and it does have a bailout mechanism which allows for tailoring over time. >> this reverse engineering that you seem so proud of, it seems to me that that obscures the -- the real purpose of -- of the statute. and if congress is going to single out separate states by name, it should do it by name. if not, it should use criteria that are relevant to the existing -- and congress just didn't have the time or the energy to do this, it just reenacted it. >> i think the -- the formula was -- was rational and effective in 1965. the court upheld it then, it upheld it three more times after that. >> well, the marshall plan was very good, too, the morale act, the northwest ordinance, but times change.

>> and -- but the question is whether times had changed enough and whether the differential between the covered jurisdictions and the rest of the country had changed enough that congress could confidently make the judgment that this was no longer needed. >> general verrilli -- >> what the question -- >> general verrilli, could you respond to the question that justice kennedy asked earlier, which was for why isn't section 2 enough now? the government could bring section 2 claims if it seeks privately to do. why isn't -- he asked if it was expensive. you heard the question, so. >> yes. with respect to -- start with katzenbach. katzenbach made the point that section 2 litigation wasn't an effective substitute for section 5, because what section 5 does is shift the burden of inertia. and there's a -- i think it is self-evident that section 2 cannot do the work of section 5. take one example -- polling

place changes. that in fact is the most frequent type of section 5 submission, polling place changes. now, changes in the polling places at the last minute before an election can be a source of great mischief. closing polling places, moving them to inconvenient locations, et cetera. what section 5 does is require those kinds of changes to be pre-cleared and on a 60-day calendar which effectively prevents that kind of mischief. and there is no way in the world you could use section 2 to effectively police that kind of mischief. >> well, i -- i do think the evidence is very clear that section -- that individual suits under section 2 type litigation were just insufficient and that section 5 was utterly necessary in 1965. no doubt about that. >> and i think it remains -- >> but with -- with a modern understanding of -- of the dangers of polling place changes, with prospective injunctions, with preliminary injunctions, it's not clear -- and -- and with the fact that the government itself can

commence these suits, it's not clear to me that there's that much difference in a section 2 suit now and preclearance. i may be wrong about that. i don't have statistics for it. that's why we're asking. >> i -- i don't -- i don't really think that that conclusion follows. i think these under the -- there are thousands and thousands of these under-the-radar screen changes, the polling places and registration techniques, et cetera. and in most of those i submit, your honor, the -- the cost- benefit ratio is going to be, given the cost of this litigation, which one of the -- one of the reasons katzenbach said section 5 was necessary, is going to tilt strongly against bringing these suits. even with respect to the big ticket items, the big redistrictings, i think the logic katzenbach holds in that those suits are extremely expensive and they typically result in after-the-fact litigation. now, it is true, and the petitioners raised the notion that there could be a preliminary injunction, but i really think the petitioner's argument that section 2 is a satisfactory and complete substitute for section 5 rests entirely on their ability to

demonstrate that preliminary injunctions can do comparable work to what section 5 does. they haven't made any effort to do that. and while i don't have statistics for you, i can tell you that the civil rights division tells me that it's their understanding that in fewer than one-quarter of ultimately successful section 2 suits was there a preliminary injunction issued. so, i don't think that there's a basis, certainly given the weighty question before this court of the constitutionality of this law, to the extent the argument is that section 2 is a valid substitute for section 5, i just don't think that the -- that the petitioners have given the court anything that allows the court to reach that conclusion and of course -- >> can you tell us how many attorneys and how many staff in the justice department are involved in the preclearance process? is it 5 or 15? >> it's a -- it's a very substantial number and -- >> well, what does that mean? >> it means i don't know the exact number, justice kennedy. >> hundreds? hundreds?

dozens? what? >> i think it's dozens. and so the -- and so it -- so it's a substantial number. it is true in theory that those people could be used to bring section 2 litigation. >> right. >> but that doesn't answer the mail, i submit, because it's still -- you're never going to get at all these thousands of under-the-radar changes and you're still going to be in the position where the question will be whether preliminary injunctions are available to do the job. there is no evidence that that's true. and i'll point out there's a certain irony in the argument that what -- that what petitioner wants is to substitute section 2 litigation of that kind for the section 5 process, which is much more efficient and much more -- and much speedier, much more efficient and much more cost effective. >> then why shouldn't it apply everywhere in the country? >> well, because i think congress made a reasonable judgment that the problem --that in 2006, that its prior judgments, that there -- that there was more of a risk in the covered jurisdictions continued to be validated by the section 2 evidence. >> well, you do really think

there was -- that the record in 2006 supports the proposition that -- let's just take the question of changing the location of polling places. that's a bigger problem in virginia than in tennessee, or it's a bigger problem in arizona than nevada, or in the bronx as opposed to brooklyn. >> i think the combination of the history, which i concede is not dispositive, but is relevant, because it suggests caution is in order and that's a reasonable judgment on the part of congress, the combination of that history and the fact that there is a very significant disproportion in successful section 2 results in the covered jurisdictions as compared to the rest of the country, that congress was justified in concluding that there -- that it there was reason to think that there continued to be a serious enough differential problem to justify -- >> well, the statistics that i have before me show that in, let's say the 5 years prior to reauthorization, the gap between success in section 2 suits in the covered and the non-covered

jurisdiction narrowed and eventually was eliminated. do you disagree with that? >> well, i think the --the -- you have to look at it, and congress appropriately looked at it through a broader -- in a -- in a broader timeframe, and it made judgments. and i think that actually, the the right way to look at it is not just the population judgment that mr. rein was critical of, the fact is, and i think this is in the katz amicus brief, that the covered jurisdictions contain only 14 percent of the subjurisdictions in the nation. and so 14 percent of the subjurisdictions in the nation are generating up to 81 percent of the successful section 2 litigation. it is not and i do not know the answer. it was reasonable. >> it is not our submission as an objective matter. i do not know the answer to that question but what i do now is that congress has before it

evidence that there was a continuing need based on section five objections based on the purpose-based character of those objections, based on the section to based on the polarized voting and based on a gigantic wealth of jurisdiction to maintain that the current and constraining effect of the preclearance process in the covered jurisdictions. >> and not impose it on everyone else. >> that is right even the difference in the section two legislation. >> i want to make sure i hear your answer to an allegation, an excellent argument that has been .ade the problem was terrible. it has gotten a lot better. is not to some degree cured. i think there is a kind of common ground. the question is what about this statue that has a certain formula?

