can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live on c-span. rotucky congressman harold gers is our guest. he talks about the current appropriations process in congress for 2015. you can watch the interview sunday at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. become the factory to the world. around to thects planet that makes our lifestyles possible. we couldn't have the quality of life that we enjoy it we didn't have a low cost and low-cost labor in china and elsewhere in southeast asia. in china today, the standard of living remains 1/6 of what it is in the united states. frustrationurce of because people realize we work

hard, we are participating in the global economy, we play by the rules and yet we are not enjoying the quality of life that they have in the west. that fornteresting is most chinese history, no one had any idea of what life is like outside. chinese people now can sit on a computer in the village of the middle of nowhere and never pretty accurate understanding of what it feels like to live in washington. that heightens the conflict. >> the rising conflict between the individual and the chinese government, sunday night at 8:00. for over 35 years, c-span brings public affair offense from washington directly to you putting you in the room in congressional hearings, white house events, and briefings and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought you as a public

service by your local cable or settle at provider. like us on facebook or follow us on twitter. facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> next, florida senator marco rubio speaking to new hampshire republicans. then the defense of marriage act with the attorney who argued against the defense of marriage before the supreme court. then getting ready for the ohio advanced placement government exam. on friday, florida senator marco rubio was in new hampshire where he addressed the annual freedom dinner. new hampshire traditionally -- thehe nation first nation's first residential primary. he was introduced by the governor, johnson new new. this is just over 45 minutes. -- johnson new new --

thank you very much. i know you had to stand up to get these circulation going. but sit back and relax. if you look at your programs, the next thing on the program is the introduction of our keynote speaker, but for those of you who don't know, i am not kelly ayotte. [laughter] i actually feel like a utility infielder. every time there is a problem, i get a call, and tonight i have been asked to come in and do a little bit of substitution because kelly is on a plane that or what ever and she is going to be extremely late. get you guys to home in time to see the rest of

the football draft tonight. [laughter] one of the things that kelly told me on the phone was she wanted to stress how much she loves working with our keynote speaker tonight, senator rubio. she said, i can say what ever i want in a positive sense, and even more than that in her opinion. kelly is not here, but she wants you to know that she thinks this is one of the key persons in the u.s. senate. [applause] now fox news has stuck a microphone up here and it is jabbing me in the side, so i had to move it over. [laughter] i have another apology to make. thathere to tell you talented, extremely

very warm and effective executive counselor from the district is sorry he couldn't make it, but he has a communion rehearsal tonight. he wanted me to extend his himogies, and when i tell what a huge crowd there is tonight, he is going to be just a it upset. but the important thing is family, and christopher sununu is taking care of family tonight. [applause] i know she had to leave, but i have to tell you, as someone who came back a few years ago, like be stateol to chairman, i have to tell you jennifer warn is doing a great job. even though she is not here, i want to acknowledge the great work she is doing. [applause] and regina -- oh, there you are -- you are doing a fantastic..

i do not know how you found all of these people and got them to come tonight, but congratulations on putting together a great event. [applause] i can tell you my criterion for a great event is seeing people here i haven't seen before, and there are quite a few here, so congratulations. that is fantastic. tonight we are here to do a couple of things. certainly one of the most important things we can do is just talk to each other. and a great believer communication amongst ourselves so that we can get good at communicating and then start talking to the folks who aren't here about how important this election that is coming up is to fix what is wrong with the state house and the legislature in new hampshire, to take care of the needs, getting a

republican senator to replace jeanne shaheen, and most important -- cheers and applause] all put together so into a half years we can replace what is in the white house with someone who knows something about running the country. [applause] tonight, we are here to that wee the legacy have received from three great men. george washington, the father of our country, abraham lincoln, who in those terrible times when the country was being torn apart came in at pull the country back together. -- and ronaldan

reagan, who came in at a time when this country was looking at 21% interest. we had a president almost as bad as the president we have now in office -- [applause] and a nation that was really down. in andald reagan came reminded us what it was all about. , that short order restored our faith in ourselves and in our country and -- this entry rolling again country rolling again to a point where the soviets took one look, put their hands up, and closed up shop. ronald reagan made all that difference. [applause] i dwelled a little on president ing spokencause hav

to marco rubio a number of times, i can tell you that first of all, he is a ronald reagan republican. [applause] and secondly, when you really talk to him, you find out he truly was inspired by that great president, ronald reagan. we are republicans for a number of reasons. we are republicans because we believe in the individual. the privacy of the individual over the overreach of the state. we are republicans because we believe in smaller government. we are new hampshire republicans because we have enjoyed the full benefits of truly smaller government for generations in the states. and we are republicans because

we understand that in order for us to be enjoying what we have now, it is because of free enterprise and capitalism and freedom and a constitution that makes the difference, and we understand what made this nation this point in time, we understand the jeopardy this nation has. that is why i am thrilled to be doing this introduction. marco rubio believes in smaller government. rubio understands it is people and individuals like you problems, notve your regrets and state or federal government. understands that growth creates jobs in the understands -- and he understands the greatest threat to growth is excess in taxes and

excess in regulations. marco understands the strength that comes to a nation or a state when they balance their budgets. and he certainly understands that a strong national defense, a strong national security system, and a strong commitment to our international obligations is what this country's responsibility is all about. and i think he also understands, as he watches what is happening in washington, that we are not getting any of that right now. marco rubio and kelly were both elected in 2010. they both have young children. committed to their family structure and recognize that that family structure is the heart and soul of what makes this country strong. man inas been the point

many of the battles against obamacare. he understands this overreach by only is bad for now, but sets a horrible , isedent for the future eating away our resources, and creating complications of growth of government that are disastrous for all of us. he voted against the debt ceiling increase. he voted against internet taxes. marco rubio is one of those young senators making a huge difference, and the only thing negative i can say about him is that it really ticks me off to be introducing someone that looks 60 years younger than i am. ladies and a and, marco rubio -- ladies and gentlemen, marco rubio. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you governor for that very kind introduction. thank you for that. and just for the record, at the end of this month, i will turn 43. [laughter] feel 44. and i'm sorry kelly is not here with us today. i know she wanted to be. she could not get here on sun. she is a phenomenal united states senator. i want to share with you about kelly ayotte and myself. because we came in together. will first story -- i never forget, we went to the orientation program. they show you how to file a bill, how to find your office. [laughter]

we looked around the room and sitting across the room, there y gosh,nd so, and m she ran for president. we looked at ourselves and said, how did we get here? inut six months later we are the same room looking around and we ask each other, how did they get here? [laughter] [applause] and also, another time we were there talking, and she turned to me and said, do you realize if we served here for 30 years we would still be the youngest people in the senate? [laughter] anyway, thank you for having me. i am really grateful to be part of this. for having meuch and inviting me. you have put together a great evidence. i have been time

year, the last hour or so, i have heard people who criticize the republican party, who say the republican party is not a big tents, we do not reach out to people different from us, they should, here tonight and see how ridiculous that was. i saw someone here tonight with a new york yankees cap on. [laughter] tents,ay we are not big notice he is sitting in the corner. [laughter] anyway, thank you. thank you for this invitation. thank you for hosting. it is an honor to be here with you. brown, mike colet -- he and i worked a number of years together in the senate. [applause] i practically everybody in this room who has put themselves up to run for office, which is apparently a majority of you here tonight -- [laughter]

that is great. i wish you all the best. to be here to talk about the issues confronting our country. why are you in new hampshire? two reasons. one, we have good friends here. thank you for the invitation. and the people standing in the back of this room. i think we have reached a point in this country where we need to discuss the pressing issues of our time. airplane inot on an the city of havana and came to deal the country in the world where people like them had a chance to improve their lives. they came to the united states of america. in this country, my parents never became rich. than oner owned more home at a time, never owned a yacht. quite frankly, were never able to save enough to put us through college and had to borrow money to do that. but my parents lived the

