a point where venezuela is about to collapse, the newest sponsor. again, people are saying there is no way they can survive this. but journalistically and empirically i have to look back and remind myself that they always seem to find a way to survive it. i think that one of the reasons is that unilateral embargoes do not seem to work. one of the reasons we confronted apartheid in south africa was because that was a multilateral international effort and those do work were as unilateral efforts historic -- whereas unilateral efforts historically do not. because venezuela is so weak right now i would like to go back to that point your argument that this was not the right time to do this because this was the time that we could've put the squeeze on cuba. >> look, cuba survived in part

because one, it is an island, too, it has very good security forces. they have been giving life preserver's after the end of the soviet union from venezuelan oil. they always seem to find a sugar daddy when things are tough. the liberalizing terms of micro-enterprises, they did it when i was there -- very liberalize in terms of micro-enterprise they did it when i was there and when things are doing well, they cut back on licenses. they have restaurants but a lot of those -- some are individuals but a lot of those are relatives in the military that have a way to invest money they have gotten from corruption in enterprises. what they tend to do is in bad times they open up a little bit and when the money comes in, they tighten up again.

i think that this was a very difficult time for them. it is very unlikely that venezuela and russia and iran will be in a position with oil prices plunging to continue to provide all of that money. so one of the reasons they were able to survive is that the europeans had invested billions of billions in the island and they never pay them back. what they want from the embargo they want american loans guaranteed because they have never paid back the loans given by the other countries and they are not about to pay this back. that is what they really want, they want the taxpayers on the hook to pay for these foodstuffs that when they do come in, and by the way they can buy anything organic from the united states and have been able to for 10 years, they have bought billions of dollars.

medicine, anything they want to buy they can. all that is left is that bathing suit tourists cannot go and we do not allow loans to a government that will not pay them back. i think that what happens is that we throw them a lifeline at a time that will give them renewed life for the regime because all of that money from american tourist the few that will find rooms in havana because most artful, -- are full that will go to the military that runs the sheets ers -- cigars and rum. my view is that when people say it has not worked, back to what i have said originally, nobody's policy has worked. engagement is the most failed policy because the rest of the world has been doing it for 50 years. >> what about that argument that

fidel castro never would have agreed to normalization in the first place if he had not been so desperate. and that desperation is the best argument for why we should not have pursued engagement right now and continued with what we are doing. >> fidel castro has not agreed to normalization, he just said in honduras that the only way he would normalize relations with cuba is if the united states paid for all of the damages going to the billions of dollars. >> it was a trillion dollar figure at one point. >> they do not want normalization, that is what people do not get into their minds. the cuban government does not want normal relations with the united states, it goes against their best interests. they want things as they are and the most terrible thing in cuba right now is that everybody wants to leave cuba. i have not heard in the past 10 years and he cuba. they all want -- that feels love

for cuba. they all want to leave. you do not see one single person who gets off of an airplane whose as i want to go back to cuba because i want to liberate cuba. their want to come to the united states because they want to send money back to my family. they are acting not as political refugees who want to change the government, they are acting as immigrants. that is the most terrible thing happening in cuba because the cuban people have lost loved for the island. especially the young people. >> briefly, if you could address that point. why should we have let the embargo work? >> that has never been my point. my point is that the embargo should be used to condition real change in cuba. nobody is defending -- first of

all, we keep saying embargo that is not the same thing as 1960. the ideal that nothing has been done in cuba and all of this time -- idea that nothing has been done in cuba in all of that time is not true. the ambassador distributed 30,000 for wave radios. that is the -- shortwave radios. that is the strategy of radio free europe. those things are important but neither the cuban government nor the advocates for the government want to concede that. on the one hand, he says that it is just a south florida votes or whatever. by the way, what he says about contributions, that is not only cuba. any political scientist knows how congress works. you should be concerned about middle east policy.

my point is that this is not a cuba specific issue. >> we all know that>>. >> let me go back to what i want to say. >> quickly. >> the cuban policy is not simply the votes or the democracy or the contribution but lies. i do not know if you know what happened but there were fouer young man, one born in new jersey and another in vietnam. cuba destroys those plans in international airspace. one spy had something to do with that. that man was sentenced to two life sentences. and that man who has something to do with the death of

americans, was exchanged by the president. and the mother of at least one of those who died told me it was like seeing my son die one more time. how could it be? i guess anybody that wants to kill americans can then get some government to blackmail the president and free them for the murder? i think we have to take that into account and american lives are at risk. not simply a game. when you say that people benefited -- let me say this. the always talks about people that benefited from the policy. what about the people who will benefit from the new policy? what about the businessmen that you work for them want to go to cuba and pay $20 a month in an environment in which you do not have a labor union or the right to strike and humans do not know about freedom? -- cubans do not

know about freedom? there have been thousands of political prisoners in cuba who want to stay in cuba and love cuba. whenever somebody says to you that all cubans, that is not true. >> can you finish up on that point? >> just a couple of points. it was mostly driven by south florida politics, we have seen is that cuba is no longer the third rail of south florida politics the way it used to be, we saw that with the 2012 campaign where obama won 50% of the cuban-american vote and in the most recent campaign or charlie crist one close to 50% -- where charlie crist won close to 50% of the cuban-american vote. what i want to go back to his a couple of the other points that have been mentioned. i will cry to be very brief. t --r try to be very brief.

we call the castro government lawyers and crooks but why when they make a full throated demand for the lifting of the embargo do we think that is what they want? think about that for a second. second cuban gdp dropped 35% and they survived that. if they lose venezuelan subsidies, the gdp drop would be about 10%. but it gives to 20% the where near 35% -- let's say it gets 20%, nowhere near 35%. if they were going to bow down that is not based on reality. would they would have to do is open up the economy more. -- what they would have to do is to open up the economy more. if it was not dead already, he

will pass away soon. after 10 years of retirement, this is how effective it has been. his brother is stepping down and has instituted term limits, we will see if they honor that. they are at the twilight of this era. we know there is a transition in place. we be standing on the sidelines and waiting and hoping for the best without trying to play a constructive role, should we be engaging -- or should we be engaging? i think we can be more influential by playing a constructive role in the present. >> and that role, and that's the last question i want to address to the panel before we opened it up to questions because this is a business-oriented group, i think it is important that we make this point as has the top u.s. negotiator for normalization for the state department, she has

repeatedly may be point that the focus of -- made the point that the focus is on empowering fledgling entrepreneurs in cuba, that by giving them more economic power and therefore more civil independence in cuba, you undermine perhaps not in the way that solidarity did in poland you nonetheless undermine communist authority -- but you nonetheless undermine communist authority and that is the endgame, empowering these capitalists so you can undermine the castro regime. you believe that is a flawed approach? >> definitely. >> if i could ask all of you and keep answers brief. >> the average income in cuba is $20 and the cuban government knows how to quarantine money to the military that runs

repressive forces. the idea that micro enterprises by supporting them, they will be able to change the government, the government has said that they are not changing. and they know how to control that so i think the idea of trickle-down will empower the cuban people, they will be empowered when the cuban government invites them to participate. >> some of the most successful human businessmen in florida have been traveling to cuba to look at the possibilities of doing business in cuba. they have all come back with very interesting opinions. but one in particular, carlos, what with the catholic church and started -- went with the catholic church and started doing seminars about teaching cubans to run small enterprises. there were so successful that the cuban government put him in a plane and send him back to miami. that is how fearful they are of private business.

