fortunately for me, she called some of the gay rights groups, but they turned her down. she was still indignant and she was looking around and we had mutual friends and she called me. i did not know edie, but i knew thia. i walked over to her apartment. she was four blocks away. i took one look at her, and it 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. another problem 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 like the a estate tax. 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. >> i borrowed it from the 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. that is just the way i do think -- 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. it was reported in time magazine 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. i have a small room in my 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] by the time it was over, i felt 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. one of the things i did is when 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] edie windsor certainly did not like that advice and i don't blame her. we felt that this case was about the fact that the court couldn't possibly explain any difference 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. we had a joke on the team that i 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. -- relaxingperiod of my life. 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. one, supreme 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. call me crazy -- we probably would have been better off if kennedy wrote our opinion. that meant they would announce our decision first because under supreme court protocol, justice kennedy is junior to be chief justice. we are waiting to hear eight of our cases first. b, 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. many lawyers are taught that as 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. obviously, that cannot be true 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. on the other 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. that is one of the reasons i 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. i wanted it to be focused on her

and that was a strategy that was important to us. there were times that it would see through. for 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. i felt all that summer -- you know the paintings were the guy is floating above the world looking down at his wife? i felt like the guy in. >> -- those paintings. >> you made a comment at one 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 website called notorious rbg 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? straight couples get all the 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] if so captures -- 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. >> how do you view the case now 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 arc that history goes through 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. about 30 days in, the doj had 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. i said to 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." can you 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 wasn't politics, it was not 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. this is a case where one side, 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. if you're doing a case in it doesn't make sense, go back in do the research. the law should make sense. certainly, the constitution should make sense. back when doma was passed in 1996, there were opinions from very prominent constitutional

law prefers -- officers saying that doma was completely kosher. you can't 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. but we kept fighting and i think this will be two victories throughout the country. >> today at the city club, we are learning a ton at the friday forum 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. we welcome you here and all of you joining us through 90.3 and wviz pbs. 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 author of "thomas jefferson's quaran." to order a dvd or cd of the program, go to www.city -- cityclub.org.

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. joining us today are students from westlake high school. students, please stand and be

recognized. [applause] thank you all for being here. program is also in partnership 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. holding the microphone are program director terry miller -- kerry miller. >> i am a graduating senior this year. i would like to say thank you for inviting us. my question today is -- earlier 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. i was wondering if you plan out 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 weiss, that i would ever argue a 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. steve mentioned that i cleric for judith kay. when the windsor decision was 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. >> ms. 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 less-high-profile cases, the supreme court does not really have that division. often it is 8-1 or 7-2. that is the majority of the that is probably the majority of the cases. supreme court's job is to decide cases about the meaning of the and you are absolutely like that they are often 5-4 and it is off the -- often kennedy on one side or another. in my case, 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.

the 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? most of the wins we have had 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 jurisdictions 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. are loving and is full faith and credit valid defenses?

>> loving v virginia was a case 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. in terms 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] >> i live in a state, new york, where they are elected and appointed. we have a family debate about this. my wife, who is a very active person in the democratic heart he, very much believes that the judges should be elected. i, being a litigator, sometimes 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 marriage and those who had a 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 free country" 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. i happen to live more than half 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 your spouse and is of same-sex, 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 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 dramatic 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. a funny story -- 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 staying and i went up to the room with my son and we ordered milk and cookies and we 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. they 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]

that just before the argument 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 in everyone. that is what this case was about. it was 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 biships, 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. it is a secular view of the 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 know 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 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. because it is law day, in 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 that day and she asked me -- first she was not sure i was qualified.

she had a computer in the corner and i play the argument i did in new york. she watched it for a while and said, i think you're good enough. then she said, 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 ask for permission to do this case. 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 hope more lawyers do that.

we do it at all -- paul weiss. >> 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 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 al franken speaking about the late congressman jim oberstar. after that, discussion about whether a criminal record hampers efforts to reenter society. about therogers talks appropriations process early this year. so congress will mop face a continuing resolution or government shutdown. you can watch newsmakers at 10:00 a.m. sunday and 6:00 emv c-span. >>eastern on c-span's newest book. a collection of interviews with top storytellers. in my case, i came in with no

documentation and ability to get a job or education. when i first came in, and cross the border between x: united then came to the san joaquin valley to work as a margaret worker was no challenge there were not thousands of people trying to get the jobs. i was pulling the weeds. >> dr. alfredo, one of 41 unique voices from 41 years of our book notes and conversations. now available at your favorite bookseller. >> is the time of year for height listed take the advanced placement exam. today on washington journal, students had a chance to ask teachers about the test. this is 40 minutes.