american dream. they lifted to its fullest. the american dream is not about how much money you make or how many things you own. that may be part of your dream, but that is not the american dream. the american dream is about things that are much deeper and more fundamental. the american dream is about raising your family in a safe and secure environment. pursuehe opportunity to your life, to pursue happiness, to use your talents and your the way youe life want to live. that is not a uniquely american dream. people all over the world aspire to that. happenshis country it so much to so many people, that dream that people all over the world have is named after us. it is called the american dream fromt separates us

the rest of the world. that so many people warned not to privilege, not to money, have been able to achieve that in this nation. and that dream is still alive. there are people in this room living at the. there are people in this room who is children are living it. there are people working at this event tonight -- and i want to thank the wait staff and all of these fantastic -- [applause] hard to secure that dream. but i don't think we can forget the fact that today there are millions in this country who are starting to feel that that dream is outside of their reach. they feel that way because maybe they are 24 years old and they did everything asked of them. they went to college, they got an education. and now they can't find a job that they study for and they owe a bunch of money. maybe they worked their entire lives in the job -- and the job

they used to have has been automated and they are working part-time or half what the use to make. maybe they are single mothers, struggling to raise their children, abandoned by the father of those children. she has to get up in the morning, make rec list, drop them off at school, work for nine hours, rush to pick them up before day care closes. make dinner. but then did the dead. she is exhausted. just to do it again tomorrow all over again. over the country, there are people starting to believe the american dream is slipping outside of their reach. here is the extraordinary irony. the extraordinary irony is the man in the white house actively campaigned six years ago that they would work for these people. that they were about helping people like this.

by the way, i got a good chuckle. the other day i read the agenda, ournew focus now is to help the people trying to make it. what has been your focus for the last six years? and yet, for the last six years for the folks i just described you, things have not gotten better. they have gotten worse. they have gotten progressively worse. significantly worse. and the reason? because they have tried to do something that has never worked anywhere it has ever been tried. never in the history of man has any nation been able to tax, spend, and regulate its way to prosperity. and it will not work here now. we have reached a crossroads in the nation where we are being asked to determine, what is going to happen to the american dream? and will it still be a vibrant part of our country in this new century? the democratic party will save

you, in their words, they will say we are standing and fighting for the american dream. but if you look at their policies, it tells you something different. what their policies are saying to us is, this is the new normal . what we are facing is the new normal. --ahead and get your last out. [laughter] [applause] they were trying to figure how water up on the podium. it was bad enough my teleprompter didn't make it. [laughter] and what is the deal with this fox news thing here? this claim that they are fighting for the american dream -- the policies are saying to the american people, look, this is the new normal. and what we need now is a big

powerful government to make it easier for us to accept this new normal, to alleviate the pain, to make us comfortable in the new normal. they will never admit this. and their ideas are stale. there are ideas never worked in the 20th century, much less the 21st. they want someone to take them to the past. for an america that is never coming back. the 20th century is gone. we live in the 21st century. a time of extraordinary challenges, that also extraordinary opportunity. and that is where our party must step in. the democratic party is a party that believes -- they believe the 21st century will be a post-american era. we believe the 21st century will be another american century. because everything it will take to succeed in the 21st-century happened to be the things that americans are the best at. competition, innovation,

investment, creativity, entrepreneurship. that is what the tray for century will be about. there is no nation and no people on the earth that do that better than america. [applause] i am going to put this near the elephant and hope he doesn't drink it. [laughter] it will happen on its own. now isd we are on right a road that will rob us of the american dream. it is for our party to take the opportunity we have been given, to go to the americans that are hurting, the americans you are starting to doubt whether the fundamentals of the american dream are still alive, to go with them and say -- here is a way forward, here is a way to take us to this new american century. for us, it begins with a >> purpose, a >> idea. we believe that america must always be the country of equal

opportunity. it does not matter where you start and life. how poor your parents were. we believe every human being has a god-given right to pursue happiness, to achieve everything they were created to achieve, to put their talents to good use, to dream any dream they want, and work hard to achieve it. we believe this should be a nation where you should be able to go as far as your talent and your work will take you. at the core of equal opportunity concept. simple the value of work. the concept has been lost. work is not a burden. work is a good thing. it is good for our country and it is good for people. it is not just a way to pay your bills. it gives purpose to your life. it allows you to put your talents to good use. and everything we do and government must be about incentivizing and creating work. our safety net programs must be

about work. the altar make your -- -- the ultimate cure -- [applause] i was recently asked by a journalist, a very nice person actually -- i did not mean it that way, guys. come on. awas recently asked by journalist, so, what is your solution to unemployment, senator rubio? i said my solution to unemployment is employment. [laughter] it is also the solution to poverty. the reason why our safety net programs are failing is a alleviate the pain of poverty, but they do not cure it. they do not extract people from poverty. the way to extract people from poverty is to give them the opportunities, the skills, to give themeed be the skills so they can work for their family and achieve their american dream. must bety net programs

about incentivizing work. our tax code must be about incentivizing work. our tax code today is about redistributing income. a bout picking winners and losers. -- about picking winners and losers. [applause] we are standing in a fantastic facility. thank you for having us. i promise you like every private america,terprise in this facility exists because someone invested money. that is how jobs and work are created. when someone with access to money uses that money to start a business or grow an existing one. we must make america the single best place in the world to do that. right now it is losing its ground. there was a time not so long ago where there were only a handful of developed economies where you money.are to invest today there are dozens of developed economies that compete

with us on a daily basis. that says,ax code the more you invest, the less you pay in taxes. they can invest in capital improvements in their businesses to expand them. we need to make america the single best place in the world to do that. the other thing is innovation. you will create jobs. you can do something that no one else does -- you could create millions of new jobs. we can make america the best voice in the world to do that. -- the best place in the world to do that. single greatest impediment to innovation is a regulatory code. let me tell you why. you can have a great idea. you can decide you will open up the spare idea out of bedroom of your home. and it may be a violation of the zoning code, but that is what

you're going to do. [laughter] comply with ae to mountain of regulations, you can do that. a big company can do that. big companies may not like government, but they can afford it. .hey can hire lobbyists they can hire lawyers. if you are starting a business out of a spare bedroom in your home, you can't do that. there are thousands of companies that were never born because they could not comply with the regulations they were buried underneath. i am here to tell you that at the state and federal government level, big companies and established industries often use regulation to suffocate competition. they don't want other companies competing with them, so they use their influence to get regulations written that make it impossible for anyone to ever challenge them. and that is why regulations are destroying innovation in america. that is why will we are still the most innovative nation on

earth, every single year we have lost some of our vendors. there is one more thing i want to point out. in the 21st century millions of best paying jobs will depend on access to markets abroad. and that is why foreign policy comes in. it is not that we desire to tell people what to do and their country. do the world benefits and so we economically when people are living in stable countries that can afford to buy the stuff we build. that is why we cannot allow any hegemonic power to arise in any region of the world that we have to ask permission from before we do business with some country. that is why we cannot allow any country like china is trying to do, to land at the ocean belongs to them. to happen.llow that not just for foreign policy purposes, but economic purposes.

we will benefit from peace on earth. and the best way to ensure peace? through strength. [applause] if you want to defeat the likelihood that your military will have to go to war, make it a military that will never lose any more. [applause] the 21st century work will be about skills. when my parents came here, they had no skills. they had the equivalent of fourth grade, maybe six grade for my mother. that they lived in a country where despite not having advanced education, you could make it to the middle class. that is increasingly difficult. you know that. it is increasingly difficult to find a middle income job without advanced education. and we in this country have a

higher education system that is not of this century, but the last. are we not graduating kids from high school certified as welders and electricians and bmw mechanics? [applause] do we have a one-size-fits-all higher education system where unless you are a 19 the-year-old high school graduate who can go to school full-time, it's really difficult to get the skills you need? why are we making it difficult about, mother i talked someone i actually know, who as a receptionist at a medical clinic? to stay untileard 7:00, because she can't. after school care closes at 6:00. enoughy way she can make money is to study to become a paralegal or an ultrasound technician.