>> if you believe that the cuban government does not want to receive millions of dollars to support their government, which is what is happening under this policy, and i guess i can so you the seven mile bridge or something. -- then i guess i can sell you the seven mile bridge or something. there are lots of people that trade with cuba and do not get paid. i know about the cuban-american businessmen want to go to cuba and i know some of them gowho go to mexico. but they do not want cuban workers, they get $20 a month which is a great attraction because they do not have to have a labor union and if a worker

says something about the environment, they are sent to prison. we want them to not be like china or vietnam, we want them to be like the united states costa rica. -- or costa rica. the idea that you are missing an opportunity, the u.s. will never miss, it is called nine miles. the island will never move anywhere in the cuban people have known for many years that the american people have been on their side -- and the cuban people have known for many years that the american people have been on their side. and now the american government is on the side of ronald castro. -- raul castro. >> the two largest protest in cuba were actually protests by entrepreneurs who were

protesting -- that is the truth. >> there was one with 500 people in the streets. >> i know you do not want to recognize entrepreneurs. if i may, it is my turn. amnesty has called for a lifting of the embargo and so as human rights watch. -- has human rights watch. it goes down to whether we want to micromanage a transition and just hope that by demanding we will do everything -- they will do everything we want and empowering civil society. civil society is not just a handful of dissidents that it really a particular policy here, it is everybody that is opposed to the government, the entire opposition movement. entrepreneurs, academics artists, anybody seeking to increase autonomy from the state. they are the folks we should be helping and that is what this policy does.

i would point out that in the end what the obama administration is hoping is that business people like you will be a will to directly invest with more help entrepreneurs -- or help entrepreneurs. >> we really should open it up to questions from you. sure. ok. >> the question is, oil prices are at a historic low right now. the way off the cuban coast because millions of dollars of damage -- drilling off the cuban coast code caused millions of dollars of damage in south florida -- could cause millions of dollars of damage in south florida. >> event companies that were

looking for oil, they drove and they did not -- drilled and they did not find commercial oil. we have talked about migration hurricanes, illegal immigrants those sorts of things. we can talk about that and we have talked about that. >> next question? >> excuse me. current policy is a lot of people that have come from cuba once they get here tuesday. -- to styay. because people can come here and be allowed to go back, we have criminal guidelines of people coming from cuba and ripping off medicare and medicaid and doing insurance fraud which leads to premiums going through the roof. i know you all do not think the

embargo should be lifted or relations changed but the cuban adjustment act be changed -- true to the cuban adjustment act be changed? -- should the cuban adjustment act be changed? >> i believe that people that break the law should go to jail. >> is the human adjustment act -- cuban adjustment act responsible for the phenomenon? >> two that i would say there is no mexican adjustment act, no salvadoran adjustment act. the cubans will continue to come unless the united states has a serious policy that if you break the law, we will go after you and unless the american government takes a look at the operations of the cuban security services here because sending $300 million to the human bank, it is not just a person -- cuban

bank, it is not just a person, it is the cuban security service. >> i think that we are very close to seeing the end of the cuban adjustment act. there is a strong feeling that just in congress but in the county commissions in miami-dade county. as far as medicare fraud, there is medicare fraud all over the united states, just not cubans are committing medicare fraud it is a crime and should be punished. but the cuban adjustment act is something that's time has passed and there is a strong sentiment in the u.s. congress and florida politicians that it is time to end and for the first time in the past couple of months we're hearing a debate about that even in the miami-dade county commission. >> next question? >> hi./

with all the demands that raul castro has made on the united states, i am just wondering has anything been said or done to try to replace the assets that our original cubans left behind when they came to the united state. many people were left penniless. >> one of the things that will have to be discussed in the long and frustrating process of normalization if we ever get there will have to be the foreign claims settlement commission there are 1600 claims that total seven or -- seven billion dollars or $8 billion for american citizens whose property was taken. there are the people who left their goods on the island because they were not allowed to leave with rings. that will be a big discussion

and has been a discussion with a lot of countries and normally you get $.10 on the dollar. that is one of the major issues to be discussed and what the hcubans will say is that you are was $100 billion because you have decided not to trade with us. we will never do that and they want guantanamo back. >> this is an interesting aspect that will affect all the cubans here. as far as the cubans properties, there were very few human properties that were actually confiscated -- cuban properties that were actually confiscated. most of the cubans abandoned the property and it is just like in florida, if you do not pay your taxes in seven years, you lose your property. that is one of the biggest debates that has never been settled in eastern europe yet.

what happens when you leave your property and you do not pay taxes for seven years? that is one thing. the other thing is that cuba has settled for an asset loans with everybody except for the united states and the reason, even though they made an offer to settle the question of u.s. property interests, it is because they wanted to settle the property interests of the confiscated of american properties at the value that the american companies reported in cuba for tax purposes. they had already got tax deductions here for 10 times what they reported the value of the taxes in cuba. and that is why cuba came to an agreement with every country in the world except for the united states because for instance a company that lost a form, a u.s. company that lost a farm, a tax deduction of $1000.

the reported the value in cuba for $100. -- may reported the value in cuba for $100. -- they reported the value in cuba for $100. >> a quick rebuttal to that point. >> i am sorry to have to say but that is the position that the cuban government promotes and the idea that cubans left their property i guess we can say to the jews that left germany, you left your property. we came with nothing. we came with five dollars in the pocket. the view that the cubans left their country, the cubans were forced out. people were imprisoned, people were executed and now you are repeating -- >> you're going to take the property from the people living

in it for 55 years? that is the same argument in eastern europe. >> you're changing the argument. >> we do need to get to other questions. >> going back to the last of the subject of the cuban adjustment, i agree with frank that criminals should be prosecuted and thrown in jail. but not having normalized diplomatic relationships, not having banking relations, of incredible restrictions makes it -- having travel restrictions makes it harder to go after these people than otherwise having these relations because if it is just cash only if we make it harder for law enforcement to go after these people, how are we going to get them? the cuban adjustment act allows this and so does the embargo. it seems very immoral at this juncture to say we are going to

close the door to everyone else trying to come here seeking a better life's though the same regime is still in power yet received this policy in place trying to destroy your economy -- we keep this policy in place trying to destroy your economy. we should revisit our legislative framework towards cuba so we can have a coherent policy to the island. if there have been enough changes to revisit the adjustment, we can revisit the embargo. >> questions from the side of the room. young lady back there. >> thank you gentlemen. i understand that raul castro as a son who serves as a captain in the cuban army and trained in russia. is he no longer being groomed for the next generation?

>> nobody really knows. i personally believe the human government wants a secession -- cuban government wants a sucession, not a transition. there were a series of cartoons saying it's possible that he was being groomed and also one or more of the five heroes, the spies that have come back could be groomed. they have gone to prison. remain firm with a regime and become heroes. i wouldn't overlook the possibility of one of the relief -- released murderers being groomed. we just have to wait and see. i think it will be a succession. he doesn't want to transition to democracy.

>> anybody else have thoughts on that? >> the changes in cuba will be generational. i truly believe that the government loves castro's sons are nephews to take over, but i don't think it's going to happen. the central committee, like i said before, or than 90% over 55 and they have their own program. >> quickly. >> when you look at cuba, you have to remember north korea. he is the brother of the dictator. and they want to stay in power indefinitely. the relationship with north korea, just a couple of years ago, cuba sent warplanes on a north korean ship that was caught in the panama canal. it is not simply raul demand' but actions well to take into account.