theresponse is it has formula that no longer has tremendous relevance in terms of its characteristic, that is, literacy test but it has picked out nine states. it was rational when you continue and you do not sunset it. you keep it going. you're not held to quite the same criteria if you were writing it in the first place. that it does treat states all the same that are somewhat different. one response to that is -- this is the 15th amendment, the special amendment. maybe you're right. then let's proceed state-by- state. let's look at it state-by-state. that is what we normally do. not as a plot. i do not know how satisfactory that answer is. i want to know what your responses as to whether we should -- if he is

anht, that there is irrationality involved if you were writing it today in treating state a which is not discriminatory -- if that is true, do we respond state-by- state? or is this a matter we should consider not as applied but on its face. i want to your what you think about that. two responses. the first is one that focuses on the practical operation of the law. and the consequences that flow from it. i do not think that shelby county or alabama out to be able to bring a successful facial challenge against this law on the basis it ought not to have covered arizona or alaska. the statute has bailout mechanism. those jurisdictions can try to avail themselves of it.

and if they do and it doesn't work, then they -- they may very well have an as-applied challenge that they can bring to the law. but that doesn't justify -- given the structure of the law and that there is a tailoring mechanism in it, it doesn't justify alabama -- >> i don't -- i don't understand the distinction between facial and as-applied when you are talking about a formula. as applied to shelby county, they are covered because of the formula, so they're challenging the formula as applied to them. and we've heard some discussion. i'm not even sure what your position is on the formula. is the formula congruent and proportional today, or do you have this reverse engineering argument? >> congress's decision in 2006 to reenact the geographic coverage was congruent and proportional because congress had evidence -- >> to -- to the problem or -- or was the formula congruent and proportional to the remedy? >> the court has upheld the formula in four different applications.

so the court has found four different times that the formula was congruent and proportional. and the same kinds of problems that mr. rein is identifying now were -- >> well -- i'm sorry. >> were true even back in city of rome, because of course the tests and devices were eliminated by the statute, so no no jurisdiction could have tests and devices. and city of rome itself said that the registration problems had been very substantially ameliorated by then, but there were additional kinds of problems. the ascent of these second- generation problems was true in city of rome as a justification that made it congruent and proportional. and we submit that it's still true now, that congress wasn't writing on a blank slate in 2006. congress was making a judgment about whether this formula, which everyone agrees, and in fact mr. rein's case depends on the proposition that section 5 was a big success. >> well, maybe it was making that judgment, mr. verrilli. but that's -- that's a problem that i have. this court doesn't like to get involved in -- in racial questions such as this one.

it's something that can be left left to congress. the problem here, however, is suggested by the comment i made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a -- in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was -- in the senate, there -- it was double-digits against it. and that was only a 5-year term. then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. double-digits against it in the senate. then it was reenacted for 7 years. single digits against it. then enacted for 25 years, 8 senate votes against it. and this last enactment, not a single vote in the senate against it. and the house is pretty much the

same. now, i don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. i think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. it's been written about. whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. i don't think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. and i am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not comport with the constitution. you have to show, when you are treating different states differently, that there's a good reason for it. that's the -- that's the concern that those of us who -- who have some questions about this statute have. it's -- it's a concern that this is not the kind of a question

you can leave to congress. there are certain districts in the house that are black districts by law just about now. and even the virginia senators, they have no interest in voting against this. the state government is not their government, and they are going to lose -- they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the voting rights act. even the name of it is wonderful the voting rights act. who is going to vote against that in the future? >> you have an extra 5 minutes. >> thank you. i may need it for that question. [laughter] >> justice scalia, there's a number of things to say. first, we are talking about the enforcement power that the constitution gives to the

congress to make these judgments to ensure protection of fundamental rights. so this is -- this is a situation in which congress is given a power which is expressly given to it to act upon the states in their sovereign capacity. and it cannot have been lost on the framers of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments that the power congress was conferring on them was likely to be exercised in a differential manner because it was, the power was conferred to deal with the problems in the former states of the confederacy. so with respect to the constitutional grant of power, we do think it is a grant of power to congress to make these judgments, now of course subject to review by this court under the standard of northwest austin, which we agree is an appropriate standard. that's the first point. the second point is i do -- i do say with all due respect, i think it would be extraordinary to --to look behind the judgment of congress as expressed in the statutory findings, and -- and evaluate the judgment of congress on the basis of that sort of motive analysis, as opposed to -- >> we looked behind it in boerne. i'm not talking about dismissing it. i'm --i'm talking about looking at it to see whether it makes

any sense. >> and -- but -- but i do think that the deference that congress is owed, as city of boerne said, "much deference" -- katzenbach said "much deference." that deference is appropriate because of the nature of the power that has been conferred here and because, frankly, of the superior institutional competence of congress to make these kinds of judgments. these are judgments that assess social conditions. these are predictive judgments about human behavior and they're predictive judgments about social conditions and human behavior about something that the people in congress know the most about, which is voting and the political process. and i would also say i understand your point about entrenchment, justice scalia, but certainly with respect to the senate, you just can't say that it's in everybody's interests -- that -- that the enforcement of section 5 is going to make it easier for some of those senators to win and it's going to make it harder for some of those senators to win. and yet they voted unanimously in favor of the statute. >> do you think the preclearance device could be enacted for the entire united states.

>> i don't think there is a record that would substantiate that. but i do think congress was -- >> and that is because that there is a federalism interest in each state being responsible to ensure that it has a political system that acts in a democratic and a civil and a decent and a proper and a constitutional way. >> and we agree with that, we respect that, we acknowledge that northwest austin requires an inquiry into that. >> but if -- if alabama wants to have monuments to the heros of the civil rights movement, if it wants to acknowledge the wrongs of its past, is it better off doing that if it's an own independent sovereign or if it's under the trusteeship of the united states government? >> of course it would be better in the former situation. but with all due respect, your honor, everyone agrees that it was appropriate for -- for congress to have exercised this express constitutional authority when it did in 1965, and everybody agrees that it was the was the exercise of that authority that brought about the situation where we can now argue

about whether it's still necessary. and the point, i think, is of fundamental importance here is that that history remains relevant. what congress did was make a cautious choice in 2006 that given the record before it and given the history, the more prudent course was to maintain the deterrent and constraining effect of section 5, even given the federalism costs, because, after all, what it protects is a right of fundamental importance that the constitution gives congress the express authority to protect through appropriate legislation. >> before your time expires, i would like to make sure i understand your position on this as-applied versus facial issue. is it your position that this would be a different case if it were brought by, let's say, a county in alaska as opposed to shelby county, alabama?