>> the segment is for you if you are studying for the exam. dan and andrew. them gentlemen, welcome. >> said the kentucky derby for civics. they will have the opportunity an exam. >> we feel it is 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. s 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 -- what does the rule of four have to do with the supreme court and how cases are heard? guest: i think we have a winner.

the rule of four is often known as granting a writ. in order for the supreme court to hear case, it takes at least four justices to agree to hear that case. it is also known as the rule of four. host: congratulations, you will win a copy of this constitution. we will get your information off the phone so hold on the line and they will take your information we will make sure this gets sent to you, congratulations. here is natalie from twitter -- guest: we love the iron triangle questions because students lose sleep over this. this is the simple fact -- on the test, the iron triangle will ask you what are the three points? let's make sure we know the three points. congressional committees, and

interest group, and the federal bureaucratic agency. it basically space to the interrelationship and how public policy is passed and enforced. it's different than issued network. they talk about iron triangles being too rigid. triangle -- issued networks, don't get too hung up but no those three points. guest: that was a great twitter feed. larson gave me a hard time because in talking about iron triangles, i talked about can of mushrooms and the fda regulation of canned mushrooms and the fact that there are six different styles of canned mushrooms. the fact that the fda has come up with a rule that every ounce of canned mushrooms has to be packed in 37.5 milligrams of acerbic acid. congress is not necessarily coming up with that law by members of congress from the

horticultural subcommittee of the department of agriculture are working with the bureaucrats in the fda and probably working with a lobbyist from the ami which is the american mushroom institute in a very friendly atmosphere. they are coming up with specific regulations. it's known as the iron triangle and known as elitism in policymaking. guest: i was going to bring a can of mushrooms this year because a student gave me one as a gift last year. another bureaucratic agency prevented that. at o'hare airport confiscated my can of mushrooms. host: -- guest: another one of our favorite questions. we all know the first amendment. we know freedom of speech and freedom of the press but we sometimes forget those other freedoms also in the first amendment. there's the right to assemble, right to petition. i would say you definitely need

to know the difference between free exercise and establishment particularly establishment. establishment clause of the first amendment prevents the united states government and now it goes to the states where you cannot have one state religion. guest: we rarely talk about this amendment, ourst right to assemble in groups. that's the basis of civil society which is the basis of democratic government, the right to join groups, to complain, to talk about issues. host: peer is emily from new york. caller: i would just like to give a shout out to my teacher. my question was -- i was wondering what the difference -- what to midis should know in the house and the senate, the major ones we should be reviewing? guest: the major committee in the houses the house ways and means committee. laws have to start in the house of representatives, the

house ways and means committee has a lot of weight when it comes to creating those tax laws. guest: let's not forget the nomenclature of committees. the house ways and means committee is a standing committee. this is permanent and allows for expertise, members in the house served on that committee for up to five or more terms. what happens when a bill passes through the house and the senate and they are different? they use a conference committees and make sure you know the difference between standing committees, the permanent committees, and those conference committees that are brought together to reconcile differences between the house and the senate. guest: another committee that is pertinent to the house is the house rules committee. the senate does not have this. in the house, the rules committee determines the rules for debate and the rules on the floor procedure in the house of representatives. host: any significant senate committee to know? guest: they are permanent but not -- but nothing as sexy as ways and means.

the senate committees are important because the senate committees also approve the appointments by the president. judiciary senate committee gets a lot of attention on c-span which is a great example of checks and balances. when the president appoints a federal judge or supreme court judge, the senate judiciary committee has the first shot at that confirmation process. host: here is sydney from georgia. there, my question is statusrdless of income and higher education, [indiscernible] guest: i did not hear that. guest: it's about voting turnouts. one of the key things you should know is that voting is for old people. people who are more experience at voting are much more likely to vote. higher that people with

education and higher incomes are also more likely to vote. guest: also african-americans are more likely to vote democrat. in the last election, they turned out at a higher rate than caucasian voters. host: l this isars - guest: this is a question we hope will find its way in this year. we are rhymed for campaign finance questions. it's loaded with terms. pac, a political action committee, has limits. i can only give so much to them and they can only give so much to candidates. now we have this new area known as independent expenditure groups. this allows the fatcats to give unlimited amounts and in some cases undisclosed amounts to groups like 527's or groups like out ofacks which come