>> you have a question? >> thank you for being here. i agree the embargo has not worked. [inaudible] to empower themselves, that's ridiculous. i came when i was seven. my father was a doctor. they left everything. [inaudible] [applause] >> if i can address the part about the entrepreneurs. the cubans, when i was there too troubled to vietnam, malaysia, came back and told the party, economic support to their

but if they kept allowing economic inequalities that come from economic growth, they would lose political power. demand for elections and internal elections in china. he came back and said were not were not going to allow that and pass a law that they were going to penalize other illicit activities and that's when they cracked down entrepreneurs. they know if you keep the income , the $20 a month, scrounging for food every day, they won't be taking about higher-level things. that is their goal. not to allow what we want to happen because they don't want to give a political power. they've said. were not doing it. >> whenever we ask the question are we so naive to think that cubans will all of a sudden do the right thing? no one is making that argument. it is how do you change, how do

change in game so you are forcing them to open up or to take steps in the right direction? we know the name of the game for cubans is control. they are more concerned by staying in power than anything else. to be up to do that, they need to open up their economy to some degree. they can no longer depend on one sugar daddy, as was mentioned earlier as they did in previous decades. even now, they have a pivoting away from that model to training with the rest of the world -- trading with the rest of the world. they have allowed for norse to run their own businesses because they can no longer keep them on the state payroll. you have licensed entrepreneurs operating in cuba. compared to what folks make here, it is a pittance buff or a lot of them, it has been life-changing. i don't know a single entrepreneur who is satisfied

with their lot. all of the heavy-handed restrictions they have to deal with in cuba. traders there are like here, they want to grow their businesses and fight governments to get rid of unnecessary regulations to trade. and that is what different norse are doing. -- entrepreneurs are doing. they don't have a choice. in that opening, we should do everything we can to help those entrepreneurs. >> one last question from over here. this will have to be our last question. [inaudible] >> the idea behind the

policymaking is for the government to become civil independence. how many years would it take? 5? 10? we don't actually have to go back. china or vietnam. [inaudible] today, if you google china [inaudible] ultimately, the question is, if you think it is going to change your generation has to decide. [inaudible]

what has obama announced that would change cuba? ultimately, any policy should be driven by a principal of freedom and liberty or not. that is the question. >> my generation, look, plenty of people in your generation that agrees with us. after 15 years of trying the same thing, we should try something new. it hasn't worked. >> and it is not new. >> let me finish, if i may. as far as to the china is example, a very convenient one because we have these communist countries. those cultures cannot be more different from cuban culture ok? the chinese values greater harmony far more the individual rights, as a culture.

you would be hard-pressed to find a more individualist culture than the cuban. there's a reason the chinese of has not succeeded anywhere else other than asia. thinking that cuba will turn it to china or vietnam is not really based on much. we had a dissidents this week and testified in congress for -- both of them said, were not the chinese, were not vietnam. they said the cuban government cannot survive that china could survive. and so, we need to be a little bit were cognizant of the differences between those countries and these. there are many other transitions from communism to capitalist countries or totalitarian regimes two democracies that did work and did benefit from greater engagement. as far as when the changes going to occur -- this again is the

polling. look at a whole eastern bloc, former soviet countries. the -- again, thinking with the put a timetable goes back to the mindframe of trying to micromanage and this from outside instead of charging to empower the people in the ground. that is what this policy is. you're talking about freedom it's about getting the government out of the way at empowering individuals to be the agents of change. i'm sorry if you don't believe it. >> i will give you the last word very briefly. >> the present policy is empowering the cuban government and that is where the money is going. it's not going to the cuban people. [applause] as far as the other place, the u.s. government has been trying to do that by sending laptops and helping the dissidents. i know friends from china and the idea of the chinese it really do not care about freedom i think is unfair to the chinese

people. " i didn't say they didn't care about freedom. as a culture -- >> will have to leave it there. please join me in thanking this distinguished and lively panel. [applause] >> you can watch the rest of the white house daily briefing on our website, www.c-span.org. you can find a video of all the events we cover and scheduling information. >> the are some of our featured programs for this weekend. this morning starting at 10 a.m. eastern live on c-span, our nation's governors get together to discuss issues affecting their states.

guests included danny meyer and fox business news. sunday morning we continue our live coverage of the national governors association meeting. features figures include jeh johnson and epa administrator gina mccarthy. on c-span2, book tv is on the road experiencing the literary life of greensboro, north carolina. part of the cities tour. sunday at 9 p.m. eastern, wes moore retraces his career choices from combat veteran to white house fellow, wall street banker to social entrepreneur. on american history tv on c-span3, just after 7:00 tonight, the 1963 interview with malcolm x discussing race relations and opposition to racial integration.

sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern former cia chief tells the story of a husband and wife kgb husbandspy team infiltrated the cia in the 1970's. find the. us at www.c-span.org. e-mail us, call us or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its new members through its first session. new congress, best actress on c-span c-span2 c-span radio and www.c-span.org. >> next, a look at laws on gender equality during the conference at boston university.

marking the 50th anniversary of the 1964 civil rights act. topics included gender stereotyping, equal pay, and sexual harassment laws. this is one hour. >> my privilege this afternoon to introduce commissioner chai feldblum and also thank her for coming to the conference. not only coming for being here the whole time and participating the whole time and participating actively, we can all agree she is substantially enhanced the conference for doing that. i think it reflects the fact that at heart she is still a law professor dale loves ideas. -- and that it loves ideas. we can admire her career as being successful in connecting the realm of ideas to the world

something she has done pretty much since graduating from law school a couple years clerking on the first circuit. at georgetown, she founded the law centers, a federal legislative clinic which she had a number of clients that led to her being instrumental in the drafting and negotiating the american with disabilities act. and the 2008 amendments to that act as well. these are both negotiated statute and not just the drafting. and she played a role in the drafting the nondiscrimination act, which has not yet been enacted. more connected to the topic of

talking without wasting any more of her time. [applause] >> it really has been a full and amazing day and a half conference. i did in fact tells my chief of staff i wanted to clear the day and a half and so i could be here. partly because i knew i would learn as i have. currently, as a law professor i do believe in the importance of theories. so, i definitely want to thank the law school for supporting this conference, for supporting linda, and all of her work as you heard. and also to thank the members of her committee kiara and jack.

even if you are going to meetings are responding to e-mails, you are engaged helping to craft this event. finally, i have a true confession. i am on closeted c-span junkie. there it is. every office i have had since 1991 i have required a tv in the office. i turn it to c-span and that is where it states the whole day. often on mute. a little disconcerting to some of my visitors sometimes. but on a serious note, as you will see from my comments, i want to talk about how we can achieve real social change. and an important aspect of real change is an engaged citizenry and an engaged citizenry needs to have unfiltered information

that comes to them. c-span is absolutely an important component of that in our democracy. ok. so the civil rights act of 1964. obviously, as you've heard and as you know, definitely a historic piece of legislation. it is as you heard yesterday as professor wilson and today from kiera bridges, it is not a fully transformational piece of legislation because it cannot buy is on get us to full racial equality, equality on a number of fronts because until you engage with the economic issues of this country, that won't happen. nevertheless, it also plays its part in people can actually get to jobs, people of color get jobs and get promoted in their