not have an education that allows her to acquire the skills she needs so she can go from making $30,000 a year to making $80,000 a year? so she can have the american dream and so can our children? but education is a monopoly, oftrolled through a handful institutions the recertification process. meanwhile there is no competition, no innovation. the price keeps going up, and so do student loans. and by the way, the number of college graduates who are graduating with degrees that do not lead to jobs is astronomical and unacceptable. and the current administration wants to double down on that outdated system of the past. we cannot continue to do that. the second danger to the

american dream is the cost of living. there are two aspects i want to focus on. we had a health insurance problem in america and we have it worse than today. we had 70% of americans who had health insurance from their employer who were generally pleased with it. what the administration did was set up something that disrupted --ine insurance for every health insurance for everyone. as a result, people have lost their jobs. people have lost hours at their jobs. people have lost access to their doctors. people have lost access to their facilities. taken from the insurance plan that they liked and thrown onto a new plan with a higher deductible and a higher pavement. there are companies that refuse to hire people because they do not know what it will mean for them. this is the reality for obamacare and the different between obamacare now and three years ago is it is not something

that people are reading about in the newspaper. it is happening to them. i predict it will happen in the state. [applause] the other is the cost of education, of higher education. it is unbelievable how much loan debt our students are now getting when they leave school. senate,ent to the u.s. i owed over $100,000 in student loans. i was able to pay that off with a book that some of you have. it is available in paperback. [applause] that was a real struggle for us. early in my marriage, my loan payments were the single vaguest expenditure of my personal budget. more than my mortgage, more than anything else. there are people in america who

have loans like that, but they cannot find a job. be forced into bankruptcy or be unable to buy a home and start their lives. so, we have to address it. before any student takes out a loan, the school they're going to should be required to tell them, this is how much money people make with this degree from our school. so you will know whether it is worth taking out $30,000, so you can make an informed decision about borrowing $30,000 for a job that pays $20,000. the market for philosophers is very tight. [laughter] the cost of living is critical as well. the truth is, our wages have not kept pace with the cost of living in america. the solution to that is not more government. it is robust economic growth that creates not just new jobs, but better paying jobs. 40% of the new jobs created

under the obama presidency a less than $16 an hour. you cannot build a middle class like that. we need higher paying jobs to empower people with the skills they need so they can savor a garment, send the children to college and retire with dignity and security. here is the last point. that is the importance of our values. let me tell you why. you can't have a strong country without strong people. and you can't have strong people without strong values. the values of hard work and is a blend and self-control and respect for others. it doesn't matter how many diplomas you have on the wall. values, you cannot succeed. and no one is born with those values. no one. every person in this room that has those values has those values because they were taught. they were taught either parents

in word and indeed. you saw the way they live their lives. the father who got up at 4:30 a.m. every morning to go to work. those values are learned and they are taught within the family. single why family is the most important position in all of society. [applause] but when family breaks down, there is a wealth of catastrophe. i don't care if you come from the left or from the right. no one can deny and no one does deny that the single greatest cause of poverty in america is the breakdown of the american family. [applause] what can we do, about it? i think there are three things we can do about it.

can do. three things we first, leaders in both parties need to talk about this reality. we spend a lot of time reminding people that smoking causes cancer and obesity causes diabetes. we should also spend some time reminding people that family breakdown causes poverty. [applause] the second is, we should not have any law or policy that undermines family life, and we do. our tax code punishes emily live. instances, it punishes marriage. -- our tax code punishes family life. to you realize if you are on medicaid and you get married to the father or mother of your children, you could lose your medicaid coverage? have any policies to discourage marriage or family formulation. and we need to empower parenting in america. that means having a tax code

that establishes families, but allowing parents to have the right to send their children to the school of their choice. [applause] giving parents the right to speak out about their children's education at a meeting without being arrested. [cheers and applause] way, i want you to think about this for a moment. this is fundamentally true. the only parents in america that school choice, the only people in america who cannot choose where their children go to school are poor parents. go back to the example i gave you a few moments ago. that single mother. if she had the opportunity to send her children to any school she chose, maybe she could find a school where aftercare was open until 7:00? maybe she could

find a school that provided a better learning environment? maybe a school that reinforced the values she wants to instill in her children? instead of being forced to send them to a failing school because the government tells urged -- tells her she has to. have to be advocates for school choice -- even in the democratic party. but school choice and empowering parents is critical to restoring family life in america. -- i guess to close saying something that i find to be obvious. but the fundamental question before all of you in the elections in the state, the elections of the future, the elections in florida, is not simply what party will be in charge.

that is important. but that is not the central question. the central question we are being asked is the question every generation of americans has been asked. every generation before has been asked to you what america to be a special country or an ordinary one? every generation before us was asked that question and every single one of them chose something special. we are reminded of the generation that answered firmly not just one america to be special. we want to world to be free. and we are honored by having you here tonight. [applause]

his generation had to answer that question. the challenges they faced was extraordinary. their parents did not want their children to go to war anymore then we would want them to go to war. they did not want to go to war a more than we would. now we are being asked to answer the same question and i would venture to tell you the challenge that we have is not nearly as difficult as the one they had to answer. and that is to maintain america

as special and unique, one that like any in human history. often when i say that to people about how special america is, every now and then someone will roll their eyes and say, that thing about america being exceptional, that is something we tell each other to make ourselves feel good. that is not really true. at america is a rich and powerful country. there have been others before and there will be others cents. i guess that is the right to believe that. neither one of my parents had the opportunity to do what i was able to do. father worked for 70 years. i have a nine-year-old son. it is hard for me to imagine him working. that was what he did. my mother was raised in a rural

setting i have father who had been disabled by polio when you was a young child. they were born into a country they loved, but into a society where your future was determined by your cast. aatever your parents did for living, that was probably what you were going to do. it is hard for us, you and i, warned in this country where we have known anything else to imagine that and it's easy to take for granted what we have here. i was raised by people who knew how special it was. by people who made it the purpose of their lives to ensure all of the things that had become possible for them would be possible for us. my parents did not just what is to have dreams. they demanded it. they insisted upon it. they let us know from a very young age that we had a privilege that few p old who have ever lived -- few people who have ever lived have ever had. privilege unknown

to any other nation in human history. that became the purpose of their lives. every time i speak at events like this and i see a bartender standing behind a rollaway bar, i am reminded of my father. because that is what he did for a living. so one day his children could be sitting at one of these tables or even standing at a podium like this. [applause] it gave purpose to their lives. it gave meaning to their days. campaign, it my was also near the end of my fathers life. he passed away in september of the same year i was elected. cancerbecome sick with and was near the end of his life one primary day came around.

i did not have a highly competitive primary. the individual i was running against had become an independent. he eventually became a democrat. [laughter] former governor christie by the way announced a few days ago that he would be traveling to cuba, so he may have one more party change and him. -- governor crist. anyway, i did not have a competitive primary. sick at thisry point. he was basically bedridden. but he knew i was going to win and he was proud of me. but he really couldn't get around anymore. on the night of the election, during the day, i went by my nephew answered the door. he had a big smile. i said, what are you smiling about?