>> no. not -- not -- no. let me just try to articulate clearly what our -- what our position is. they've brought a facial challenge. we -- we recognize that it's a facial challenge. we're defending it as a facial challenge, but our point is that the facial challenge can't succeed because they are able to point out that there may be some other jurisdictions that ought not to be appropriately covered, and that's especially true because there is a tailoring mechanism in the statute. and if the tailoring mechanism doesn't work, then jurisdictions that could make such a claim may well have an as-applied challenge. that's how we feel. >> thank you, general. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> mr. adegbile. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- the extensive record supporting the renewal of the preclearance provisions of the voting rights act illustrates two essential points about the nature and continuing aspects of voting discrimination in the affected areas.

the first speaks to this question of whether section 2 was adequate standing alone. as our brief demonstrates, in alabama and in many of the covered jurisdictions, section 2 victories often need section 5 to realize the benefits of the of the ruling in the section 2 case. that is to say, that these measures act in tandem to protect minority communities, and we've seen it in a number of cases. >> but that's true in every state, isn't it? >> justice scalia -- >> i mean, you know, i don't think anybody is contesting that it's more effective if you use section 5. the issue is why just in these states. that's it. >> fair enough. it's beyond a question of being true in any place. our brief shows that specifically in the covered jurisdictions, there is a pattern, a demonstrated pattern of section 2 and 5 being used in tandem whereas in other jurisdictions, most of the

section 2 cases are one-off examples. we point to a whole number of examples. take for example selma, alabama. selma, alabama in the 1990s, not in the 1960s but in the 1990s, had a series of objections and section 2 activity and observers all that were necessary to continue to give effect to the minority inclusion principle that section 5 was passed to vindicate in 1965. >> but a section 2 case can, in effect, have an order for bail- in, correct me if i'm wrong, under section 3 and then you basically have a mini -- something that replicates section 5. >> the bail-in is available -- bail- in is available if there's an actual finding of a constitutional violation. it has been used in -- in a number of circumstances. the united states brief has an appendix that points to those. one of the recent ones was in port chester, new york, if memory serves. but it's quite clear that the pattern in the covered jurisdictions is such that the repetitive nature of discrimination in those places take, for example, the case in lulac. after this court ruled that the redistricting plan after the 2000 round of redistricting bore the mark of intentional discrimination, in the remedial election, the state of texas

tried to shorten and constrain the early voting period for purposes of denying the latino community of the opportunity to have the benefits of the ruling. what we've seen in section 2 cases is that the benefits of discrimination vest in incumbents who would not be there but for the discriminatory plan. and congress, and specifically in the house report, i believe it's page 57, found that section 2 continues to be an inadequate remedy to address the problem of these successive violations. another example that makes this point very clearly is in the 1990s in mississippi. there was an important section 2 case brought finally after 100 years to break down the dual registration system that had a discriminatory purpose. when mississippi went to implement the national voter registration act, it tried to bring back dual registration,

and it was section 5 -- section 5 enforcement action that was able to knock it down. >> do you agree with the reverse engineering argument that the united states has made today? >> i would frame it slightly differently, chief justice roberts. my understanding is that the history bears some importance in the context of the reauthorizations, but that congress in -- in none of the reauthorizations stopped with the historical backward look. it takes cognizance of the experience, but it also looks to see what the experience has been on the ground. and what congress saw in 2006 is that there was a surprisingly high number of continuing objections after the 1982 reauthorization period and that >> i guess -- i guess the question is whether or not that disparity is sufficient to justify the differential treatment under section 5. once you take away the formula, if you think it has to be reverse engineered and -- and not simply justified on its own, then it seems to me you have a much harder test to justify the differential treatment under section 5. >> this court in northwest austin said that it needs to be sufficiently related, and i think there are two principal sources of evidence. >> well, we also said congruent

and proportional. >> indeed. indeed. i don't understand those things to be unrelated. i think that they're part of the same, same test, same evaluative mechanism. the idea is, is congress -- the first question is, is congress remedying something or is it creating a new right. that's essentially what boerne is getting to, is congress trying to go -- do an end-around, a back doorway to expand the constitution. we know in this area congress is trying to implement the fifteenth amendment and the history tells us something about that. but specifically to the question >> well, the fifteenth amendment is limited to intentional discrimination, and, of course, the preclearance requirement is not so limited, right? >> that's correct. but this court's cases have held that congress, in proper exercise of its remedial powers, can reach beyond the --the core of the intentional discrimination with prophylactic effect when they have demonstrated that a substantial problem exists. the -- the two things that speak to this issue about the disparity in coverage and continuing to cover these

jurisdictions, there are two major inputs. the first is the section 5 activity. the section 5 activity shows that the problem persists. it's a range of different obstacles, and section 5 was passed to reach the next discriminatory thing. the case in -- >> well, section 5 -- the section 5 activity may show that there's a problem in the jurisdictions covered by section 5, but it says nothing about the presence or absence of similar problems in noncovered jurisdictions, isn't that right? >> absolutely, justice alito. >> all right. >> and so i come to my second category. the second category, of course, is the piece of the voting rights act that has national application, section 2. and what the evidence in this case shows, and it was before congress, is that the concentration of section 2 successes in the covered jurisdictions is substantially more. justice kagan said that it was four times more adjusting for population data. the fact of the matter is that there is another piece of evidence in the record in this case where peyton mccrary looks at all of the section 2 cases, and what he shows is that the

directional sense, that the ellen katz study pointed to dramatically understates the disparity under section 2. and so he found that 81 percent >> all of the noncovered states are worse in that regard than the nine covered states, is that correct? >> justice scalia -- >> every -- every one of them is worse. >> justice scalia, it's -- it's a fair question, and -- and i was speaking to the aggregate -- >> it's not just a fair one, it's the crucial question. congress has selected these nine states. now, is there some good reason for selecting these nine? >> what we see in the evidence is that of the top eight states with section --favorable section 2 outcomes, seven of them, seven of them are the covered jurisdictions. the eighth was bailed in under the other part of the mechanism that, as justice kennedy points out, can bring in some jurisdictions that have special problems in voting. and so we think that that points to the fact that this is not a static statute, it's a statute that is -- >> yeah, but his point, i think the point is this -- if you draw a red line around the states that are in, at least some of those states have a better record than some of the states that are out.