jobs that will make a difference in their economic status. it is also, i think, a dynamic law particularly as implemented by the eeoc, equal employment opportunity commission the commission on which i serve as one of five commissioners and the commission that congress specifically chose to set up as a bipartisan commission when they passed the civil rights act of 1964, they could've had the department of justice implement the law or department of labor area instead of they created it is bipartisan commission. and i think we have taken our job seriously in terms of being responsible for implementing the law. for example, in areas of race, i believe well done really important work in terms of a reinvigorating our guidance about requiring any criminal

background screen to actually match up to the job, which is the screen is being used. you heard from kiera that the law would not protect her in terms of her cornrows and that's what the courts have decided. just this year, the eeoc filed a claim alleging that a dress code that said professional appearance means no dreadlocks no cornrows is a form of race discrimination. not only because it might be a marker of race, but because for a non-african-american, we don't have to do anything to our hair to have it be straight. and for many african-americans their hair would normally lock. that is what it does. having a cold, a dress code that said you must use something unnatural to your hair in order to work here is a form of race

discrimination. also done work in terms of english only, contesting english only, something that is often done. the reaction from congress and in terms of religion, the issues have changed since 1964. not so much that they say no jews, no muslims but dress code. with been very active in that area. for this talk, i want to focus on gender equity. one can to do everything, i will focus on gender equity. and talk about advances that have been made over the past decade at how far we have to go. i do believe that anniversaries like the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act is a particularly useful moment in which to reflect on what has happened which has been positive and what else needs to

be done. here's the framework i want to use in talking about this. a framework i started doing a number of years ago, but it resonates for me now because many other the presentations and you've heard have actually used this framework. so, the framework is that to achieve any social justice goal and he social justice outcome wonder needs three variables. love, policy and practice, and social norm. what i mean by law is the law that passed, congress or state legislatures, local ordinances, the laws a legislature has passed. the way in which that a law has been applied in interpreting by an agency charged with implementing the law.

regulations and guidance. and courts that have been applied that law, those regulations and guidance to particular cases. in other words, lots of words. all part of law. policies in practice, i mean how and whether the words of the law , regulations, case decisions have actually been absorbed into this and use of an organization that is regulated by that. requirements of the law, truly reflected in the daily ordinary practices of their organization? or are they primarily words? by social norms, i mean what the majority of people feel and think about social justice outcome being pursued. until one gets to the tipping

point of where more than a majority of the people significant a majority of the people believe in their hearts and minds that the social justice outcome being pursued is actually a good social outcome. it will never be achieved. and these three elements of synergistic's, interrelated, always a dynamic dancing going on between them. for example, assume the social justice outcome of being sought is equity in the workplace. we often need a law in order to get employers to put policies in practice in their workplaces to stop the discrimination. both the signaling the social message of the law and the policies and practice might themselves change social norms.

what workers believe in their hearts in my about how they should act. as social norms change, that they may both the laws and policies work more effectively because suddenly employers are able to understand the law that are and comply with it more effectively and coworkers will begin to accept the social norms and view them as the appropriate norms to follow. you know, i was just a few days ago speaking at a keynote panel so we spoke right of after justice scalia. richard epstein was on the panel and i was making this point in terms of these variables and then his comments he said, you know, if you want to change a social norm, the worst thing to do is pass a law. i was like ok, that's not

exactly what i said. what i said is if you want to achieve a social justice outcome , you need certain variables. social norms are one of those variables but not the law will legislate social norms. often, you need some change to get at the law enacted as a political manner. law is one component of achieving that social norm and it can actually be an interactive synergistic component to helping their social norm be adapted. let's think about that framework in the context of the antidiscrimination provision based on sex that is included of the civil rights act of 1964. as many of you may know, the civil rights act did not include a sex discrimination prohibition only employment on the basis of race, color, national religion,

and -- the myth had risen that congress had never dealt or even thought about the issue of sex discrimination and was added to title vii on the house floor by a congressman who simply wanted to kill the bill. there are some elements of truth in this story but mostly is completely wrong. and serena alluded to yesterday. by the way, when i tried to track down the first time it came up, i found it, i think a paragraph in a harvard law review in a symposium where there was one paragraph that simply said this in reference the one woman member of congress, who was opposing it. any of you working in law seeing what you write, it doesn't matter.

so, the reality is that congress had been having the debate about sex discrimination for over 40 years at that point. right now, it had not been in the context of the debate or in the context of an employment law that would govern private employers. it had been in the context of whether to ask and equal rights amendment. and the national women's party had been pushing since the 1920's. by the 1940's, the language of the proposed amendment read as follows, in of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. that amendment is adopted and what is meant there could be no federal law and no state law that denied or abridged equality of rights on account of sex. as you all know, and the e.r.a.

was not passed until many years later and not ratified by the states. the reason for non-passage of the e.r.a. was that in 1950, varies women's groups and unions prevails on congress to add a second sentence. the second sentence said "the provision of this article shall not be construed to impair any right, benefit, or exemption conferred by law upon persons of the female sex." the first part said no law may take sex into account in the second sentence said yes, laws can take sex into account is a confirmed or exemptions to women. what was going on here? a combination of practical politics and social norms. as a matter of social norm, the assumption was that women were really different than men

because their true job was to be wives and mothers. not to be workers in the labor market. as a practical political matter, unions and women's groups have successfully gotten labor laws enacted in a number of state a very importantly, upheld against constitutional challenges by having those laws protect only women on the grounds that women were different than men. for example, laws enacted that what a limit on the maximum number of hours that women could work or required premium overtime pay just for women because women were different from men and their real jobs were to be wives and mothers and these laws would help them do that. these groups did not want an e.r.a. that would invalidate the loss and a national women's party had no interest in the

e.r.a. if it included the second sentence. 13 years later in 1960 three, title vii is introduced, no sex discrimination provision. the national women's party sought it as an opportunity let's get a sex discrimination prohibition added. them and a congressman who opposed the civil rights, he was a congressman who had been introduced in the e.r.a. into the house for the past number of years. as a political matter, they assumed he might bring along votes of other members of congress like smith who oppose the bill and hope it would be the poison. but, at least a number of members voted to add sex because they felt it was the right thing to do. 11 out of the 12 then women members of congress, 11 out of

the 12 voted to add the sex discrimination prohibition in area -- in. serena yesterday and in her book does an excellent job of unpacking and building on the work of other scholars, the total racist rationale that was used. if you pass this without gender, it means white women will have less protection than black men and women and how horrible wouldn't that be? the reason is stated in was because of the work of explaining no, it was essential to keep gender in to help african-american women. here's the interesting thing. the words became part of the law. because social norms were not out of place, men and women were

considered to be the same at least for employment policy purposes. the eoc chart with enforcing the law and subsequently found it hard to accept title vii's prohibition on sex discrimination at face value. here is an example. september 1965, a few months after the eoc opened their doors , the commission announced his position that the sex segregated advertisement would not -- was not a violation of title vii. the general practice was to have male and female and the help wanted section of the papers area that was a thing called newspapers in print. there was a list of jobs under men wanted when -- women

wanted. the eoc decided this practice did not violate title vii because the personal inclination of men and women was such a that many job categories were primarily of interest to only to men and women. segregating advertisements was simply helping applicants find a job they were looking for anyway. now, eoc explain if a woman apply for a job under the men wanted column or a man under women only, the law prohibited an employer for not hiring a person based on sex. the ad themselves were fine. when the first articles i read that really -- one of the first articles i read there really laid it out was from kerry by texas and i remain indebted to her for that. i went back and read katherine frankie and mary in case'-- mary andne case's articles.