why father had not been out of bed for months. and see fore in, yourself. i saw my dad fully dressed in his wheelchair. he was ready to go. months, hest time in was dressed and ready to go to his son's victory party. he wanted to be there because he was proud of his son, but it was so much more than that. nice like that was affirmation that he mattered. that is life had meaning and purpose. there were days he did not feel like going to work. my dad worked until he was 70. i know there were nights when he did not feel like going to work. i know there were times when he was discouraged. i remember when my family moved to las vegas. in miaminot find a job beach. someone who had been a bartender for years had to start over as a bar boy working for 19-year-old

bartenders. life was not always easy. but they kept moving forward. i know when they were my age or younger, they had dreams. they wanted to do things. but those dreams became impossible for them and the very purpose of their life became that that day would never come for us, that whatever we wanted to be demo we could achieve. but i think that nights and nights like that were an affirmation that they mattered. that their lives have purpose. that they had something they were leaving behind that had true meaning. that their sacrifice was not in vain. that is a testament to my father and it is a testament to your parents, but it is also a testament to america. i recognize fully that there are not but a handful of nations where that story would even be possible. and in the end, what while ialled to do serve and public offices to preserve that. i think being the kind of

country is worth fighting for. i think being that kind of country is something we can unite our people around. think we have a country that is crying out to be unified behind an agenda for the future. and to me that agenda is very clear. we want to remain special. [applause] we want to believe -- we want to leave our children a country where the son of a bartender can be anything that he wants to be. this is the kind of country we want to fight for. this is the kind of country we want to leave behind. our country needs a political movement that makes it the central cause of their existence. that is where we come in as republicans. the other side says they believe in the american dream, and i don't doubt that they do, but the true american dream is not

what government can do for us, do what we can do for ourselves and for our nation together. [applause] that is our mission to embrace the opportunities of the 21st century. so we can leave our children the single greatest nation in all of mankind. thank you for having me. [applause] >> next, a discussion about same-sex marriage with the attorney you argued against the defense of marriage act before the supreme court. then, students prepare for the advance placement government

exam. >> on the next "washington a political roundtable with matt lewis and sabrina siddiqui. a discussion of white members of the american legion and members of congress are calling for the resignation of eric shinseki and other top v.a. officials. 7shington journal, live at a.m. eastern on c-span. >> china has become, as we all know, a factory to the world, and since products all over the planet in ways that make our lifestyles possible. we could not have the quality of life we enjoy if we did not have

low-cost goods and low-cost labor in china, and increasingly in southeast asia. and yet the standard in -- standard of living in china remains 1/6 of the united states in terms of per capita income. that is a source of the station. people realize we work hard, we are participating in the global economy, we play by the rules, and yet, we are not enjoying the quality of life they have in the west. her most of chinese history, people had no idea what life is like outside. get back to europe . a chinese people can now sit on a computer in a village in the middle of nowhere and have a pretty accurate understanding of what it is like to live in washington, d.c., and that heightens the conflict. >> evan osnos on the conflict between the rise of the chinese individual and the chinese government. q&a.y on is therta kaplan

attorney who argued against the defense of marriage act last year. her client in the doma case was edith windsor who sued the federal government for failing to recognize her marriage to another woman. ms. kaplan also talks about ongoing court cases around the country involving same-sex marriage. this is just under an hour. [bell rings] >> good afternoon. lycan. is jonathan i'm the president of the cleveland metropolitan bar association. introduce robbie kaplan. yesterday, may 1, was law day. we celebrate law day every year to reflect on the importance of law in our society and what better place to have this conversation than the citadel of free speech, the city club of cleveland? and what better topic to

illustrate the importance of law in our society than the fight for equal rights for the lgbt community? i just want to give a little bit of context to today's conversation. it has been almost a year since the u.s. supreme court for a landmark decision striking down the defense of marriage act and bringing robbie kaplan to national attention. still, there is a constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. a lawsuit filed this week on behalf of six ohio couples claims that that amendment violates the equal rejection and due process clauses of the u.s. constitution and this law day, the law is far from settled. the issue of marriage aside, is currently -- it is currently legal in ohio to be fired from your job, lose your apartment, be denied service at a movie orater, restaurant,

orel because of your sexual gender identity. ohio is just one of many states facing these issues. , who hails from cleveland, from shaker heights, has become a hero to many in the fight for lgbt a quality. her representation of edith windsor last year and recently robbie filed a motion in the u.s. sixth circuit court of --eals to it may seem like a minor point to many, but this had significant implications when it came to an harridan's insurance, and other rights that deeply affect the mystic life. she is a native of cleveland. she graduated from harvard and columbia and let me turn it over

to steve to introduce robbie. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, john. thank you to the bar and the city club for again hosting a wonderful law they programming. roberta kaplan -- i will start by calling you roberta. >> please just start that way. >> a native of shaker rights, ohio, where she attended harvard college and columbia law school. after that she clerked in federal court and the highest court in the state of new york , a renownedf judge jurist. then she went to practice, where she is now a partner. and a big-time new york litigator. commercial practice, which would be the envy of any litigator in any city and the world, representing such clients

as fitch and jpmorgan chase. she also has another factor. she also has one of the most enviable an important civil rights practices in the world right now. 2006, that was a lobby for 12 same-sex couples in the state of new york who were seeking to have the right to marry under state law, a case where she was unsuccessful. before a court she had actually clerked for. judge.the [laughter] >> and then, as john said, the last two years come as she represented edith windsor. and in that case, represented ms. windsor in the case that cause the supreme court to strike down the defense of marriage act, an act that the supreme court, and i am proud to

say the justice department before that, found indefensible in our constitutional system. but long before that, robbie kaplan was quite literally the girl next door. i grew up and walk or so -- a block or so away from robbie. we graduated high school together. hundreds of times at 7:00 in the morning, we rode in the cramped axes of a honda civic hatchback. and i was a big guy. her brother, peter, who is here, and my little brother were best friends. they had, i think we can agree, a more interesting high school experience than we did? of fun probably, too. >> her parents lived down the street. her father played golf with my father for many many years. as a personal point of pride for me

and our community to welcome back not only a great litigator, but a great leader to our city -- robbie kaplan. [applause] chief justice ginsburg just today was quoted in "the wall street journal" talking about the windsor case. something she said the struck me. she said ms. windsor was such a "well-chosen plaintiff." tell me about this. did you choose her or did she choose you? >> the lucky thing is she chose me. i did not choose ev. 84. windsor is now she grew up in philadelphia during the depression. her father lost his family business and their home during the depression. she realizede -- she was a lesbian.

but because of the time then, as she put it, she could not imagine being queer. she married a guy by the name of saul windsor. that is how she gets the name. who was her brothers best friend. and fought with her brother in world war ii. he marriage, needless to say, did not last very long. after only a few months, edie said you deserve to be loved the way you deserve to be loved, and i need something else. she effectively came out to him then. she moved to new york like so many people, including myself, in order to be gay. i can go on and on about her life, and i'm sure i will today, but fast-forward and she met a woman. they were together for 44 years. they were married in canada. that is actually my fault. i lost the new york case. so they had to go to canada. i think i paid her back for it though. [laughter]

upon her death, even though she realize she was going to have this problem, she did not fully appreciate the extent of it. she had to pay an enormous estate tax because of the so-called defense of marriage act. i do not think it was defending any marriages. the reason she had to pay that state tax was a flaw for the marriages of gay people were not marriages. straight person, you do not have to pay a tax on your spouse dies. but if you were in a gay married couple, you did. it was not your spouse. it was like she was a stranger to wear. the bill was huge. she was not happy about it. one of the things that makes her an ideal clients was that she client was she to pay thisnt" bill. you do not get a lot of clients

who use words like indignant. >> not your bill. >> [laughter] and you had not even seen one of my bills. she went looking for a lawyer. she was still indignant and she was looking around and we had mutual friends and she called me. knew not know edie, but i thia. walked over to her apartment. she was four blocks away. and itone look at her, took about three seconds for me to take on the case. >> i understand that not everybody in the community, the legal community, the advocacy community, agreed with justice ginsburg and yourself that this would be the right case. >> lawyers never agree on anything. [laughter] there is nothing new about that.