so in 1965, well, we haveave 80l segregation. we have had 41 years of this statute. and this statute has helped, a lot. so therefore congress in 2005 looks back and says don't change horses in the middle of the stream, because we still have a ways to go. now the question is, is it rational to do that? and people could differ on that. and one thing to say is, of course this is aimed at states. what do you think the civil war was about? of course it was aimed at treating some states differently than others. and at some point that historical and practical

sunset/no sunset, renew what worked type of justification runs out. and the question, i think, is has it run out now? and now you tell me when does it run out? what is the standard for when it runs out? never? that's something you have heard people worried about. does it never run out? or does it run out, but not yet? or do we have a clear case where at least it doesn't run out now? now, i would like you to address that. >> fair enough, justice breyer. i think that the -- what the evidence shows before congress is that it hasn't run out yet. the whole purpose of this act is that we made progress and congress recognized the progress that we made. and, for example, they took away the examiner provision which was designed to address the registration problem. in terms of when we are there, i think it will be some point in the future. our great hope is that by the

end of this next reauthorization we won't be there. indeed, there is an overlooked provision that says in 15 years, which is now 9 years from where i stand here today before you, congress should go back and look and see if it's still necessary. so we don't think that this needs to be there in perpetuity. but based on the record and a 2011 case in which a federal judge in alabama cited this court's opinion in northwest austin -- there were legislators that sit today that were caught on tape referring to african american voters as illiterates. their peers were referring to them as aborigines. and the judge, citing the northwest austin case -- it's the mcgregor case cited in our brief --said that, yes, the south has changed and made progress, but some things remain stubbornly the same and the trained effort to deny african american voters the franchise is part of alabama's history to this very day. >> have there been episodes, egregious episodes of the kind you are talking about in states that are not covered? >> absolutely, chief justice roberts. >> well, then it doesn't seem to help you make the point that the differential between covered and noncovered continues to be justified.

>> but the great weight of evidence -- i think that it's fair to look at -- on some level you have to look piece by piece, state by state. but you also have to step back and look at the great mosaic. this statute is in part about our march through history to keep promises that our constitution says for too long were unmet. and this court and congress have both taken these promises seriously. in light of the substantial evidence that was adduced by congress, it is reasonable for congress to make the decision that we need to stay the course so that we can turn the corner. to be fair, this statute cannot go on forever, but our experience teaches that six amendments to the constitution have had to be passed to ensure safeguards for the right to vote, and there are many federal laws. they protect uniform voters, some protect eligible voters who have not had the opportunity yet to register. but together these protections are important because our right to vote is what the united states constitution is about. >> thank you, counsel. mr. rein, 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice.

>> do you think that the right to vote is a racial entitlement in section 5? >> no. the fifteenth amendment protects the right of all to vote and -- >> i asked a different question. do you think section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement? >> well, congress -- >> do you think there was no basis to find that -- >> was reacting -- may i say congress was reacting in 1964 to a problem of race discrimination which it thought was prevalent in certain jurisdictions. so to that extent, as the intervenor said, yes, it was intended to protect those who had been discriminated against. if i might say, i think that justice breyer -- >> do you think that racial discrimination in voting has ended, that there is none anywhere? >> i think that the world is not perfect. no one -- we are not arguing perfectibility. we are saying that there is no evidence that the jurisdictions

that are called out by the formula are the places which are uniquely subject to that kind of problem -- >> but shouldn't -- >> we are not trying -- >> you've given me some statistics that alabama hasn't, but there are others that are very compelling that it has. why should we make the judgment, and not congress, about the types and forms of discrimination and the need to remedy them? >> may i answer that? number one, we are not looking at alabama in isolation. we are looking at alabama relative to other sovereign states. and coming to justice kennedy's point, the question has is alabama, even in isolation, and those other states reached the point where they ought to be given a chance, subject to section 2, subject to cases brought directly under the fifteenth amendment, to exercise their sovereignty -- >> how many other states have 240 successful section 2 and section 5 -- >> justice sotomayor, i could

parse statistics, but we are not here to try alabama or massachusetts or any other state. the question is the validity of the formula. that's what brings alabama in. if you look at alabama, it has a number of black legislators proportionate to the black population of alabama. it hasn't had a section 5 rejection in a long period. i want to come to justice breyer's point because i think that -- i think he's on a somewhat different wavelength, which is isn't this a mere continuation? shouldn't the fact that we had it before mean, well, let's just try a little bit more until somebody is satisfied that the problem is cured? >> don't change horses. you renew what is in the past -- >> right. >> where it works, as long as the problem isn't solved. ok? >> well, and i think the problem to which the voting rights act was addressed is solved. you look at the registration, you look at the voting. that problem is solved on an absolute as well as a relative basis. so that's like saying if i detect that there is a disease afoot in the population in 1965 and i have a treatment, a radical treatment that may help cure

that disease, when it comes to 2005 and i see a new disease or i think the old disease is gone, there is a new one, why not apply the old treatment? >> well, mr. rein -- >> i wouldn't -- >> that is the question, isn't it? you said the problem has been solved. but who gets to make that judgment really? is it you, is it the court, or is it congress? >> well, it is certainly not me. [laughter] >> that's a good answer. i was hoping you would say that. >> but i think the question is congress can examine it, congress makes a record, it is up to the court to determine whether the problem indeed has been solved and whether the new problem, if there is one -- >> well, that's a big, new power that you are giving us, that we have the power now to decide whether racial discrimination has been solved? i did not think that that fell within our bailiwick. >> i did not claim that power, justice kagan. what i said is, based on the record made by the congress, you have the power, and certainly it was recognized in northwest austin,

austin, to determine whether that record justifies the discrimination among -- >> but there is this difference, which i think is a key difference. you refer to the problem as the problem identified by the tool for picking out the states, which was literacy tests, et cetera. but i suspect the problem was the denial or abridgement by a state of the right to vote on the basis of race and color. and that test was a way of picking out places where that problem existed. now, if my version of the if your version of the problem, literacy tests, is the problem, well, you have a much stronger case. so how, in your opinion, do we decide what was the problem that congress was addressing in the voting rights act? >> i think you look at katzenbach and you look at the evidence within the four corners of the voting rights act. it responds to limited registration and voting as measured and the use of devices.

the devices are gone. that problem has been resolved by the congress definitively. so it can't be the basis for further -- further legislation. i think what we are talking about here is that congress looks and says, well, we did solve that problem. as everyone agrees, it's been very effective, section 5 has done its work. people are registering and voting and, coming to justice scalia's point, senators who see that a very large group in the population has politically wedded themselves to section 5 are not going to vote against it, it will do them no good. and so i think, justice scalia, that evidence that everybody votes for it would suggest some of the efficacy of section 5. you have a different constituency from the constituency you had in 1964. but coming to the point, then if you think there is discrimination, you have to examine that nationwide. they didn't look at some of the problems of dilution and the like because they would have found them all over the place in 1965. but they weren't responding to that.

they were responding to an acute situation where people could not register and vote. there was intentional denial of the rights under the fifteenth amendment. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you.

. . .