it's so outraged women's organizations a found it -- they founded a reaction. if you go to the website and go under history, they will explain. the eoc emerged as a leader of shaping sex discrimination. the -- how could the eoc do that? through commissioned decisions it did not have real strong enforcement of authority but it did have the requirement of taking charges and investigating and seeing if they thought there was reasonable cause. in the early years of the eoc, those decisions were all issued by the commission. they all came up to the commission, the back of the investigation and the commission issued decisions explaining why

there was cause are not caused to believe discrimination occurred. all of these were confidential and the statutes could not be disclosed in the name of the charging party or respondent. it was actually used by courts in figure out what title vii should mean. we use commission decisions and issued guidance to explain our review of the law and heard congress could not give us in title vii the authority to issue substantive, only procedural regulations. obviously, it was no prohibition and gathering the things we said in various decisions and putting that out and guidance, which is commission has been doing since that time. finally, once the eoc got litigation of authority, the oc pull forth its view of the law. for example, the eoc said toward

a preposition such as if sector's coronation, if an employer want higher to marry mehran -- married women but will hire married man, if an employer will not hire women with young children below school age but will hire me in with below school age children. these propositions might seem obvious now as they were very contested at the time. for example with regards to an employer's rule it were not hire women with children in a case that was one of the first taken to the supreme court wouldn't hire women with school children but man and the court ruled it cannot be sex discrimination. the panel said it could imagine that members of congress would be so irrational, so removed

from common sense to believe there was no difference between me and with young children and women with young children. whatever it was, it was not sex discrimination. now, the supreme court rules -- reverse that rolling. -- ruling. you also heard him panel, it might be a bona fide qualification not to have women with young children and left that to the courts to decide and act fully partly because legislation that was brought. not all commissioned decisions of sex discrimination were positive. in the 1970's, transgendered employees and gay employees brought charges to the commission. you have someone who had been living at a man and working as a man for 20 years and she transitions and is now a woman in gets fired.

she thinks, it feels i sex discrimination to me. cost the commission and the commission said, whatever it is, is not sex discrimination. is based on an operation. it is not sex discrimination. the same thing when a gay charging parties came. the eoc said that his sexual orientation discrimination not sex discrimination. it burns the myth that congress wasn't really thinking about this. -- brings the myth the eoc was once a rail leader in arguing that sex stereotyping , assumptions about how men or women would act on a job therefore by making me in a better for some jobs and women better for others. and how men and women should act in a job cannot be a legitimate basis for employment decisions. in 1989, 25 years after passage

of title seven, the supreme court, acting on gender stereotyping is a form a sex discrimination. in that case, the court concluded that if an employer acted only gender stereotype, that women should not be too macho or aggressive, that meant the employer was inappropriately taking sex into account. and as the supreme court said, "gender must be irrelevant to employment decision." gender must be irrelevant to employment decision. this may seem like a simple sentence. if you actually read all of the pages in one sitting like i did and read back, you realize how momentous a sentence it was. for two decades, the courts had been twisting themselves into

pretzels not to accept this plane a meaning of the word, you can't take sex into account just like you can't take race into account. where are we now? is it all over? has sex and gender become irrelevant in the workplace? not. newsflash. kind of mind blowing how much it is not over. so, i want to highlight a few areas where we are not where we should be an offer some ideas of moving forward. first, sexual harassment. the amount of sexual harassment that is still going on in our workplaces is truly horrific. it is something i did -- the understand until i became a commissioner at the eoc. in a lot of professional settings, settings in which we

in our colleagues operate, yes, there are some sexual harassment. it is not at this almost horrific -- almost endemic amount. i was just see case after case of sexual harassment. often in restaurants, retail stores where these were young women and their first job and there were subjected to the sexual harassment or women and nontraditional male-dominated jobs. immigrant and migrant workers. now, from my perspective, we need a creative multipronged campaign to stop this epidemic. law is a critical variable in the campaign absolutely, it can make employers take notice and put those processes in place. but the law on is on will never do this work.

to eradicate sexual harassment, government must work in partnership with businesses and advocacy groups to develop a proactive and creative strategy that will ultimately change the social norms. change what is truly experienced and believed and acted upon in the workplace. change it so that a man knows it is not ok to sexually harass a woman in the workplace. women know it is not ok. that happens too to sexually harass men. it has to be a multipronged, creative strategy. to accommodations to pregnant workers. early on, the commission concluded that if an employee discriminates against pregnancy that is a form of sex discrimination. another radical concept. the supreme court disagreed and

in the dance that occurred congress disagreed with the supreme court and pass the pregnancy discrimination act. it amended title vii to use a yes, sex includes argosy and a pregnant employee must be treated the same as other employees similar in their ability or inability to work. here is the reality today. there are pregnant workers across the country who need accommodations to stay on the job. we have tons of employers today who will give male or female employees who have been injured on the job, have a disability and accommodation of modified job duties. if they have a lifting restriction and might change the duties on a temporary basis. but those employers will not give the same accommodations to pregnant women despite the plain

language. well, this past june as you heard, the oc issued a new guidance as requiring equal accommodations in such situations. this approach we took is different from the five other circuit courts of appeals level rules on this. we as the agency, we would have to be dealing with that law, but as an agency, we have responsibility and authority to say what we think that the law requires and asked what we put out in our guidance. as you heard in the case of young versus ups, the supreme court will decide and i certainly hope that they agree with eoc and if they do, that would have an effect and practical policies on the ground. which will ultimately help primarily lower income women who are working in manual jobs.

as an interesting twist on how litigation can itself affect policy, ups announced in its brief that it had changed its policy and it was now going to accommodate pregnant women. they made it clear they were not required to do so under the law. they still wanted to say that were not liable before. but look at the effect to a company as a reputational matter to make a quick -- to make it known they are not discriminated. pay equity, a huge issue. some of the pay disparity comes from leighton discrimination. i have seen a bunch of these cases as of the eoc and we need to fight the that straight on. a lot of the disparities due to

the significant segregation that exists in our workplaces. research shows that female dominated occupations pay less than male-dominated occupations given the same skill. you might have the same skill needed for job mel dominated job -- male-dominated jobs will pay more. do you know how much gender segregation, job segregation still exist in this country? not so much in the professional fields, you don't see it. 40% of women in this country work in jobs that a female -- that are female dominated, more than 70% other people are women. more than 40% of men work in jobs that are male-dominated. 70% of the men and the occupation army in. well, wages are being skewed.