[laughter] there is nothing new about that. i was not a party to these conversations, so i did not hear what they said to edie, but they said it was not the appropriate case to be brought. my sense of it is that they were two factors. one, people were concerned about an estate tax case. edie's bill was high. she had to pay another $275,000 to new york. the there was a fear she would be perceived as too rich. i represent companies like citigroup so that did not sound so rich. number two, most of the bill was due to the fact that they had two apartments in new york city in the 1970's and they appreciated hugely over the years. that was the real reason for the

big estate tax bill. was that people were concerned about the tax elements. my sense is that every american knows in their got what it means to have to pay a tax bill, especially one that is a tax on being gay. americans would understand that. even republicans that were not on the beginning -- on our site at the beginning, they don't tax.the a estate you had this incredibly articulate and beautiful woman who had a marriage. thea was completely paralyzed by the time she died. i thought the american people would understand that. >> i read that when you were working on the case, you had a sticker that was on your desk area. it said, it is all about edie. the borrowed it from clinton campaign.

it is all about edie stupid to remind myself. [laughter] it animated how we litigated the case. firstly, that is the kind of lawyer i am. i am used to representing clients. the case should always be about the client and not about the lawyers. thinks just the way i do -- things. on top of that, i thought the story of edie's marriage and life would be so important not for only the american people to hear, but for the justices to hear. many of the justices are edie's contemporaries. justice kennedy in a case like this, it is no surprise, it is the vote that matters. he is around edie's age and would have shared or been aware of the things she had experienced. magazineported in time that justice kennedy, who used to teach at law school in sacramento, who had a friend who

was the dean at the school who was a closeted a man. they were close. i don't think they ever discussed of the fact that he was gay but they -- the kennedy knew about. i thought the facts of edie's life would be powerfully moving to justice kennedy. she was in the closet basically until 2007. she worked for many decades in ibm. she rose to the highest technical level at ibm and she never told anyone that she was gay. i thought that justice kennedy would be able to understand that. i've never hope -- i've never spoken to him about it, but that based on the opinion i think he did. >> people in different professions work in different ways. sometimes collaborative, sometimes you have to log off. either stand that while you are writing the brief, you took that to the extreme. talk to us about the process. >> once the case got to the supreme court, things got

intense. i am not known for my zen-like personality. [laughter] it was super intense. the brief -- i and the whole team. -- team cared very much about that. the arguments are important, but what is really important is in the brief. we were focused on trying to persuade the justices to rule our way and that this was the case to do it. there are a couple of sections that the -- of the brief that i think i rewrote literally hundreds and hundreds of times. i walled myself up. room in myall apartment in new york city and i worked from there so there would be no distractions. i am embarrassed to say this, but i don't think i took off my sweatpants for 16 days. [laughter] felte time it was over, i like a hermit. i went to a party and did not know how to talk to people anymore. that is how important it was to me and the team and it was truly

collaborative. did is whenhings i we realize this case was going to court, i wanted a local counsel for the supreme court to help me because this was my first-ever argument before the supreme court. >> you picked a good one. [laughter] >> i did ok. so i called a professor at stanford who is one of the greatest constitutional scholars of our time to help and she was supposed to take a sabbatical in italy that spring and she meagerly called me. she did not know me from a hole in the wall and immediately agreed and canceled her sabbatical to do this case. we were all working very hard. >> i am sure that when the case became renowned that many people offered advice you -- to you. my guess is that some was on point and maybe some of that you chose to not take. share with us the process of having a case that goes from

being your case with your client to being a case that the whole world is watching you litigate and know how to do better than you, probably. >> they probably thought they did. [laughter] it is a little bit of pressure on me at this point. it is intense. when you prepare for the supreme court argument, you call this -- you do this thing called moots. you go in front of a bunch of lawyers. we mostly did it with supreme court advocates and law professors. we did seven of them formally so he 11 -- so we get one at stanford and nyu. i did one with ted olson. you do a bunch of these. the process is -- you have 15 minutes. it is a moot court. people question me for 45 minutes and after that, they spend an hour or taking everything you say. i can't imagine -- maybe a root

canal is worse, but i can't think of much worse than that. [laughter] we listened to what everyone had to say. we would take the advice that we like, as anyone does, and reject the advice that we did not like. there has been some advice written lately so i can talk about it. we were told tode-gay -- to de-gay the case. our response was we did not know how that was possible. [laughter] not windsor certainly did like that advice and i don't blame her. we felt that this case was about the fact that the court couldn't differenceplain any between a gay married couple -- edie was married -- between a gay married couple and a straight married couple on the other hand that could possibly justify the sweeping discrimination that was doma. that ia joke on the team

can answer any question the justices asked me that the people affected by doma were already married and already gay and there is nothing the court could do that would change either fact. [laughter] >> i guess that is not all you had to say for the argument. what was it like taking the case to the court and waiting for the decision? >> again, not the most relaxing. of my life. of my life.period i argued in march and we got the decision on june 26. unlike the supreme court in other countries, our supreme court has a tradition of not telling you when the case is coming down. all they say is that on a certain day they will be announcing cases but no one knows what it will be. every time -- they were probably six days like that where we all came to my apartment, we all had laptops logged on to scotus' blog waiting to see if there was our case. we had five false starts.

edy was probably more stressed than -- eide was probably -- edie was probably more stressed than i was. it was reported that she used a derogatory term about the supreme court when they did not hand him the decision, but it is the supreme court and we will keep waiting. when we did get the decision, we knew it would be that day because it was the last day of the term. we were waiting for three things. court followers to an analysis of how many justices have written how many opinions each term and how many are less. based on that analysis, the opinions would be written by chief justice roberts and by kennedy. crazy -- we probably would have been better off if kennedy wrote our opinion. that meant they would announce our decision first because under protocol, justice

kennedy is junior to be chief justice. we are waiting to hear eight of our cases first. the opinion by kennedy, and we saw the dissent by justice scalia, we knew had with -- we knew we had one. there was screaming and crying incredible jubilation. >> you have a practice that we talked about. you have large commercial clients involved in important litigation. then you have individual clients like eating orton -- edie windsor. taught that ase lawyers, we should be detached. we are not supposed to have personal skin in the game. our job is to bring to the situation and objectivity. trueusly, that cannot be

for you. you are there in your part with your wife, rachel, with your son who is here today, jacob, who was on his ipad. [laughter] that is what he was doing on the way. this is something that you just can't help but be personal for you, too. can you talk about the struggle between being an objective, big-stakes litigator and doing a case that much mean so much to as a person? >> i see both sides. i believe that we are part of a noble profession and i believe that as lawyers, it is our job to tell the clients the truth, even times when they do not want to hear it. that is our duty. any lawyer that disagrees with that, i respectfully disagree with them. hand, my wife jokes about this. she says i have this incredible ability to convince myself that no matter who my client is, that

they are absolutely right, that they have done nothing wrong, and that we absolutely should win the case and if the judges do not see it that way there is something wrong with them. she says she does not know how i do it every time but i do. in this case, obviously, that was an easy thing to do. among other things, there is edie. we have become incredibly close. my mother is here, so i would not say it is a mother-daughter relationship, but has parts of that relationship in the sense that i am always telling her that she needs to take care of herself and she tells me to stop controlling her and doesn't listen. [laughter] >> i were talking about edie or your mother or both? >> both. on top of that, i was married. i am married and i am a lesbian. doma had terrible implications for me as well. i could not help thinking about that. as a lawyer, i felt it was important to put that aside. iat is one of the reasons

said it was not all about edie. i did not want lawyers going on press junkets and talking about this case until we had a decision. hernted it to be focused on and that was a strategy that was important to us. there were times that it would see through. ,or example, in the argument the chief justice really started going after me on this question of why the world has changed so much for gay people. how was it that there are today 17 states that allow gay couples to marry? we argued the case there were nine, will be brought the case, there were five. his thesis is that they were following politicians. there were following president obama, following bill clinton. it was people following politicians and i disagreed with that, as you can imagine. i don't think americans really ever follow politicians, but i think on this, it was very much politicians, with all respect to the president, following americans.