the citizens united case. anyway we look at it, we are looking at the mother's milk of politics which is money. money still plays a critical role in those campaigns as much as congress has tried to limit and remove the perception of corruption, big money still pours in and make sure you understand the differences between hard money, soft money, and independent expenditures. guest: independent expenditures is a key question. what can you spend that money on is a key question? the easiest way to figure that out is an independent expenditure can be used for an ad to promote a candidate to promote an idea but it cannot be hidden to a candidate to spend on that candidates transportation costs or the cost of that candidates handlers or staffers. it has to be independent. you can promote an idea but it cannot be used for the grassroots, on the ground transportation cost. host: strategy question -- great question, a lot of

great teachers out there -- mr. newman and mr. lockwood are studying with their students and we want to affirm all you teachers because this is a difficult test. here is our suggestion on those difficult multiple-choice questions. read the prompt carefully. don't worry about time. look for the words like not or accept. my suggestion to you is before you have a debate between a,b,c ,d, try to imagine what the answer is first. if it says something about selective incorporation at the prompt come you know the answer has to say something about bill of rights in the states. there will no -- there will be no tricks in the question so browse through the options. if you see bill of rights and state, that's the answer. guest: so much of government and political science is about vocabulary and lingo. one of the great ways you can testre -- prepare for the

is go through the vocabulary of government and be really familiar with those key vocabulary words. host: we have been giving you sample questions and here's another 1 -- about public of again and the measurement of public opinion. we get a little bit of science here where students should know that to have a really effective opinion poll, than is to be a random sample. that means everyone in the universe of that sample has an equal chance of being asked. host: it's not just about the constitution or strict government, it's everything that is involved. guest: this covers not just the institutions that also those linkage institutions like media, political parties, interest groups, campaigns and elections. it is thorough but is not a political test in that it will test your opinion. no arguments will be made here.

to know the broad strokes of american government politics. host: spokane, washington, hello. caller: i wanted to give a shout out to the class of 2014. could you give me a quick summary of a presidential election process? guest: we know the presidential election process is 2.5 years away but it is starting now. the very first step in any campaign process is to develop a personal following, to be mentioned. you want to be able to raise money which is a key part of the process. you have to have people who know who you are and have a personal following. guest: the primaries go state-by-state and are very important. let's not forget about the national conventions. it's a media event every four years where the political parties choose their candidates and frame the agenda, from the messaging. let's not forget about the electoral college. we the people still do not directly select our president. takes 270al college

to win the electoral college and puts the regional blocs in play and gives small states a bigger voice than you would think. host: this is sophia from georgia. caller: hi, i want to give a six. out to ms. evans class. will definitely be court cases on the test. don't panic. there are too many to study them all but there are a few we would recommend. andv wade, right to privacy abortion, brown versus board of education, the first court case that incorporates the bill of rights, it was free speech. a casemy favorite is about the civil rights movement and is a case about the commerce clause. this is the 50th anniversary of

the civil rights act of 1964. there was a serious question whether that was constitutional. guest: the supreme court case that determined that the civil rights act of 1964 was constitutional said congress under its commerce clause of power can't prohibit secretary should -- can prohibit segregation. host: she wants to explain the cormatsu court case. guest: this would be one of those cases. we have never seen this on the ap government exam. this was about the internment of the japanese during world war ii. the ap government test is not really a history test. don't panic for those of you who did not take ap history. you might be able to use ko ramatsu as an example. guest: when mr. larsen

speculates that something may not be on the test, it usually is. longtime viewers know that. [laughter] host: here is another e-mail -- >> this is a great question. over the last 50 years, we have seen that presidents more rely on the advice of their white house staff or the executive office of the president. they do so for a number of reasons. it is easier to hire white house staff or advisors because they don't have to be confirmed by the senate. unlike a cabinet secretary who has to go through the cabinet -- the confirmation process. another key reason is that these are typically former campaign aides. they are very loyal to the president and don't have divided loyalty like a cabinet secretary and remember the term executive privilege -- an advisor to the president can claim executive privilege of congress ever comes around asking questions on like

a cabinet secretary. >> another e-mail -- guest: i would not be surprised if we see a chart on the federal budget in the frq's. critical words would be entitlements, discretionary funding, mandatory funding. entitlements are those payments made every year that the congress is obligated to appropriate like social security and medicare. they don't debate this. it's not sunsetted year after year. it's in that budget and it is the majority of the federal budget. discretionary funding is a small percentage. these are the programs that the congress candidate. the mandatory entitlement spending is getting this federal budget in trouble. guest: in addition to that information about entitlements, you should know the word fiscal policy, the idea that budget making is fiscal policymaking

and the fact that the budget making process is the same with a of making laws little catch -- the president gets to recommend the budget than congress writes the budget but the president has to sign the budget into law. host: from california -- ♪ caller: i would like to give a how out tomr. norris - does the federal reserve help regulate the economy? guest: thanks for getting up early and asking one of those tough questions. we just talked about fiscal policy now we are talking about monetary policy. that is the federal reserve. it's an independent group is not supposed to be affected by politics. the federal reserve chair is appointed for a term that often exceeds the term of the president, it certainly exceeds the term of the president that appointed him or her. monetary policy is money flow. guest: the federal reserve board is an independent group. they are appointed with fixed terms.