from my perspective, changing the occupational segregation requires an overall multipronged strategic plan. a fair amount on the job segregation is the result of choices that men and women make and deciding which jobs to take. so one has to use more than law to a dress it. law, absolutely a critical component. well brought cases where women are clearly not even hired. we have brought cases it is rampant sexual harassment. obviously, law is critical. it has to be more than that. it has to be in overall educational campaign and it needs to be, even things like the american job centers that gets millions of dollars from the federal government, they get the same credit, no matter what

job they find for people. if they're moving women into retail jobs and men into welding jobs because that is actually easier, they get the same credit. what about requiring they actually think can i give more skills training to these women and open up for them the idea that maybe they want to do this other job? these are a few of the issues we are working on now. i want to conclude with a discussion of a final issue that doesn't require a multipronged plan. that's what a discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is sex discrimination and therefore currently prohibited by title vii. now, as you heard, i was one of the original drafters of the employment nondiscrimination act in 1993. students in the room might want to know it was written off as a

law school exam because i'd been hired as a consultant to work and there was a meeting the next day and i knew, i do not know if they had developed paper but i knew the best way to assess a meeting is to come in with paper. i had in my computer an example -- an exam for legislation class and had a bunch of mistakes. i went in and fix the mistakes and printed it out and that's what i brought. here's the thing. it is what i call a funny thing happened of nda. i often say i don't have kids. i have lost. lost -- laws have lots of peers and off the more than nine months. but in a way what happened with

nda, we discover it was an older sibling that had been overlooked. not understood in terms of what is prohibited. and so the first case in the development was the one you heard about saying you cannot act on the basis of gender stereotyping and justice scalia writing said, the 1964 congress -- i'm sorry. that's the gender stereotyping. the next case of about 10 years later dealing with same-sex sexual harassment, justice scalia writing for a unanimous court said yes, you can show it is because of sex and same-sex sexual harassment is covered. the 1964 congress was not thinking about that. so after, transgendered folks

started bringing cases are doing gender stereotyping. some courts started to adopt a those. the six and 11 circuit and in 2012, the eoc issued an opinion in a case versus macy's versus the justice department where we held discrimination based on being -- we have authority in the federal sector is applicable to federal jobs or employees and this was a federal sector opinion. in one respect, we were catching up to the court, explaining hey it's a form of a gender stereotyping if you think someone who has been designated as mail at birth should not transmission at -- transition as a woman, that is gender stereotyping. which we thought was important

was to go back to the underlying point, which was if an employer ask on a base of a gender stereotype, that's evidence that gender has been taken into account. is not that gender stereotyping is free cause of action but evident that gender has been taken into account. if you can show directly that gender has been taken into account, that establishes the violation. we said may seem as the name of the complainant, she should call -- it can show that she did not get the job she applied to issue was a man and she said she shall does a woman and the job disappeared. nukes that it was because of a gender stereotype or gender had been taken into account. -- you could say it was because of a gender stereotype or gender had been taken into account.

does this gender had been taken into account? the same has been happening with regards to the coverage of sexual orientation discrimination under section seven. the eoc has been more of a leader very much like the early years when they eoc was setting forth the laws. because price, -- for -- a number courts started protecting gay men and lesbians who fit some stereotype of what it meant to be gay. if a man seem to effeminate and a wanted to masculine and epithets that indicated that that is what it was based on, those folks would be covered under gender stereotyping. if they could improve that and just because they were gay, the courts would say, that's not covered because sexual

orientation is not listed in title seven and they would bootstrap all gay people and that can't be the case. was a eoc started doing in cases issue in 2011 and in 2014, a case the commission voted on, a lot of these cases, delegated authority and they have issued the opinions. also a gender stereotype to thing a man should marry a woman as a host to a man. or a woman should be sexually involved with men and not women. -- a man should marry a woman and not a man. we had cases where a coworker harassed a worker because they found out they were going to marry a man. acting on this gender stereotype , of whom a man should marry. you can say that gender stereotyping would not have helped a lesbian like me.

how many of you who do not know me thought when i stood up here, that must be the first openly lesbian commissioner of the eeoc? when i say this to the audience all of them last, some of them -- last, some of them nervously. that's because i don't violate some of the gender stereotypes but i violate the most underlying gender stereotype. the course have now begun to pick it up. there was a motion to dismiss a case and it was a gay man claiming discrimination, motion to dismiss and the court said, it sounds like the person is arguing gender stereotyping. the supervisor did not think he was acting as a man should act. is also the plain language theory which is, if i come in

and i say my partner, my partner and they think i'm talking about a guy and then have a picture and i have a picture of my spouse issues a woman. suddenly, that's a problem. that's because of sex. and was interesting in terms of the bootstrapping argument, the courts have no trouble figuring out an interracial couple. if i was a woman and said my boyfriend, my boyfriend and my supervisor is imagining a white guy is imagining a white guy and suddenly a black guy walked in and i get harassed on that basis the course have not had any trouble saying that is taking race into account. the course and then say, oh, my god, that would cover a whole new category of people. instead of just men or women now women, white women dating black men and as a different category. it is the application of race. in a case that came out a few

months ago hall, there was a guy who got married to his husband asked for health insurance they didn't get it. he said five marry a woman, i will get insurance. the employer put the classic line that sexual orientation is not covered under title vii. the court denied summary judgment. reading the complaint and is said if i was a man married to a woman, i will get health insurance. i am a man married to a man and i don't and that sex discrimination. the court said i do not see anything about sexual orientation. it was not about sexual orientation -- of course. it is just now that social norms have changed, the legal logic was always there. now, social logic has changed.

in a way, social logic, cultural logic had to change the for legal logic could prevail and courts could see the words in front of them. last piece because i want to leave time for questions. lets mix included with this. 50 years ago, congress passed title vii. and set us off on a journey in which sex would not be taken into account in the workplace just as race, religion, national origin color would not be permitted to be taken into account. the journey has not been a simple one and it is not over yet. over time, the law has been understood to cover many forms of discrimination that in the 1964 congress could not have anticipated. it has generated policies on the ground to have advanced gender equity and the law has both shaped and been shipped by

social norms. we all need to remain part of this great journey. and to do our bit in bringing complete equity to our places. thank you so much for your attention. your engagement and your scholarship. all of it makes a huge difference. thank you so much. [applause] >> ok, if there are questions, you will have to come toy microphone -- come to a microphone. just come to this >> thank you for that address. want to go talk -- i want to go back to the talk from yesterday. we were talking about the debate over the 19 to do for act and whether it will succeed, you saw

different people saying, at least eventually it might reach hearts and minds. i welcome hearing a little bit more about your vision of the interplay of these things and how the element of hearts and minds and getting people on board, with those social norms. >> you can imagine, i think it really reflected, if you have not changed hearts and minds to some extent, you are not going to get a law passed. people have to feel that there is a problem. if they do not feel it is a problem like people with green eyes not getting jobs, people who tell bad jokes could get fired, if the employer doesn't like the jokes, they have to believe that something is problematic going on in society. that the democracy should respond to it. the backdrop is absolutely, at

will appointment. some mindsets have changed. but, not all of them. representative democracy means it meant 60 votes. it has always meant 60 votes in the senate for a bill. and i do think that we need to accept that we cannot, literally cannot, not only can we as a government not legislate morality or beliefs, we can to philly legend -- definitely legislate on what is right and wrong, we should not be legislating beliefs. that is the essence of a religious protection. he cannot tell someone that they have to stop believing something. but, we can send a signal through legislation of what we think is wrong and then we can

say, you have to act in accordance with this unless there is an exemption that we put in for you. and then i think ultimately it will change social norms. you need to get to a mike -- mic. >> thank you for the really terrific talk. i have two questions. the first, it has to do with the beginning when you are talking about the story and the role of title vii with sex discrimination, i kept waiting for you to talk about sexual harassment, because my view has been, as a legal matter, the creation of the legal norm against sexual harassment was remarkable coming out of the supreme court. it didn't have a lot of support in a lane which of the law.