we debated this point. you can hear on the transcript, you can hear in my voice -- that is where the personal came through and you can hear it in my tone. it came through there. it certainly came through when we won. after we won and all bets were off and we could feel freer about what we said, things were very different. -- youall that summer know the paintings were the guy is floating above the world looking down at his wife? i felt like the guy in. >> -- those paintings. at onemade a comment point which summed up the feelings of a lot of people were you said you had a full marriage. >> during the argument, justice ginsburg not only gave a great interview today, but there is a bgbsite called notorious r that is about justice ginsburg. [laughter]

we spent a lot of time in the case really agonizing about how best to explain to the course that doma created a caste system in the u.s. he created a second-class citizenship for gay couples that were married were treated one way and straight couples married were treated another. that is kind of a caste system and offensive to the constitution. we debated a lot of ways and we ended up the way we ended up. during the argument, might adversary -- my adversary, paul clement, ginsburg was interviewing him and said, doesn't it create a skim milk marriage? all the couples get benefits underlying gay couples to not get any benefits under the law. isn't that a skim-milk marriage? when she said it, she speaks softly and is short and it was hard to hear her. i turned to pam and said, what

did she just say? pam told me and i literally had to hold my arm down. i felt like doing this -- it would really not be good for supreme court protocol. [laughter] it so captures-- the essence of what this is about. it is and was and in places like ohio where gays cannot marry, it is like a skim-milk marriage. nowow do you view the case that it is over and you are on to new things as sort of fitting into the broader movement for fighting for lgbt and civil rights in general? >> let me start with civil rights. civil rights in general, i do believe and i think attorney general holder and the president would agree with me, that this is a very important case in the path our country is taking, the goes throughory

towards justice. one of the surprising things is when the administration decided not to defend the statute. it is a funny story. we saw our case. we filed it in the second circuit, which meant that we knew the doj was going to have to take a position on whether doma and whether gay people in general should get heightened scrutiny under law. should courts look more carefully at a law that treats them a people differently the same way they had to look more carefully at laws that treat african-americans or women differently? many circuits had cases on that. the second circuit was wide open. doj had days in, the a brief they were going to do and i got a call from a doj attorney. they said they would like an

extension. i normally don't get to represent the attorney so i was psyched about this. i said no. i am representing edie windsor. she's eight years old and she has heart problems. i want her to be alive. i said no. i got a call from a more senior person. they said robbie, would like an extension. i said no way. then i got a call from tony west. he is the second in command of the department of justice. he said, robbie, what is going on? i hear you will give us an extension. i am calling you to tell you that we are asking for this extension because the president and the attorney general and i seriously want to consider and discuss what to do in this case. even then, i said, ok, i will get back you. [laughter] i asked some of my partners, and they said, are you crazy?

of course you will give the attorney general an extension. i was cynical even them. i think we can all be too cynical about things and i was cynical even then. tony, i understand you and the president will be deliberating about this. i just want you to know that i will be praying for you as you deliberate third -- deliberate. 30 days later i get an e-mail saying the attorney general and the assistant attorney general would like to have a phone call. we knew immediately what that meant because that is not an e-mail you get very much. we immediately knew what it was. we got on the call. tony explained how the president had decided that they could not defend doma. i had tears running down my face. i did not think that would happen. at the end of the call, tony says, remember that thing you said at the end of my call about frank? he says, sometimes, prayer

works. it was not prayer entirely either. the standard for heightened scrutiny is four factors. is the plaintiff a member of a group that has suffered discrimination? as my son would say, i think that is a "doy." if there anything about that group that will affect your ability to contribute to society? again,"doy." change this group and is the group so politically powerful that they can get something to the legislature that we don't need to interview? i believe it is in the bottom of my heart that it is not a coincidence that it was three african-american men who made that decision. , it was notlitics

msnbc versus fox, not any of that. they sat down and it was three black guys and they were like, we will not let that brief. that is what led to the decision. >> last decision and we will go to the audience. we were talking about what love means. side,s a case where one the courts, vindicated the best aspirations of what the rule of law means. as you pointed out, in another way it was about a law that was democratically enacted, which we now know unconstitutionally burdened millions of americans for many years. when you reflect on what the law means and, as a lawyer, what are the law sometimes, bad laws or immoral laws have to be dealt with, how does this play into your worldview both as a person and a lawyer? >> i always give young boyars --

boyars -- lawyers advice. case in itoing a doesn't make sense, go back in do the research. the law should make sense. certainly, the constitution should make sense. ink when doma was passed 1996, there were opinions from very prominent constitutional law prefers -- officers saying that doma was completely kosher. as a lawyer and as a person lose sense of who you are and what your gut tells you what is right. if you're gut tells you, you have to keep fighting. i lost the first marriage case. we got hosed by the court of appeals. think kept fighting and i this will be two victories throughout the country. >> today at the city club, we are learning a ton at the friday ,orum with robbie kaplan

counsel in the windsor case that overturned the defense of marriage act. we will return to robbie in a moment for our question and answer. and we encourage you in the audience to formulate questions for our speaker and remind you that they should be brief and to the point. and all ofyou here andjoining us through 90.3 pbs. -- wviz television broadcast for the city club are made possible by cleveland state university and pmc. our live webcast is supported by the university of akron. next friday, may 9, the city club welcomes dr. to me spell per, offers -- author of "thomas jefferson's quaran."

therder a dvd or cd of program, go towww.city -- we welcome friends of richard and beth kaplan, friends of joe silverman, hawkins school alumni, hawkins school, and the legal society. we thank you for your support. today is the annual form on the american justice system a possible from a generous gift from paul the view walter and jesse glassman. thank you for your support. we also welcome students to today's student. participation is made possible by a gift from the development hype one company. studentss today are from westlake high school. students, please stand and be recognized. [applause]

thank you all for being here. partnershiplso in with the cleveland metropolitan bar association and we could not be more delighted. let us return to our speaker for our traditional city club question and answer. -- answer period. areing the microphone program director terry miller -- kerry miller. >> i am a graduating senior this year. i would like to say thank you for inviting us. -- earlier today is today, i had the pleasure of talking to judge dawson and he said that you should really plan out your goals to set a steady

path for your future. you plan outng if your goals or was it was -- or if it was spontaneous? [laughter] >> let me begin by saying it is a pleasure doing this with steve. he mentioned the rights we took to -- rides we took the high school but back in the day, steve was not a morning person. he would fall asleep on my shoulder on this teeny honda. this is a lot more fun than waking him up and saying steve, set up. when i was riding in that car, i obviously had no idea that i would move to new york, become a partner of paul wei a, that i would ever argue court in the supreme court's or that it would be a case like windsor. it is impossible to plan your

life like that and if someone tells you otherwise, don't listen. on the other hand, the one thing i learned from my parents and it is true, and that is you have to take opportunities when they come your way. you cannot plan when opportunities come your way. when someone like edie windsor comes into your life, the right answer is to do what i did and say yes, i will take your case and do it pro bono. you have to trust your instincts. that is the best advice i can give anyone. >> what was the importance in your career of mentors? >> incredibly important. thank you for bringing that up. i got very lucky in my career. mentioned that i cleric for judith kay. was the windsor decision decided by the second circuit,

the first person to call me was colleen. when the supreme court came down, i think the first two people i talked to were judge kay and colleen mcmahon. i still call them for advice all the time and it is important to find people like that. they are out there. kaplan, on the cases that have become -- come before the supreme court now, it is almost possible to predict a 5-4 vote. five conservative go one way, and four so-called liberal go the other way. as a prominent attorney who as head a successful career in supreme court arguments, and this being law day, how you feel about that division? do you feel that there is a

certain amount of distrust or lack of confidence that the public will have when the results of the case will be sort of so predictable? >> in a lot of the the-high-profile cases, supreme court does not really have that division. often it is 8-1 or 7-2. that is the majority of the cases the court decides. unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, the supreme court's job is to decide cases about the meaning of because addition and you are absolutely like that they are often 5-4 and it is off the -- often kennedy on one side or another. i know we were smoking something. we thought we had a chance to get a sixth vote.