we see there are different parts of the bureaucracy, sometimes we call them independent regulatory agencies, that are more independent because when they are picked to be on that board, the commissioners have a fixed term. host: an executive order is a directive given by the president to the bureaucracy to carry out and implement some part of the law. it has the same power of the law. congress usually has to fund it so it's hard for congress to block an executive order. agreement goes into the chief diplomat powers, the idea the president can meet with another head of state and come up with an agreement that is like a treaty. it is typically smaller than a treaty. like an executive order, it does not have to be approved by congress. guest: we have seen executive orders and executive agreements on the increase as our partisan congress has bickered back and

set in.d gridlock has president set taken on more power because the executive orders and executive agreements do not need congressional approval. host: from dayton ohio, you are up next. hey, a big shout out to mr. byers. how is judicial activism and judicial restraint connected? guest: we are talking about jurisprudence. how does a judge make up his or her mind when looking at a case. we would like to think about the laws are used to interpret the laws but what happens when that is fuzzy? what happens when the law is not clear? we look at judicial restraint and judicial activism. judicial restraint is when that judge tries to limit him or herself to adjust the light which of the law or what the original intent of the law was. we have judicial

activism or judges take another information, it could be other areas of expertise. in the end, the supreme court has what's called judicial review. based on the court case going way back to the early days of our republic, this is the ultimate check the supreme court has over the legal process in the congress and in the white house. they can rule acts of congress were acts of the president on constitution. host: from brookfield, maryland, eva joins us next. caller: hi, i would like to give a shout out to my teacher at sherwood high school. i was wondering if you could explain how congress can change the court's jurisdiction? guest: that's a great question. the constitution gives congress the authority over the courts. they can decide the courts docket. they also have the power to create lower courts underneath the supreme court's.

in that way, they control the jurisdiction of the courts which we also know as the dockets. guest: that is something c-span is interested in because the courts could open up the courts to television. host: here is an e-mail -- guest: we know the amendment process in the constitution, the way we change the constitution funny seven times is with a proposed amendment by2/3 of each chamber of congress and those proposals have to be of the states. there is the informal amendment process and that's the way the constitution changes. it can be changed by an act of law. they can be changed by a supreme court decision. it could be chased by tradition. the best example of an informal amendment is political parties. the fact that the constitution does not mention political parties yet this city and this government is run by political parties. that's an informal amendment. concepthis lease to the

of assessing power of the three branches britt how powerful is the congress? how powerful is the president? how powerful are the courts? formal power and informal power. host: we want to thank our producer who put this together. she put these free response questions together. opinion outit of there but some of the questions as it relates to campaign finance reform. that would take me 100 minutes. guest: campaign finance is a tricky area. students should know the loopholes. the reality is is that the supreme court has time and again said that campaign money our

political speech and that political speech is protected. we can limit them in some ways like we did with the 1974 law with hard money. there is only so much money you can give to a specific candidate. however, there are loopholes. like independent expenditures. guest: when you write about campaign finance, do not forget the constitution and how the supreme court has ruled under it. buckley established that the first amendment protects campaign moneys. don't forget to use the constitution as an example when you are writing those frq's. host: andrea from corona, california. caller: hi, i would like to give a shout out to the third. . summary of the decision-making process and courts starting with putting a case on the docket? guest: your case has to have standing. typically, the supreme court is

looking if this is a case there has been damage. we also know to be on the docket -- we talked about the rule of 4 -- at least four justices have to hear that case. guest: less than five percent of the appeals of the petitions are heard by the u.s. supreme court. appellate courts have to deal -- here every appeal but there are thousands of cases petitions to the supreme court and they get to decide. four judges decide which cases they hear. this last year, it was about 80 cases. host: a question from twitter -- guest: i will let mr. larsen & toubro limited guest: this is not really a history test. there are some historical events you want to remember like the chaise rebellion. the articles of confederation created an extremely weak central government for the articles of confederation

established strong state sovereignty but there were issues about trade and currency and protection back in the states. se rebellion reminded those who fought the revolution that we might lose what we fought for so they called for a new constitutional convention that was highly controversial with groups like the federalists promoting a stronger sense of government and the anti-federalist holding onto states rights. it was washington versus jefferson but in the end, it was a compromise. they created a stronger central government. same question was asked back in philadelphia in 1787 is asked on capitol hill every day here in washington. guest: how strong should the central government be? sometime students are asked about the declaration of independence and the have to know it is the founding document. it is one of the key ideals, the idea that government gets its power from the governed, the idea that people can abolish their government and the natural rights that government is supposed to protect. host:

guest: war powers act is one of those things we see questions on the test frequently. it's the idea that there are checks and balances still with the president warmaking powers. the president as commander-in-chief has the power to send troops into combat but not only does the congress have the power of the purse but if the president does sign and send troops into combat, he is to notify congress and get their approval within 60 days. guest: this speaks to the powers of the president and how they are checked. we know the power of the presidency is increased in our lifetime. how is it checked? the war powers act would be one example in the big example in our lifetime is public opinion. host: romney from illinois is up next. caller: him, i'd like to give a shout out to my teacher. can you explain the citizens united case? guest: everyone is buzzing about campaign finance.

they think campaign finance will be on the exam. it is one of the most talked about court cases. it opens up independent expenditures to corporations. corporations had been severely limited in how they can participate in the political process with respect to money. now with citizens united, it appears as if that window has now been thrown wide open and corporations are now allowed to give money but only the independent groups, not directly to the candidates. guest: one of the laws that relates to this is the mccain-feingold campaign-finance reform act. that's from 2002 which tried to bring more limits. it got rid of soft money. it tried to put limits on those issue ads. citizens united had a different idea. host: we will hear from boris next from illinois. caller: hi, i like to give a

shout out to ms. stopne from stevenson high school. would you please explain what is an independent regulatory agency? guest: the independent federal regulatory agency -- one is the fcc, the federal medications commission, and the faa, the federal aviation administration. sometimes at the fcc, they have judicial powers where if a tv station violates the law, the fcc can impose a fine. guest: the independent regulatory agencies serve all three branch functions. they can seemingly right law, they can enforce law, and they can actually adjudicate loss of this is a point of great stress and tension today. the bureaucratic agencies function almost like a government within themselves. host: one more question from spokane washington. caller: hi, i want to give a shout out to my teacher mr.

biel. how does the supreme court choose the cases they hear? guest: we know there is a limit. they limit themselves to about 80 cases per year. the most fundamental way they decide is if there are two lower federal court decisions that contradict each other on the same issue, they then hear the case. host: those are the questions but what is parting advice for those cramming this weekend? guest: study hard and read the notes. this is not a current events test. the more you read the news, watch c-span on the internet and think about how the news applies to the big concepts of political science. those are concepts you can drop into a response question. this is a test for college credit but really, we are excited you are becoming a more engaged citizen. guest: study hard but also get some good rest. study those words. the very success of democracy depends upon. theknowledge and skills of its citizens

you are taking a test on tuesday but you will really be serving your country for life as engaged citizen. we applaud all of you. host: is there an online source that can help with studying? guest: we have a website. izenu.org where there is a lot of good stuff. host: thank you very much for being with us. we have done on the next washington journal, a reporter roundtable with matt lewis and sabrina siddiqui. also, tom tarantino from the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. he discusses why members of congress are calling for the resignation of the veterans affairs secretary will stop we

will take your calls and you can join the conversation that these book and twitter. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> the act was that have -- that was passed in 1933 was a very clear line between the of servicesversions and the things they they can do. the deposits that it took and the services it provided to individuals and small businesses. there was a very clear distinction. the bankers were on the same side as fdr. the population was on the same side. things became stable for many decades. incontrast to what happens the wake of the 2008 crisis, which has been a much more expensive crisis heard general economy and for the actual

unemployment levels. an relative to the bailout, and the subsidies that had been given all stop dodd frank came along and did nothing. it was nothing like dissecting andulation from depositors traditional banking activity. >> a look at the relationships between 1600 pennsylvania avenue and wall street will stop it is part of book tv this weekend. as online, our book club selection is, "it cause you back." we will discuss the book at book tv.org. >> you cannot take c-span with you, wherever you go, with our free radio at raiders our phone and tablet stop listen to all three channels or c-span radio, anytime.

there is a schedule so you can tune in when you want and play podcasts of recent shows. take c-span with you, wherever you go all stop download your iphonep online for your or android or blackberry. for formerral minnesota congressman jim oberstar was last week. on thursday, the senators from minnesota, amy klobuchar and al franken, offer tributes to the late congressman. this is 25 minutes. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i come to the senate floor today to honor the life of a truly remarkable man, a devoted husband, a loving father and grandfather, a dedicated friend and a true public servant.