but you are telling it as a pessimistic story because of the social norm. so, i guess, i am wondering if i am reading you accurately or is there something problematic about the law? the second one is what has been very interesting is talking about all these guidances that you issue. a lot of people tell the story that the problem with the eeoc is that they don't get any -- they cannot issue anything that is finding. i wondered your attitude is you are freer because you cannot issue binding roles but guidances that will have whatever social affect they possibly can have and you will not have the same controversy and resistance if you are doing binding rulemaking. >> on the first one, no, it is not that i would want to downplay the legal development around sexual-harassment, it is just that i already feel like i

spoke exactly about 10 minutes too long. you know when there is that moment, flagging a little? is the audience, not me. i am just going. that is the main reason. i think why the supreme court accepted it is that the eoc had found that sexual harassment was sex determination and had put that in the guidelines. the guidelines we have not updated since like 1970 nine or something. we did put that out there for notice and comment. i think it helped that there was an agency that spelled it out that there were some courts below that had accepted it. even though it is not inherently in the plaintext, but you can get to it, that it is because of that the courts got all caught up because you have to show designer when it really is not about that, it is about power. i do think that is a positive story just like i think there

are a lot of other positive stories about how the words were interpreted. but to me, part of when i came up with this idea of laws, policies and practices, one thing that drove he was the sexy rosman story that i was seeing. the law is pretty clear. -- the sexual-harassment story i was seeing. the law is pretty clear. every big employer has a policy. they have training. they have all this stuff, and yet, it is like it does not trickle down to some supervisors , coworker. you know? it is not that they want to pay the money. that is why i think it is a partnership between the government and businesses. the national restaurant association, inadmissibility -- in advocacy groups.

one of my colleagues on the commission, we have done a lot of things together, we really wanted to make it clear and a strategic plan that we were talking about the systemic harassment that we wanted an educational campaign not just more litigation. it has not necessarily been understood in that way, but we are still fighting for that. on the guidances, i think someone reference this yesterday, when the court decides a result that is actually in line with what the eoc has said one of its guidances, it will always say there is no chevron deference, but this is the agency charged with implementing the law, they have this expertise, we think this makes sense. and then when they come to a result that it is opposite from what the eoc said, they say well, you know they do not have power to issue regulations.

so in that respect, i actually think that the guidance almost does as much as regulation, potentially. you know, right now with the rise of the office of management and budget, which reviews regulations, i think the biggest issue that agencies have with regulations is not only the notice and commentary, but getting through the white house' s office of management and budget. i think that a fair number of agencies ends up moving to guidances. we have together pushed for putting out guidances for public input. the agency has never done that. and they do not want to do that because they feel it will slow things down. to me, i often say look, i

think we are smart, but we are not that smart. right? might there not be some benefit of putting out what we say in our guidance and get input? it raises it as a political matter. i totally get that. i have been doing politics my whole life. here is the thing. i am an optimist about politics, this site all signs of the contrary. -- despite all signs of the contrary. i believe democracy is the best way to go and that includes reaching out to the people. ok, i think we have time for one more question. you are going to get the mic to you. >> thank you. ok, so i wanted to ask a question about pay. i think it is great that it is back on the agenda and on the eoc's agenda. one of the biggest areas i have

always thought to bring more pay quality is the lack of information that people have especially in the private sector. i have actually always discounted the economic studies and so forth that suggest that there is not straight out equal play violations. and that the real problem is equity problem. i do not think people know, if you work for a private employer many of them have rules that you can get fired if you discuss pay with their coworkers so i do not think women know, for example, what their pay is relative to the mail's. -- male's. you can file a request to find out pay if you need to, but i always thought the biggest thing that the eoc could do is to mandate pay information and reported to the commission at a minimum the same way the

reporting of job category and hiring is required. i was wondering if you had thought about that or why it has not been done and so forth. >> that is actually a great question to end on for a talk on gender equity. i am glad you brought up that there is, you believe in said why, there is a fair amount of straight out equal play violations. i may have given it a short trip, but i wanted to say that we bring those cases. we seen those cases. a real area is that people do not know what there. . -- people do not know what their pay is. they have been making it very clear that under the national regulation act, even in a nonunionized setting, people are getting together and talking about conditions which includes wages.

they cannot then be disciplined terminated, you know? that is real protection in every workplace. i also believe that in terms of just sex discrimination, if someone asked about pay issues and then is retaliated against for doing that, how was that not a form of sex this permission? again, a lot of women will not do that because they have been told the policy is that you cannot discuss. a policy that just says you cannot discuss without making it clear what the outcome would be if you did, you know, doesn't have the straight out violations. but a lot of them do not. i do think it is important to be able to collect data. as you know, and others may not, under the equal pay act, we do have the authority to do direct investigations. unlike title vii where we have to have a charge come to us, or

my collies can issue commission charges if we hear about discrimination, under equal pay we can do direct investigations and that is often how we get it. i think it is an open question of law as to whether we are permitted, just under our current authority, to stay in your eeo one reports you have to give us pay data. along those lines, we commissioned a study from the national academy of science two years ago to say, if we did decide to collect pay data and we indicate that we have that authority, what payday do you recommend we collect and how should we collect? that came in some time ago. we have not done anything with it yet. i have to say that one of the things i learned when i came to the commission and federal government, things move a little more slowly than i would like.

practically a different world. i felt like i should have gotten a passport and a dictionary when i came to the government. it is also why i decided to give up my tenure at georgetown and stated the commission for a second term because there were things we had started that just needed more time. so, stay tuned for the next three years and i hope the commission continues to be acting in as much of a bipartisan way alice we had over the last four years. you know, civil rights should not be a partisan issue. thank you. [applause] >> on the next "washington journal" the recent growth in subprime lending. policy issues facing the u.s. state. washington journal as a live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern

on c-span. >> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its new members to its first session. new congress, best actress, on c-span c-span two, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> president obama spoke at the democratic national committee's winter meeting in washington today about the u.s. economic recovery. and republican outreach to middle-class voters. his remarks were half an hour. [applause] president obama: hello democrats. [applause] president obama: good to see all of you. they to see you.

this looks like a rowdy crowd. you know? you all have to watch out for donna. she will get you in trouble. everybody have a seat. have a seat. i love you, guys. i want to thank scholz for being an outstanding share of our party. [applause] she is a great partner. i want to thank our ceo for the hard work she is doing day in and day out. [applause] to the governors and the legislators, mayors, state party leaders, dnc members officers and whoever else is here, young democrats, i am thrilled to be

with you. most importantly, thank you to every american in all 50 states who helps our party thrive at the grassroots level every single day. because that is part of who we are. grassroots. it has been about a year since our last meeting and i have indicated, it was a breakthrough year for america. lastly, our economy created more than 3 million new jobs. the single best year for job growth since the 1990's. [applause] over the past five years the longest stretch of private job sector job creations in american history. adding nearly 12 million new jobs.

in perhaps the single most hopeful sign for middle-class families in a very long time wages are beginning to rise again. so america is coming back. we have risen from the recession and we have the capacity to write our own future. we are in a better position than any other nation on earth. all of that is thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of the american people, who we serve. it is also thanks to the values and policies at the core of this party that all of you have fought for. as the democrats we believe in giving every child a world-class education. today, are younger students have earned the highest math and reading scores on record. our high school graduation rate is at an all-time high and more americans are graduating from college and ever before. as democrats we believe in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and protecting our planet. today, america's number one in

oil, gas, and wind power. every three weeks we bring a line as much solar power as we did in the entire year of 2008. and thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards, the typical family should save about $750 at the, this year. -- $750 at the pomp this year. as democrats we believe in sensible rules that could prevent financial crisis and shield families from ruin. and encourage fair competition. today, we have new tools to stop tax payer funded bailouts. a new consumer watchdog to protect families from predatory lending. a new law to protect families from getting ripped off by credit card companies read we have extended the security and fundamental rights to affordable accessible health care to more than 10,000 uninsured americans.