1@3@

i had to sit in a meeting with the department of the interior, agriculture, and the rest of my team to figure out how we will pay for more and more expenses -- expensive fire seasons. crops wilted one year, washed away the next. higher food prices get passed on to you, the american consumer. mountain communities worry about what smaller snowpacks will mean for tourism. families at the bottom of the mountains wonder what it will mean for their drinking water. americans across the country are already paying the price of

inaction. in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the cost of rebuilding and disaster relief. the question is not whether we need to act. the overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements, has put all that to rest. , includingntists some who originally disputed the data, have now acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it. is whether weow will have the courage to act before it is too late. and how we answer will have a profound impact on the world we live -- leave behind. not just to you, but to your children and grandchildren. father, andnt, as a

as an american, i adhere to say we need to act. [applause] i refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that is beyond fixing. that is why today i am announcing a new national climate action plan. i am here to enlist your generation's help in keeping the united states of america a leader, a global leader in the fight against climate change. on progress wes have already made. office -- theook

year i took office, my administration pledged to reduce america's read house gas emissions by 17%. bygreenhouse gas emissions 17% by the 2012 level. we rolled up our sleeves and got to work. the electricity we generate from wind and the sun. we double the mileage our cars will get on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade. [applause] here at georgetown i unveiled my strategy for a secure energy future. thanks to the ingenuity of our businesses, we are starting to produce much more of our own energy. we are building the first nuclear power plants in more than three decades in good --

georgia and south carolina. for the first time in 18 years, america is produced to -- poised to produce more oil than we buy from other nations. we produce more natural gas than anybody else. we are producing energy. these advances have grown our economy and created new jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. and, by the way, they have also helped drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years. since 2006, no country on earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the united states of america. [applause] start.s a good but the reason we are all here in the heat today is we know we have more to do. of the union address, i urged congress to

come up with a bipartisan market-based solution to climate change. like the one republican and democratic senators worked on together a few years ago. i still want to see that happen. i am willing to work with anyone to make that happen. but this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock. it demands our attention now. meet it.is my plan to a plan to cut carbon pollution, a plan to collect -- protect our country from the impacts of climate change, and to lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate erie it -- changing climate. [applause] cutting begins with carbon pollution by changing the way we use energy. using less dirty energy. using more clean energy.

wasting less energy throughout our economy. congress passed a law called the clean air act of 1970. [applause] it was a good law. the reasoning behind it was simple. new technology can protect our health by protecting the air we breathe from harmful pollution. that law passed the senate unanimously. think about that. it passed the senate unanimously and passed the house of representatives 375 to one. i do not know what the one guy was. i have to look that up. you can barely get that many votes to name a post office these days. it was signed into law by a republican president. it was later strengthened by another republican president.

this used to be a bipartisan issue. years ago, the supreme court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants covered by that same clean air act. the environmental protection agency, the epa, to determine whether they are a threat to our health and welfare. in 2009 the epa determined that they are a threat to both our health and our welfare. fromny different ways, dirtier air to more common heat waves. therefore subject to regulation. about 40% of america's carbon pollution comes from our power plants. here is the thing. right now there are no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution those plans can pump into the air. none. zero. we limit the amount of toxic

chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or water. but power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free. that is not right, that is not safe, and it needs to stop. [applause] so today for the sake of our children and the health and safety of all americans, i am directing the environmental endtection agency to put a to the limitless dumping of pollution from our power plants and create new standards for new and existing power plants. [applause]

i am also directing the epa to standards in a open and transparent way. to provide flexibility to different states with different needs. and build on the leadership of many states and cities and companies. in fact, many power companies have already begun modernizing plants and -- creating new jobs in the process. others shifted to burning cleaner natural gas instead of dirtier fuel sources. nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing their own market- based programs to reduce part -- carbon pollution. more than 25 has set energy efficiency targets. more than 35 has set renewable energy targets. signed anmayors agreement to cut carbon pollution. so the idea of setting higher pollution standards for our power plants is not new.

it is just time for washington to catch up with the rest of the country. that is what we intend to do. [applause] hear from thewill special interests and their allies in congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the economy and basically and american free enterprise as we know it. the reason i know you will hear it is because that is what they said every time america set clear rules and better standards for our air and water and our children's health. every time, they have been wrong. 1970, when wen decided through the clean air act to do something about the smog that was choking our cities -- most people are not old

enough to remember what it was like. inn i was going to school 1979, 1980 in los angeles, there were days when folks could not go outside. the sunsets were spectacular. [laughter] because of all the pollution in the air. but at the time, when we passed the clean air act to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doomsayers were saying that new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry. guess what? did not happen. the air got cleaner. in 1990, when we decided to do something about acid rain, they said our electricity bills would go up, the lights would go off, businesses around the country would suffer "a quiet death." none of that happened. except we cut acid rain dramatically.

the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that there is a fundamental lack of faith in -- it shows a fundamental lack of faith in american business and american ingenuity. [applause] these critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they cannot or will not do it. they will just give up and quit. that ismerica, we know not true. look at our history. got rid of cancer- causing chemicals in plastics and lead in our gas, it did not or the plastics industry cars. when we think about cfc's, the gases depleting the ozone layer, it did not kill off air conditioners or fridges or

deodorants. american workers and businesses figured out how to do it better without harming the environment as much. the fuel standards we put in place just a few years ago did not cripple automakers. the american auto industry retooled. today, automakers are selling the best cars in the world at a faster rate than they have in five years. more hybrids, more plug-ins, more fuel-efficient cars. [applause] so if you look at our history, do not bet against american industry, do not bet against american workers. do not tell folks we have to choose between the health of our children or the health of our economy. the old rules -- [applause] the old rules may say we cannot

protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time. but in america we have always use new technologies, have used science mibs research and development -- have used research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete. energy,e use more clean more renewables and natural gas supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs. it saves you money at the pump and in your pocket books. guess what, our economy is 60% bigger than it was 20 years ago. and our carbon emissions are roughly back to where they were 20 years ago. so obviously we can figure this out. it is not an either or. it is a both and. we have to look at the children, our future, and we have to grow the economy and create jobs. we can do all of that as long as we do not fear the future. instead, we seize it. [applause]

by the way, do not take my word for it. recently, more than 500 businesses, including giants like gm and nike, issued a climate declaration calling for action on climate change one of the greatest opportunities of the 21st century. is working to cut its carbon pollution 20% and transition completely to renewable energy. [applause] walmart deserves a cheer for that. but think about it. the biggest company, the biggest retailer in america, would they do it if it were not good for business? if it were not good for shareholders? a low carbon clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come. i want america to bill that engine. i want america to build that future, right here in the united