jim oberstar was a man of purpose and grit who never stopped fighting for the people of his district, the people of northeastern minnesota. his resilience was like the resilience of the people that he represented. he was one of those rare people who was just as comfortable in the aurora, minnesota, parade in khakis and tennis shoes as he was at the french embassy. one unique thing about jim oberstar was that he always broke into french at a moment's notice and he would literally speak french at the french embassy and paris, but he might also speak french at the aurora parade even though no one else there spoke french. whether he was biking the masabi trail or fishing on sturgeon lake or hanging out with some of his constituents at tom and jerry's bar in chisolm which is

where he grew up, he always loved northern minnesota and the people he represented. jim never lost sight of where he came from or the values that he grew up with. he knew that among other things, his job in washington was to be an advocate, and he approached every day with a fierce but disciplined urgency of purpose. what i love most about him was that in a day of sound bites and quick fixes, he was never afraid to give that long, long explanation of why he voted for something or why he thought something was important to his constituents. as the "star tribune" noted this week, jim was always a popular editorial of guests and meetings with him were -- quote -- "the equivalent of a graduate school seminar." when i think about jim, i first think of someone whose roots are also in northern minnesota, whose grandpa worked in the

mines. i think about him, about how he fought hard to keep the mines open when times were tough, back when things were bleak and people were hurting. like my own grandpa, jim's dad was slovenian and he was proud of that, and jim's dad, like my own brand pa, was also an underground miner. they were part of a generation of immigrants that toiled hundreds of feet under ground day after day to mine the iron ore that built this nation and kept the world free in world war ii. it was a hard, hard life. long days and treacherous conditions. their families living in fear of that dreaded whistle that meant another miner had been injured or killed. jim knew that sound well because he lived through it. so when jim got to congress, he fought tirelessly to not only keep the mines open, but to

protect the rights of the workers and to improve safety. during his first years in the house, jim pushed for legislation that created the mine safety and health administration. today, thanks to the hard work of congressman jim oberstar, mining conditions have greatly improved. that was bread and butter legislating for jim. straightforward, commonsense policies that made people's lives better. it sounds simple, but we know that in washington today, there are too many people who would rather score political points than get down to the hard work of governing. not jim oberstar. he was a man of conviction. in a business known for rewarding the expedient over the noble, he lived a life of principle. he played the long game and he did it on behalf of the american people. that is a great american. and that

is a legacy worth celebrating. we lost jim suddenly this week in the middle of the night, in his sleep. the day before, he had spent the day with his grandkids. he had gone to one of his grandchild's plays. he had been going on long bike rides. and even after he lost his election in 2010, he never let it get him down. he just took all that energy and zest for life and put it into his family and put it into the continuing work he did on transportation and put it into his friends and just everything he loved to do. so we mourn him today, but we also celebrated the incredible gift that jim gave to our country. it is awe inspiring to think about how much time he spent mastering federal transportation policy. 47 years, nearly five decades. 11 as a staff member on the house transportation committee and 36 as an elected

representative. during that time, he literally changed the landscape of minnesota and the country. his fingerprints can be found on just about every major federally funded transportation project during the last five decades -- roads, bridges, tunnels, rails, lox and dams, bike paths -- locks and dams. jim loved those bike paths. he was a visionary. he was in front of everyone on that. he would try to get money for bike paths and everyone would laugh at him. who cares about bike t paths? now everyone wants bike paths in their communities. everyone who drives in an airplane or drives our federal highways can thank jim oberstar. every american who bikes their bike trails, who hikes places like the beautiful lake superior trail in northern minnesota or drives on our national highways and bridges should remember him. he was a treasure-trove of facts and figures and advice for every member of congress.

he always used to kind of poke fun at the senate because he claimed things kind of went here and didn't get done, and he would always say all that ever happens in the senate is you ratify treaties and confirm judges. one day, close to my own election, i was looking at the newspaper clips and i saw my name next to jim saying that, and i thought oh, no, what has he said? it was in the "international falls paper q i got it out and he said well, all the senate ever does is confirm judges and ratify treaties, but amy's going to try to rescue this bill, she will try to get it done, and i was quite relieved. one of the most memorable stories for me came on his last day in the house when members came and told stories about him, and there was a congressman from pennsylvania who talked about the time that jim visited his district to celebrate the opening of a new bridge. he said that jim stood up with

no notes and recited with incredible detail almost every infrastructure project that had ever been built in that district, and along with the name of every congressman that had ever served in the district, with all the right pronunciations, and he even included their middle initials, and he did it with no notes. the congressman was in awe. he walked back to his office and he started looking back through the records and googling things. it was no surprise to anyone that jim was exactly right. that was jim. he loved politics. he thought about government as an honorable profession, and he was so proud of the people that followed in his footsteps, whether what he taught senator franken and myself as we started representing minnesota or one o his favorites, the mayor of duluth, don ness, who he started working with him when he was 23 years old as a young aide. whether it was all the staff members that worked for him for