folks are signing up and benefiting because of what we fought for. [applause] because of what we fought for. [applause] because of what you fought for. now, sometimes because the new cycle is so quick, we forget how all of this came about and the debates that we had last year two years, four years, or six ears ago. i just want everybody to remember that at every step as he made these policies and made this progress, we were told by our good friends, the republicans, that our actions will crush us and explode deficits and destroy the country.

i want everybody to do a fact check. [laughter] go back 2009, 2000 10, 2011, 2012 and look at the statements that were made each year about all of these policies. apparently, they do not remember. [laughter] but the facts are before us. the economy kept growing. the stock market has more than doubled, restoring the 401(k) to millions of people. our deficits are down by two thirds. [applause] i always find it curious when a democrat is president, deficits go down. a republican is president and deficits are going up and yet

they tried to take on the manner of fiscal probity. [applause] our auto industry is firing on all cylinders. none of this is an accident. it is not an accident that america is creating jobs faster than the last time a democratic president. it is not an accident that our manufacturers are creating a job since the first time since the last time there was a democratic president. it is not an accident that health care inflation is running up the lowest rate in the last 50 years and i deficits are falling faster it may have been 60 years. to our. it is because we believe in middle class economics. we believe in the idea that this country does best when everybody gets a fair share. everybody is doing their fair share. everybody has to play by the same rules.

not top-down economics, not trickle down economics. if we were to actually look at the evidence, it is pretty clear who knows how to grow the economy and make sure the american people are prospering. which clearly works? >> democrats. president obama: we know they're there and cannot work, we remember. expanding opportunity, that works. [applause] i say all this not to be complacent but precisely because we do have more work to do. our job is not done. we still have a lot of progress to make to ensure that prosperity reaches everybody who goes to work early or study late into the night who was scrimping and saving from every paycheck to try and send their kids to college or try to retire with dignity and respect.

everybody who has the privilege of serving the american people have to ask him or herself, a fundamental question. are we going to accept an economy were only few of us do spectacularly well or will we build an economy that generates thriving incomes and opportunities for everybody who was willing to work hard? everybody who is willing to make an effort? [applause] that is the question that we face at this moment. and now that there grand predictions of doom, death panels, and armageddon have not come true. the sky hasn't falling, chicken little is quiet. [laughter] the new plan apparently and this is progress, the new plan is to rebrand themselves as the party of the middle class. i am not making this up.

i republican leader in the senate is coming in after having tried to block every single thing to strengthen the economy start looking at the job number and says, you know, it is getting better because we just got elected. and the people are feeling more optimistic. [laughter] ok? i did not know that was how the economy works, but maybe? we will call some economists? [laughter] we have a republican congresswoman who said she could not agree with the more that we need to be helping working moms and dads. that is good, that is progress. one republican senator said that the republicans must define themselves as the party of the american worker and the party of higher wages. that is good. i am glad they feel that way. rand paul, he is an interesting

guy -- [laughter] no, he is. rand paul said the republican party needs to show up on the south side of chicago and shop at the top of its lungs that the gop is the ticket to the middle class. i think that is encouraging that he wants to go to the southside of chicago. [laughter] i want parties to compete everywhere. that is a good thing. i was just home on the southside of chicago yesterday. [applause] and i guarantee you that senator paul would be welcome there. we are a friendly bunch. it is strange if people show up and start shouting at the top of their lungs, but we are friendly and it would be ok. [laughter] but i will say this, i am

encouraged that they are speaking about middle-class and speaking about wages, but there is this old saying that you can't just talk the talk. donna? you got to do what? you've got to walk the walk. we have been walking the walk. and if republicans are serious about taking on the specific challenges that face the middle class, if they are prepared to walk the walk, we should welcome them. i will welcome their ideas. there is nothing i would like more than an opposition party that is willing to engage with us and work with us on these issues. maybe they have different ideas

but genuine ideas about how young people can go to college or how we can make sure workers are getting raises when the ceo of the company has seen their compensation go up 50% or 100%. if they have got concrete ideas on these issues, i want to do them. i have been saying that to them since i came into office. but so far, the rhetoric has not matched the reality. if you want to help working moms and dads, you cannot just dismiss things like child care and paid leave. work with us to treat them like economic priorities that working families know they are. [applause] if you want to be the party of higher wages, come along, join the dozens of cities and states

and companies like the gap, and now walmart. raising wages. not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is good for business. don't stand in the way, and you have got votes in congress. you have the votes in the house the senate work with us, join the rest of the country, give america a raise. let's go! let's go! [applause] i am ready. i am ready. [applause] if you are serious, if you are really troubled with income and the inequality then you cannot put forward proposals that give more tax breaks to the folks who are doing the best and millionaires and billionaires and then propose more cuts to the very programs that help working americans get ahead.

if you want to be the party that is paving the way for people to get into the middle class, a good way to start is stop trying to strip health insurance for millions of americans. and prevent contraceptive care for millions of women and stop trying to deport millions of striving young kids who just want to earn their shot at the american dream like the rest of us. help us fix a a broken immigration system. there are lots of ways to help the middle class. [applause] so look, i think the shift in rhetoric that they are engaging and is good if it actually leads them to take different actions.

if it doesn't, then it is just spent. and the dozen, if you are -- if it doesn't, if you are just trying to repackage topped economics and use the word middle-class attached to it, if you are just going to not raise minimum wages for those who are struggling, then it is just spent. you are trying to bamboozle folks. looking backward is not the answer. we have got to look forward. all of us as americans. democrats, we have got to be the party that recognizes and response to what americans really face in a 21st-century economy. it is very specific. we detail it. this is what we're going to do.

this is how we are going to help middle-class folks striving together in the middle class. we want to offer young people a stronger shot. we went to work to make sure families have more security in the world of constant change. so we list out how we are going to help folks afford college and how we are going to provide health insurance to those who do not have it. we talk about how we can help a young family buy a home or a family entering into middle age retirement that they can count on. that means we have to stop treating things like child care as side issues or women's issues. we have to treat them as economic priorities. it means we have to stand up for unions. [applause] it means that we've got to make sure that women are earning what men do for doing the same job. it means we support a fair

living wage. we're very specific about how we want to help ordinary folks. >> woo! woo! [applause] president obama: >> when we talk about helping people earn higher wages and better skills, we put forward specific programs. here's more opportunities for job trainings. here are apprenticeship programs that give workers a chance to earn higher-paying jobs even if they don't have a higher education. here is how we're going to help americans burdened with student loans reduce their monthly payments. [applause] here's how we're going to make community college free for every responsible student who wants to improve their lot in life. here's our program. what's yours? [applause] tell us how you're helping middle class families, because we've got an agenda. and we know it works. [applause] don't just talk about it. we know middle class economics

means we've got to have the most competitive economy in the world. so we're very clear. here's how we're going to help businesses churn out good jobs for americans to fill. and that means working to build a modern transportation and communications system. it means helping more companies sell goods overseas, with strong new trade agreements that aren't just free but fair and level the playing field for american workers. it means investing in the research and technology that unleashes new jobs and new industries right here in america. we're very clear and specific. it's right there, about how we can do it. and we know it works, because we've seen it work before. we know middle class economics means getting rid of special interest giveaways in our tax code for folks who don't need them, so we can actually give tax breaks to middle class families who do need them. >> yes. president obama: we know if we close loop