that was totally not in the cards for us. i would obviously like to have a greater majority on my side on these issues like any litigator. president can't even get judicial nominees -- forget the supreme court. he can't get judicial nominees in the district and circuit courts with the system. the senate has become so polarized and congress has become the so polarized that nothing affected can get done in d.c.. i think the 5-4 voting that you see is an example of that. it is a bad effect of that kind of polarization. >> hello. thank you for accepting our invitation to be here tonight. my question is regarding the issue of same-sex marriage in light of loving and full faith and credit. the run-up to the windsor case and the media analysis

thereafter made very little, if any, mention of the loving issue of miscegenation. what is the role of loving in regard to setting the president of same-sex marriage cases? had of the wins we have have been predicated on the ducasse process. i have not heard any issue brought up involving full faith and credit. in ohio, we have divorces, marriages, and adoptions done in jurisdiction that would not normally be legal in ohio. the sixth circuit decision involved a couples that had gone to baltimore, married on a tarmac, and come back. eventually the federal courts told the cincinnati recorder to include the south -- same-sex

spouse on the death certificate. our loving and is full faith and credit valid defenses? was a case virginia about an interracial couple who were not being permitted to marry. it was illegal for them to marry in virginia and the supreme court held that that was unconstitutional. that was not a precedent we relied on in windsor, but for obvious reasons -- in windsor, these couples were married. there were not seeking the fundamental right to marry. they were already married. the point was, can you treat couples already married differently because they are gay? in the case is being brought today we throughout the country, the loving light of analysis is being relied on heavily. ted olson, who argued prop eight, relied on it very heavily. it remains to be seen which way

the court will go. they can do the fundamental rights theory or the equal protection there. i have to tell you, i have always thought in my gut that these cases are about equal protection. doesn't it seem that not allowing gay people to have the same rights as straight people it is a matter of equal protection? as a litigator, i'll will take it any way i can get it. of full faith and credit, most states like ohio will recognize marriages out-of-state, even if they could not be performed in ohio, on muslim marriage contravenes the public policy of the state. it is that issue, whether it contravenes the policy, that essentially blends in to the same question whether there is a right to marry in ohio. the reason you are not seeing it litigated separately is because the two issues are combined. the recognition cases are being

litigated a essentially is constitutional cases, which i think is right. it is whether that public policy of ohio that says there is something horrible about it people -- about gay people getting married and whether that policy is constitutional or not. >> this is for robbie. if steve wants to chime in, that is fine. what is your opinion on whether judges should be elected or appointed? [laughter] , new york,n a state where they are elected and appointed. we have a family debate about this. i wife, who is a very active person in the democratic heart he, very much believes that the judges should be elected. , sometimeslitigator i am in the judges -- on the side of judges being appointed. i think both things are healthy

and good. in the federal system, i very much agree that federal judges should only be appointed. i think they should have lifetime tenure. i think there is value in both and i think there is value in the people feeling they have a hand in who becomes a judge and they have a say in every i don't like is what you saw like in iowa where it is supreme court said -- where the supreme court said gays have a right to arriage and those who had hand in the decision were voted out of office. that is not how it should work. >> thank you for inviting us. do you feel that ohio should stop using the slogan "we are a " because of the example of gay marriage? >> no. i think ohio should keep the slogan but allow gay couples to marry. [laughter] [applause] thank you for being here.

i would like to ask a question -- you must have had a tremendous pressure on you since you were involved in trying to do this decision for so many people throughout the world. it was mentioned in the very beginning that everyone in the world was looking. halfpen to live more than a year overseas. i know that a lot of american overseas were actually unable to return to the united states because if you are married to same-sex,e and is of the federal government did not allow you to bring your spouse back with you to the united states. one of the members of the dnc has in and -- has been in exile as an american abroad and is now able to return because he can finally apply for citizenship for his spouse. did you ever hear from any of these people and how does this affect you, having the pressure on you? >> edie and i heard from

hundreds of people like that. the most rheumatic impact an immediate impact the windsor decision had was these couples that were married who were binational couples who were gay all of a sudden could get green cards. the obama administration, to his great credit, acted on this and issued cards immediately. i need someone to count the amount of e-mails and phone calls, but it is in the hundreds. i just spoke yesterday in new york at a wall street event and one guy told me his story about his husband and him had been separated for this reason. it is incredibly moving and an important impact. in terms of pressure, it was extreme. -- the day before the windsor case was argued, the prop eight case was argued.

after our team watch the argument, we went back to the office and talk about whether we needed to change anything. we decided that we thought it looked pretty good for us based on the prop 8 arguments are nothing needed to change. that was about 5:00 in the afternoon and i had to decide what to do. should i go back and read cases? what should i do? i decided to go back to the hotel where my family was i went up to the room with my son and we cookies and wed watched cartoons for the rest of the afternoon. in a lot of ways, i think that was the best thing i could have done to prepare for the oral argument. that is how i dealt with the pressure. when you get to the supreme court, it is crazy. have a very formal process so they give you this pep talk before you argue and they say things like, if you need cost drops, we have them. if you need a pencil -- here's

the thing i love. if you need a sewing kit, we have him. every time they say, what would i do with a sewing kit? [laughter] the argumentore was incredibly stressful. >> you have also talked from time to time about the role that faith, your faith plays in your life and helps. i wonder if that also has been an aid in dealing with the kind of pressure you are on group -- you are under. >> i like to think so. i was very concerned in this case that our side of the movement had ceded the argument from the other side, religious arguments to one side. religious arguments should not only be on one side of this issue. there are many religions and many serious believers of many religions that believe that god

requires us to recognize the dignity and everyone. that is what this case was a bout. about whether edie's dignity should be recognized under the law, regardless of what your church thinks about performing gay marriages for couples. we spent a lot of time thinking about that. we had a brief for the first time ever in one of these gay rights cases from a very mainstream religious group. i got the entire conservative jewish movement on board for the first time in history. with some friends. there was lobbying that went on. we had an orthodox rabbi, we had episcopal ships, we at presbyterian. it was important for me to be in front of the corporate if you look at justice kennedy's opinion, i think he mentions the word dignity 10 times in 26 pages. what he keeps saying over and over in the opinion is that gay people have the same dignity as everyone else. i think that is obviously true.

i think it is what led to all the decision sent when sort -- windsor. thes a secular view of religious view, which i share. >> i am a recent graduate of hawken school and i am curious -- i know we are well represented here today and i'm curious about how hawken and your youth and upbringing and education influenced where you are today. i don't hawken really helped me come out of my shell in a lot of ways and i'm wondering if it did the same for you. >> definitely. i was in the closet until law school. it was a very different world that people lived in. it is amazing the that there is a gay student organization at hockenberry i spoke there this -- ad hoc and-- at hawken. it is like no big guilt of them. every time i say i was in the closet, they look at me like, who cares?

that is an example of how the way -- how the world has changed that were inconceivable to me at hawken school and inconceivable to me five years ago in the world. i learned so much about myself at hawken. i had a latin teacher who has passed away that taught me how to think and those are skills i have with me for the rest of my life. >> i am an attorney the at the legal aid society of cleveland, pro bono services. , inuse it is law day addition to windsor, can you name another robot ok's that is one of your favorites -- another pro bono case that is one of your favorites? >> i have a lot. the truth is, there has been talk about this in the press. paul weiss did not charge a penny. we even paid for the fees from experts out of our pocket. that was not an issue.

when i met edie at her apartment --t day and she asked me first she was not sure i was qualified. corner a computer in the and i play the argument i did in new york. she watched it for a while and said, i think you're good enough. how much is this going to cost me? i did this with my hand. she said, i want to pay. and i said, you can't afford it. [laughter] the truth of the matter is, it never occurred to me that i would to go back to the firm and asked her permission to do this case. i went to paul weiss -- i went to paul weiss in part because cases like this are in our dna. we believe that lawyers that are as fortunate as we are have an obligation to give back and

really -- i think i called ahead of the firm and said i was doing this case, but it was a no-brainer for all of us. i think more -- i hope more lawyers do that. weiss.t at all -- paul >> hi. i am from westlake high school. i am a graduating senior. what is going on? i wanted to ask, since your morals help you win that case since you believe so strongly and were so passionate about it, have you had your morals conflict with the case because you did not believe it? >> i have been very fortunate. my wife things that is impossible for me because i convinced myself i am right. i had never had that happen. i frankly don't know what i would do if it happened. i also believe that everyone has a right to a lawyer. there are criminal defense lawyers all the time who

represent people who are the east accused of doing horrible things and it is a noble thing to defend a person incorporated that is part of being a lawyer. -- in court. that is part of being a lawyer. [applause] >> we are out of time, but i would like to say that on behalf of not only do legal community in cleveland but all clevelanders, robbie, we are very proud of you and delighted you are here today. [applause] today at the city club, we have been listening to a friday forum with robbie kaplan. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. our forum is now adjourned. [bell tolls] [applause]

next, high school students get help preparing for the advanced placement government exam. minnesota senator paul franken speaking about the late congressman jim oberstar. after that, senator marco rubio speaking to new hampshire republicans. >> on newsmakers, kentucky congressman hal rogers. he talks about his efforts to start the appropriations process early so congress will not face a continuing resolution or government shutdown. at can watch "newsmakers" 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. book, sundayswest at eight. a collection of interviews with the nation's top storytellers. >> this nation is built upon

people who immigrated to the country, some of them legally, some illegally. in my case, i came with no documentation and no ability to get a job or an education. when i first came into the united states in the light -- late 1980's and crossed the border between mexico and united states, i ended up coming into the san joaquin valley to work as a migrant farm worker. there was no challenge to find a job. there were not thousands of people trying to get the job of .ulling wheat with the same hands that are now doing brain surgery, i was pulling week. 45 unique voices from our years. now available at your favorite bookseller. it is the time of year for high school students to take the advanced placement u.s. government exam.