states of america. that is our task. [applause] now, one thing i want to make sure everybody understands -- this does not mean we are going to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels. our economy would not run very well if we did. transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time. but when the doomsayers trot out the old warnings that these ambitions will somehow hurt our energy supply, just remind them that america produced more oil than we have in 15 years. what is true is that we cannot just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge we face. [applause] that is not possible. i put forward in the past a all of the above energy strategy. but our energy strategy must be about more than just producing

more oil. by the way, it will certainly be about more than just building more pipelines -- building one pipeline. [applause] i know there has been a lot of controversy surrounding be build a pipeline, the keystone pipeline that would carry oil from canadian tar sands to refineries in the gulf. the state department is going to the final stages of evaluating a proposal. that is how it is always been done. i want to be clear. allowing the keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest. our national interest will be this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. [applause] the net affect of the pipeline's on our climate will be

absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. it is relevant. even as we are producing more domestic oil, we are also producing more cleanburning natural gas than any other country on earth. aren, sometimes there disputes about natural gas. but let me say this. we should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because in the medium term, at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but also can help reduce our carbon emissions. technologyupported has helped our business is drill more and extract more gas. that will keep working with the industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure we are not seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work

modernizing our natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and businesses with cleaner energy. the bottom-line is that natural gas is creating jobs. it is lowering many families' heat and power bills. it is the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy a more technology required for even -- the even cleaner energy economy of the future. that brings me to the second way we are going to reduce carbon pollution. by using more clean energy. wer the past four years, have doubled the electricity we generate from zero carbon wind and solar power. [applause] that means jobs. manufacturing the wind

turbines that now generate enough electricity to power nearly 15 million homes. jobs installing the solar panels that now generate more than four times the power at less cost than just a few years ago. i know some republicans in washington dismissed these jobs, but those who do need to call home. of wind energy in this country is generated in republican districts. that may explain why last year republican governors in kansas n.o.i., and iowa -- oklahoma, and iowa. harnesses almost 25% of its electricity from wind, helped us in the fight to extend tax credits for wind energy manufacturers and producers. [applause] tens of thousands of good jobs were on the line. those jobs were worth the

fight. countries like china and germany are going all in in the race. builds thingsica better than anyone else. i want america to win that race. but we cannot win it if we are not in it. so the plan i am announcing today will help us double again our energy from wind and solar. today i am directing the interior department to develop enough private energy capacity on public lands to power 6 million more homes by 2020. [applause] the department of defense, the biggest energy consumer in america, will install three gigawatts of renewable power on its bases, -- generating the same amount of electricity you would get from burning 3 million tons of coal. [applause]

and, because billions of your to, still, continue subsidize the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget once again calls for congress to end tax breaks for big oil companies and invest in the clean energy companies that will fuel our future. [applause] the third way to reduce carbon pollution is to waste less energy. in our cars, our homes, our businesses. the fuel standards we set over the past few years mean that by the middle of the next decade the cars and trucks we buy will go twice as far on a gallon of gas. that means you will have to fill up half as often. that will reduce carbon pollution.

we built on that success by setting the first-ever standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses and vans. in the coming months we will partner with truck makers to do it again for the next generation of vehicles. meanwhile, the energy we use in our homes and businesses and factories and schools and hospitals, that is responsible for about one third of our greenhouse gases. the good news is that simple upgrades do not just cut the pollution, they put people to work. manufacturing and installing smarter lights and windows and sensors and appliances. and the savings show up in our electricity bills every month forever. set newwhy we have energy standards for appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers. today, our businesses are building better ones that will also cut carbon pollution and billsnsumer electricity by hundreds of billions of

dollars. that means our federal government also has to lead by example. i am proud that federal agencies have reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15% since i took office. but we can do even better than that. so today i am setting a new goal. your federal government will consume 20% of its electricity from renewable sources within the next seven years. we are going to set that goal. [applause] we will encourage private capital to get all the sidelines -- off the sidelines and into these energy-saving investments. by the end of the next decade, the combined efficiency standards will reduce carbon pollution by at least 3 billion tons. that is equivalent to what our entire energy sector admits in nearly half a year. so i know the standards do not send that sexy, but think of it this way. that is the equivalent of

planting 7.6 billion trees and letting them grow for 10 years. it is a great deal. and we need to be doing it. [applause] using less dirty energy, transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, wasting less energy through our economy is where we need to go. this plan will get us there faster. but i want to be honest -- this will not get us there overnight. carbond truth is that pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now. even if we americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some time to come. will slowly keep rising and the storms will get more severe based on the science. it is like tapping the brakes of a car before you come to a complete stop and then can shift into reverse.

it will take time for carbon emissions to stabilize. in the meantime we will need to get prepared. why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the united aids for the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid. states and cities across the country are already taking it upon themselves to get ready. miami beach is hardening its water supply again saltwater. we are partnering with the state of florida to restore florida's natural clean water delivery system, the everglades. the overwhelmingly republican legislature in sexist -- in texas voted to spend water -- money on a new water development bank as a long-running drought caused -- cost jobs and forced them to truck in water from the outside. new york city is fortifying its 520 miles of coastline as an

insurance policy against more frequent and costly storms. what we have learned from hurricane sandy and other disasters is that we have to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure that can protect our homes and businesses and withstand more powerful storms. that means stronger seawalls, natural barriers, hardened power grids and water systems, fuel supplies. the budget i send to congress includes funding to support communities that build the projects and to direct federal agencies to make sure any new funded with taxpayer dollars is built to withstand increased flood risk. we are partnering with communities preparing to reduce the risk of wildfires and protect the dunes and wetlands that are green space and natural storm barriers. data andpen climate climate imagery to the public to

make sure cities and states assess risk under different climate scenarios, so we do not waste money voting structures that do not withstand the next- door. -- the next storm. that is what my administration will do to support work already underway across america. not only to cut carbon pollution, but to protect ourselves from climate change. as i think everyone understands, not any one nation can solve this alone. not even one as powerful as ours. that is why our plan calls for america to lead international efforts to combat a change in climate. [applause] and make no mistake, the world still looks to america to lead. when i spoke to young people in turkey a few years ago, the first question i got was not about the challenges that part of the world faces. it was about the climate

challenge that we all face and america's role in addressing it. it was a fair question. the world's largest economy and second largest carbon emitter. unsurpassedth ability to drive innovation and scientific breakthroughs. a country that people around the world continue to look to in times of crisis. we have a vital role to play. we cannot stand the sidelines. we have a unique responsibility. the us -- the steps i outlined peru we need -- we are able to meet the responsibility. although our carbon emission fell last year, global carbon emission rose to a record high. that is a problem. developing countries are using more energy, and tens of billions of people entering a global middle class naturally want to buy cars and air conditioners of their own, just like us. you cannot blame them for that.