all those years. he was so proud of the people that he taught, the people that he mentored. he was so proud of the members of congress, democrats and republicans that he worked with. he would so often work to get amendments and get little projects for them for their districts, and then he would let them take the credit when they went home. i want to end today with something that jim said in his farewell speech to congress. he was reflecting on why he had originally run for office, and this is what he said. he said -- "the reason why i came is to serve the people, to meet the needs of their respective families and to leave this district, leave this house, leave this nation a better place than i found it. there is no question, mr. president, that jim oberstar left this world better than he found it. through his incredible legacy of public service, he found

immortality. in the beautiful children and grandchildren that were and are his family, he has left the world a better place. the youngest one, a little baby that we met today at the funeral, was just recently adopted. and jim's daughter named him jim. he left the world so much. he not only taught us how to win elections, because he knew how to do that, he also taught us how to act and what to do when you lose an election. he has found immortality in the hearts of those who knew him and the lives of countless more who never will. in the majestic grandeur of stately bridges and in the cool shadows of quiet bike paths, in the hardhats hanging in the lockers of hardworking miners that go home safely at the end of the day. that's where you will find jim

oberstar. that's where his legacy lives on. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you. i want to thank senator klobuchar for her moving words, her moving tribute to jim oberstar. we both had the honor of speaking today at his funeral. we were both honored by his wife jean and by his family. jim served the eighth district for 36 years as -- as their representative. he served for 11 years before that, senator klobuchar said as a staffer here on the hill. and as she said, he died last week in his sleep. i think amy told me -- senator

klobuchar told me that the family said that he wasn't 99%, he was 100%. so this came as a shock to all of us who knew jim, and obviously deeply saddened us all. i announced for the u.s. senate in february of 2007. a few days later, i had my first public event where i took questions from folks, and this is at a coffee shop in st. james, minnesota, in the southwest corner of our state in the first district. the first question i got was from a woman asking if i believe there should be term limits, and from the way she asked it, i knew she thought there should be term limits. i thought great, my very first question and i don't agree with the person who is asking it. so i said no, i don't believe in

term limits, and let me tell you why. jim oberstar. jim has been a congressman from the eighth district for 33 years now, and he is chairman of the house transportation committee, and he knows more about transportation than anybody else in the country. and everybody in the coffee shop, including the woman, kind of went yeah, they nodded, yeah, that makes sense. jim was a walking advertisement against term limits. he was the consummate public servant. it was -- it was all because he was a man who sought knowledge. he had a fierce curiosity about the world and an intense need to understand how things work. all that enabled him to accomplish so much. if jim were here today, if he

had one more chance to speak to all of us, first he would say how much he loved his family and his friends and the people who worked for him. then he would tell us the history of american infrastructure, starting with the erie canal and how it opened up midwestern agriculture to europe because, he would explain, it was 97% more efficient to ship those goods over water and then the hudson and over to europe than before. and he would tell us how the erie canal made new york harbor, new york city, made it what it is today. and then he would take us through the transcontinental railroad and rural electrification and the

interstate highway system and all the way to rural broadband. then he would just go back to the roman aqueducts which were built by slave labor and make an impassioned speech about the history of the labor movement. jim sometimes had a tendency to go too long, but it was because he believed that everyone was as curious about the world as he was, and he was almost always wrong about that. i once had the opportunity to speak before jim at the naming ceremony for the james oberstar riverfront complex, the headquarters for the voyageur national park in northern minnesota. before speaking, i took the opportunity to predict what jim would talk about. i said he would talk about the legislative -- he would tell us

the legislative history of voyager national park. he would tell us about all the different streams of funding for the park. he would tell us the history of the french voyageurs, the first white men in minnesota, and that during the first part of the speech jim would speak in startlingly fluent french. everyone laughed, including jim, but that didn't stop jim from telling us the legislative history of the park, all the different funding streams and all about the voyageurs and that part in french. and delighting in every word of it. the first time i ever saw him chair, i went over to the house to see him chair a committee, it was on high-speed rail. he had witnesses from china and japan and france and some other

european country, and when it got time for him to do his questioning, i learned that jim had piloted every one of those high-speed rail systems. and of course when he questioned the french witness, he did it in french, and it was a tour deforce, which i believe is french. jim understood the importance of infrastructure to our economy, to economic development, and as amy was saying for recreation. his legacy will be in the ports and locks and dams and highways and bridges and water systems throughout our country, but it will also be in the bike paths in minnesota and around the country. jim was an avid bike rider, and he used to say that he wanted to