today on "washington journal," students got a chance to ask high school teachers about the test. this is 40 minutes. host: high school students especially this segment is for you especially if you're studying for the advanced placement exam. two experts have joined us for many years. both history teachers, both experts in this exam. gentlemen, welcome. >> great to be here. >> for those who are following along this exam what is it? >> this is the kentucky derby for civics test. next tuesday may 13 students will have an opportunity to take a civics exam and they get college credit. >> so this exam involves what? >> it's a test of their civics knowledge of big concepts of political science but we feel it's a test of engaged citizens. >> so high school students

especially if you're studying for this exam here's your chance to call in with your questions, about specific topics and formats. these are the guys to talk to. here are the numbers. we've divided them for those in the eastern and central time zone. and for those in the mountain and pacific time zoneds. again for this segment only, only high school students, please, preparing for this exam. and we will take as many of those calls as we can. so start calling right away and we will put them up in just a moment. we ask this year after year but what's the best way to prepare? >> the best way is to study. but there are a couple of key points here. this is a reading test as much as anything on the that multiple choice read extremely carefully. on the fr combnches, essay portion it's not about politics. we're not asking for your opinion. state the facts and state them again. be clear and write leageably. >> host: any other tips?

guest: avoid pronounce. we score the exam and really smart students all the time get in trouble with words like they, it, things. so be specific, be clear, be complete. guest: and just to give a sense for some of the questions, here's a sample one. in the original constitution that was ratified in 1789, which of the following political offices were directly elect snd four choices if you want to play along at home. i have the sans so i can be smart on the segment. what's the answer? guest: how many times the founding father they were a little bit suspect of democrat democracy. so of these big institutions the courts, the president, the congress, only the house of representatives was directly elected in the beginning. but of course the trend over

time has been more and more power, more and more democratization which is something we might be able to write about. host: another question. what resulted from, quote, selective incorporation? here's some of the potential answers. the answer is letter e because of the dupes clause of the 14th -- due process clause it started to apply to the states. host: by the way, students at home especially if you have a question about a supreme court question today and you really want to know it, a special incentive for you to call in, i hold in my hand a copy of the constitution of the united states but it's different in this case. why? guest: this particular constitution has been signed by

justice steven brier and it's going to go to one of you callers here. host: we'll target that if you have a specific supreme court question. the first to get through will get a chance to talk about not only the question but to get a chance at a prize. good morning. go ahead. a er: i'd like to give shout out to my government teacher. and my question is can you explain pork barreling? guest: pork barreling is really an old term on capitol hill. it really talked about earmarking today. but it's when a member of congress puts something in the bill that benefits only his or her district. now, this has been kind of pooh-poohed on capitol hill but eevep dick doiben says maybe we should return back in town because it's a way to get some of this big legislation through by returning benefits to one

district. guest: you might not see the word pork barrel but federal earmarks. you might see the term line imet veto because for two years the president had the power to strike out federal earmarks with a specific line item until the supreme court took that power away. host: by the way, you will hear the term shout out a lot during this. off of twitter. guest: the key word there is oversight. the congress has the power to oversee the bureaucracy. which means they control the purse, the money that goes to the bureaucracy implementing the law. and if they feel it's not doing a good job of implementing the law they can call the bureaucrats in, subpoena them, and oversee their job. guest: bureaucrats work because there are laws passed and our congress is a law-making institution. host: springfield, virginia.

caller: i would like to give a shout out to ms. hatch at lake brad yock high school. and i would to ask what are the different duties or what's the differences in between the senate and house of representatives? guest: we have a bike cameral legislator as you know and there are distinct differences. in our class we talk about the dimbses between a cup and -- dimbses between a cup and a saufer. the saucer is supposed to cool that originally the senate was distant from the house. they were chosen by the state legislatures. now they're directly elected some of these differences aren't quite as acute. the house of representatives is dictated by rules in the senate less rules. longer debate. don't forget the house of representatives, 435 members, the senate 100. so even the vibe in each house is distinctly different. host: one of the key differences is that bills on

the house floor debated typically under closed rules. in the senate, a lot of amendments are allowed during floor debate under open rule which in turn means that the house committees are more important because so much of the amendment process happens in house kess. host: a format question. guest: this is a great question. but let's make sure we understand this carefully. an outline itself isn't a bad thing as long as an outline doesn't mean less than a sentence. they need to be fully hashed-out sentences with nouns and verbs. no pronouns. nouns and verbs. and if it says identify, you can write one line. if it says describe, i would write at least two. but most of these frq's will say explain. this obble gates the writer to say at least three things and use examples. guest: for sure make sure that

you get right to the question. repeat the question vo cab larry. you're not going to get extra points for flowry introductry paragraph. answer the question, answer it repeatedly, ans as completely as you can. host: how much time do they have to take the test? guest: 100 minutes to answer the free response. and 45 minutes to answer the multiple question -- answer questions. host: you're on. caller: my question is what is the role of the media as score keeper gate keeper and watchdog? guest: we lo this question particularly the gate keeper function. the idea that the media controls what the news is. they might not tell you what to think about the issue but they certainly determine what the issues are that people are talking about. in terms of the watchdog this is a primary role of the media. the right to free press. to hold government accountability. the right for the media to publish information about our

government officials, about what's going on. so that you the people can keep your elected officials accountable. guest: the media is an agenda setter. the media also lets us know what we should know. and this is where the criticism lies in that score keeper role. we see journalism as horse race journalism, less about concrete deep thoughts on the issues and more about who is winning. host: which of the following gives the states the most policy discretion. guest: this speaks to federalism. as much as we talk about the centralization and how much power is here in washington, d.c., here in the united states we still have states rights. the tenth amendment protects states rights. and this is a states rights question. when government money is returned to the state, what

gives those state governors and those legislatures the most discretion? the answer is c. block grants. guest: host: we have a question from kay off twitter. guest: divided government is what we have right now in washington, d.c. it's the idea that the president of one party and at least one chamber of the legislative branch is controlled by a majority of the opposing party. and the resultst of divided government it becomes harder to get legislation passed. also a trend we've seen since the 1960s, very commonly, particularly in mid-term elections the voters put the opposition party in control of the legislative branch. host: so again if you're just host: if you're just joining us, it's a government exam that takes place next tuesday. these are the two got to talk to about the test but also questions and content. how long have you guys been doing this?

guest: i have been teaching 20 years. we have been on c-span -- this is your sixth time or in host: as far as the test itself, has a change in format and gotten harder? is there a difference? guest: the format has been pretty much the same for a number of years so the test is different. teachers have not seen this test. withis preparing students darts at a dart board we have not seen yet but we know the 60 multiple-choice questions and host: we know it's difficult. host:if you have questions and you are a student and studying for this-it's a chance to ask these guys questions and get answers. if you have a supreme court question, this constitution of the united states is signed by justice breyer and it goes to the first one who come through with the question concerning the supreme court. new hampshire, good morning. caller: my question is-