and when you have conversations with poor countries they will say, you went through the stages of development, why can't we? but we also have to recognize that these same countries are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are. they do not have just as much does -- to lose, they probably have more to lose. developing nations with some of the fastest rising levels of carbon pollution are going to have to take action to meet this challenge alongside us. they are watching what we do, but we have got to make sure that they are stepping up to the plate as well. we compete for business with them, but also share a planet. we have to all shoulder the responsibility for keeping the planet habitable, or we will suffer the consequences together. so, to help more countries transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and help them do it

faster, we are going to partner with the private sector to apply private sector technological know-how in countries transitioning to natural gas. we mobilize billions of dollars in private capital for clean energy projects around the world. endy, i am calling for an of public financing for new coal plants overseas unless they deploy carbon capture technologies or there is no other viable way for them to generate electricity. [applause] i urge other countries to join this effort. i am directing my administration to launch negotiations toward global free trade in environmental goods and the, including clean energy technology to help more countries skip past the dirty face the development and join a global low carbon economy. they do not have to repeat all the same mistakes that we made. [applause]

we have intensified our climate cooperation with major emerging economies like india and brazil and china. the world's largest emitter. earlier this month, president xi of china and i reached an agreement to jointly face down consumption of dangerous hydrofluorocarbons. we intend to take more steps in to come.s it is a significant step in the reduction of carbon emissions. finally, my administration will redouble our efforts to engage our international partners in reaching a new global agreement to reduce carbon pollution through concrete action. [applause] you know, four years ago in copenhagen every major country agreed for the first time to limit carbon pollution by 2020. two years ago we decided to forge a new agreement beyond

2020 that would apply to all countries, not just developed countries. what we need is an agreement that is ambitious, because that is what the scale of the challenge demands. we need an inclusive agreement, because every country has to play its part. we need an agreement that is flexible, because different nations have different needs. if we can come together and get this right, we can define a sustainable future for your generation. so that is my plan. the actions i have announced today -- [applause]

the actions i have announced today should send a strong signal to the world that america intends to take bold action to reduce carbon pollution. by the continue to lead power of our example. that is what the united states of america has always done. i am convinced this is the fight america can and will lead in the 21st century. i am convinced this is a fight america must lead. but it will require all of us to do our part. we will need scientists to design new fuels. and we will need farmers to grow new fuels. we will need engineers to devise new technologies, and we will need businesses to make and sell those technologies. we will need workers to operate

assembly lines that, with high- tech zero carbon components. we will also need builders to hammer into place foundations for a new clean energy europe -- eraa. we will need to give special care to communities unsettled by this transition, here and around the world. those of us in positions of responsibility need to be less concerned with the judgment of special interests and well- connected donors, and more concerned with the judgment of posterity. [applause] because you and your children and your children's children will have to live with the consequences of our decisions. as i said before, climate change has become a partisan issue. but it has not always been. it was not that long ago that

republicans led the way on new and innovative policies to tackle these issues. richard nixon opened the epa. , thee h w bush declared first u.s. president to declare human activities are changing the atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways. shies away never from a challenge, john mccain, introduced a market-based cap and trade bill to slow carbon pollution. headoman i have chosen to the epa, gina mccarthy -- [applause] she is terrific. epa, butorked for the has also worked for five republican governors. she has a long track record of working with industry and business leaders to forge common sense solutions. unfortunately she's being held up in the senate.

she has been held up for months and forced to jump through hoops no caps at nomination ever have to. too many ine are the republican party right now who think the environmental protection agency has no business protecting our environment from carbon pollution. the senate should confirm her without any further obstruction or delay. [applause] more broadly, we have to move beyond partisan politics on this issue. i want to be clear -- i am willing to work with anybody, republicans, democrats, independents, libertarians, greens, anybody to combat this threat on behalf of our kids. i am open to all sorts of new ideas. maybe better ideas, to make sure we deal with climate change in a way that promotes jobs and

growth. nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem. what i do not have any -- much patience for anybody who denies this challenge is real. we do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. [applause] sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it will not protect you from the coming storm. and ultimately we will be judged as a people and as a society and as a country on where we go from here. that thoses believed of us in positions of power are elected not just to serve as custodians of the present, but as caretakers of the future. they charged us to make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon then the ark of our own political careers. --the american people expect

that is what they deserve. someday our children and our children's children's will look us in the eye and ask us, did we do all we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer, more stable world? i want to be able to say, yes, we did. don't you want that? [applause] americans are not a people who look backwards. we are a people who look forward. we are not a people who fear what the future holds. we shape it. what we need in this fight our citizens who will stand up and speak up and compel last to do what this moment demands. understand -- this is not just a job for politicians. i will need all of you to educate your classmates, colleagues, parents, friends -- tell them what is at stake.

, church at town halls groups, pta meetings. pushback on misinformation. speak up for the facts. broaden the circle of those willing to stand up for our future. convince those in power to reduce our carbon pollution. push your own communities to adopt smarter practices. invest, divest, remind folks there is no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth. and remind everyone who represents u.s. every level of -- you at every level of government that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a perquisite for your vote. make yourself heard. [applause] i understand the politics will be tough.

acceptllenge we must will not reward us with a clear moment of victory. there is no peace treaty to sign. when president kennedy said we go to the moon within a decade, we knew we would build a spaceship and meet the goal. our progress here will be measured differently. in crises averted. in a planet preserved. but can we imagine a more worthy goal? seewhat we may not live to the full realization of our we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did. theakes you realize, as astronaut said all those years ago, just what you have back there on earth. that image in the photograph, the bright blue ball rising over

the moon's surface, containing everything we hold dear. thelaughter of children, quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity, that is what is at stake. that is what we are fighting for. we willmember that, succeed. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on our next "washington journal," sean duffy on financial regulations and the

economy. and sheila jackson-lee on the nsa data collection program and the supreme court decision to strike down parts of the voting rights act. we will discuss rolling stone's recent article on colorado's economy and the state's decision to legalize recreational marijuana. will join us.n your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets on the supreme court ruling on the voting rights act. each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. some ways, had there not been a sherman, lincoln would maybe have been nominated but he surely would not have won the election. he went on to defeat, he won 56% of the vote. george mcclellan had a lot of momentum in september and was writing letters to sherman and others as if he expected to become the president of the united dates. suddenly, sherman took atlanta