turn our transportation system, the fuel from hydrocarbons to hydrocarbates. it all came from jim's thirst for knowledge. the pages are here. i would urge you to thirst for knowledge. not just information. some people in this town or in other places, too, just look for enough information to achieve some short-term goal. jim sought knowledge, an understanding of how things work. because of that, he was able to get things done and was respected by all of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. amy and i were both there for the day that colleagues on the house paid tribute to him and

with both sides of the aisle equally. we had a retirement tribute for jim in duluth in 2011, and don ness, the mayor of duluth, about whom amy spoke briefly and who was at the service today, told a story at that tribute which says everything about jim as a guy. don was 23 years old. he had been just hired to be jim's campaign manager, and this was his first thing to do with him was the fourth of july parades. now, the fourth of july parades on the iron range are a big deal. there is a lot of them. there were six of these in 24 hours.

and this was his big chance to impress his new boss, and he screwed up every bit of it. the first thing he did was he was so obsessed with making arrangements that he forget to make his own -- forgot to make his own hotel reservation on the range. don lived in duluth. so he drove around the range to get a room until 1:30 in the morning and he found one in virginia, minnesota, and so he overslept and had to drive to chisholm and was late so he picked up -- he picked up jim and he decided -- to make up the time, he just drove fast and, of course, he got pulled over. and got a ticket. which made them really late for this parade and they got put at the end behind the horses on a very, very hot, sweatering delay -- sweltering day.

so all during the day, donnie makes one screwup after another, he offended local t.f.l. activists, he lost jim for about half an hour. jim knew where he was but he didn't know where jim was. and he left this black car parked directly in the sun during a parade, and it just became -- you know what that means. so then thankfully after the fifth parade there was going to be like a three-hour break, and they were going to drive to somebody's house where they would be able to eat and get this the air conditioning and relax. and so donnie decided to put the signs in the trunk, and as he was doing it, as he was closing it, he saw the keys in the car locked in the car.

and it took them 90 minutes to find someone that could open the car and they lost their break. now, he was a 23-year-old kid and he was certain that he was going to be fired. he felt he deserved to be fired. now, jim had been calm with him all day, been nice to him all day but figured jim was stuck with him till the end of the day and at the end of the day, he'd fire him. so he drives jim home to chisholm, it's 9:00 at night now, and he starts -- they get out of the car and he starts to say -- he starts to apologize and says i just blew it today. i know this was my chance, and i've blown it and i'll never be in public service. this guy is now -- what term is he in, amy?

third? yeah, third term as mayor of duluth. what did he get? 87% or something like that. and jim stopped him, wouldn't let him finish. stopped him, and he said i'm really proud of you. you've had a tough day. we had a tough day. had you a lot of adversity, a lot of things to overcome and you never lost your head. which was really not true. donnie was panicking the entire time. that's probably why donnie made those mistakes. and then he gave don a big hug, that big jim bear hug that so many people talked about today. so then don carried the bag for

jim, and jim, too, up to the front porch, and jim said before don went back to the car, he said i'm proud of you. don't worry about today. i'm proud of you. don went back to the car, and his head was swimming with -- he couldn't believe the kindness, the warmth, and then as he started to back out, he looked back and jim was still on the porch. he gave him this big wave, said happy independence day. minnesota lost a giant, the united states lost a giant today. or this week. we also lost a good guy. he was a great guy, a great

man, and a good guy. at a discussion of whether a criminal record hampers reentry into society. at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on washington journal will stop this week, a subcommittee heard testimony from comcast and time warner executives. also appearing at the hearing, antitrust attorneys will stop content providers and internet service providers were there.

>> everyone is coming to the new york world's fair. they are coming from the four corners of the earth. from tokyo and rome. they come down from frisco. from then above. this troop from the bronx will stop and the traveling teachers from kansas. and the wilson family got here at last. a symbol of the fair. the great unit sphere. they find a machine that playfully demonstrate the law of averages. by chance, they meet all stop they join up for sightseeing.

this weekend on american history tv, a variety of people are followed as they experience the 1954 new york world's fair. that is on c-span 3. for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you. we're putting you in the room at congressional events and briefings and conferences stop complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry dirty five years ago.

watch us in hd and like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> a discussion about the impact of a criminal record on someone who is trying to reenter society. and what can be done to help prevent recidivism. collateral consequences as we know are the additional sanctions typically mandated by state statute that attached to criminal conviction that are not part of the direct consequences of the conviction such as incarceration, fines, and/or probation. they are the further civil consequences that are triggered as a consequence of the conviction.