and for one week he did not say a word. lincoln just smiled and, as he would say of sherman, he went into one whole, i do not know where he is now, but he came up another whole and all is good. william tecumseh sherman saved the union ever. i cannot think of anybody in the time of sheridan who could have done that. >> victor davis hanson talks about five generals who he says single-handedly reversed the direction of the war to their country's favor. part of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. >> democratic congressman ed markey has won the special election to take john kerry's senate seat. he beat out republican gabriel gomez with 57% of the vote. mr. markey was elected to the vote in 1974. our coverage is courtesy of wbz

tv. ♪ ♪ >> thank you all. .hank you all for this evening

this victory belongs to you. it belongs to your families. i am deeply humbled, and i am profoundly grateful. thank you so much. [applause] election is about your hopes, your dreams, your families, your future. and i know that. and i'm going to remember that. begin by thanking my beautiful and brilliant wife, susan. [applause] tomorrow is our 25th wedding anniversary, and i am going to have to get her a very special present. [applause]

i want to thank my brothers and their families who have always believed in me. i want to thank the dream team of a campaign that came together and mark gallagher, who did an unbelievable job over five months. they hit the ground running and they never stop for five months. hear a round of applause for gabriel gomez. issues, disagree on the but we do agree on one thing. oflove the state massachusetts and we love the united states of america. [applause]

america is the greatest country on earth. my father was a milkman who drove a truck for the hood milk company. my mother was going to be senior class president in high school, but her mother died. my grandmother and my mother had to stay behind to raise her younger sisters. i was the first in my family to go to college. i drove an ice cream truck to work my way through boston college as a commuter. [applause] the opportunities this country gave me, this son of a milkman is going to serve the state of massachusetts in the united states senate. [applause]

i am a sahm of -- i am a son, but i do not go to occupy a seat in the senate. i go there to stand for you. to speak for you. to seek change that lifts up your families and your future. and to everyone in this state, regardless of how you voted, i say to you tonight, this is your seat in the united states senate. [applause] five months ago, at the ymca in walden, we began this campaign. we have crisscrossed the commonwealth, from boston to the berkshires, from new bedford to

newburyport. more than 13,000 miles of tweets and texts and a million doorbells rung and phone calls made in order to bring us here this evening. i have had a chance to talk to people from all walks of life. they shared with me their dreams for their futures their hopes for moving our country forward. they told me of their frustrations with gridlock, that they wanted to make real progress, creating an economy that works for everyone, that we put a real gun safety measures on the books, that we protect the women's right to choose. [applause] i am going to the united states senate to build a bold and bright future filled with

opportunities for in massachusetts and across our great country. ofre is a long history leaders from massachusetts going to the united states senate. our legendary ted kennedy. [applause] our great secretary of state, john kerry. and now i go to washington to serve with the extraordinary elizabeth warren. [applause] there are many challenges and many opportunities. and i want to lead the efforts to launch a clean energy revolution in our country. [applause]

steelworkers and ironworkers and welders and electricians to work building the new backbone for a new energy economy here in the united states and around the world. change.ombat climate break our dependence upon imported oil and create jobs here in massachusetts and across our country. we can put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges and tunnels. put coast-to-coast, we can people to work in every city and town in the commonwealth of massachusetts. at all times we have to remember that massachusetts is not just the day -- bay state. we are the brain state. [applause]

number one in information technology, number one in biotechnology, number one in healthcare. we employ 500,000 people in these industries, and we must keep innovating. to create jobs here in the state of massachusetts. [applause] the very essence of our innovation strategy. , every child in the state of massachusetts and across our country should be able to attend the college of their choice and not have to shoulder a burden that carries them deep into their 30's and 40's. i will go to washington to fight so every child can maximize their god-given abilities education only. [applause]

i will promise you this. consensus wherever possible. like you, i am tired of gridlock. but i will never compromise on our principles. [applause] so i am going to the united states senate to stand up for you. for the values that i've always believed in. honesty and fairness and equality. i pledge that i will be a senator who will fight for you every hour, on every vote, on every issue to make progress for you and for your families. i will fight for you. i will fight for everyone's struggling to make ends meet.

i will fight for immigrant families reaching for the american dream. [applause] i will fight for young people who are our future. i will fight for seniors who built this country. i will fight for our veterans who protected our country, and i will fight to preserve our lannett for generations to come. [applause] as you once,want, a 21st century that is more educated, more healthy, more prosperous, and more fair than the 20th century was. and i hope to make you proud that for every day that i served in the united states senate,

worki have honored the that you did that makes it possible for me to stand here tonight as your next united states senator. god bless massachusetts. god bless the united states of america. thank you all so, so much. ♪ a moment, bob schieffer of cbs news talks to journalists covering the nsa data collection story. then on this morning's washington journal, we talked to sean duffy of wisconsin and sheila jackson-lee. 7:00 eastern. the supreme court will rule on two things today. the court has been reviewing

challenges to california's proposition 8, and a restriction based on same-sex couples under the 1996 defense of marriage act. and this weekend, chief justice john roberts will sit down to talk about the cases the court ruled on this term. live coverage from white sulfur springs, west virginia. bob schaffer talks about the national security agency's data collection programs. this is one hour. >> thank you very much. thank you all for coming. i had a feeling we would have a big turnout for this one. we try to stay on the news. we are very much on the news today. bart gelman, who had his name in

the paper a lot lately, the winner of two pulitzers. the vicea book about president cheney that was a bestseller and was chosen as one of the times books of the year. for the washington post, time magazine, and he is one and the washington post who had their first story about edward snowden. right over here is mild friend david sanger. he has been on two pulitzer teams. he worked there 30 years. probably he has worked at one place longer than anybody on reallynel, which is good. he has two books about the obama administration. the most recent is "confront and conceal." you had information in that book that had not been known before your book came out.

so you have some experience on that kind of thing. and jim lewis, who is senior fellow here. the acknowledged expert on cyber war and cybersecurity. he has been in and out of government both of the -- most of his career and has a phd from the university of chicago. for all theseme gentlemen, but we will stop it there. i want to ask you to start off. why did the washington post publish this story? >> i will speak for myself. i think it does represent the post's view. why wouldn't we? thead a situation in which congress passed a law that everybody gets to read that says very little but -- the terms are

quite opaque. then it created a program. which works court, only in highly-classified ways and with no other parties present. the court makes a secret ruling. all of this draws of boundary around where should the limit be between intelligence gathering and privacy and civil liberties? that is a conversation we have not had an opportunity to debate among the general public. on foundational questions of mutualtalking about the transparency of citizens and the government that is supposed to serve them. and i think there were lots of things in the material that ed