started at 3 p.m. yesterday afternoon. prior to that, we were taking preliminary action to prepare the state if violence did take place, if the city did ask us for the assistance. we had activated our i had already talked to the national guard. i'd already been in communication with the white house. we had been in ongoing communication on a daily basis with the mayor. this violence started i think about 3:00 yesterday afternoon. we were in constant communication. finally i believe around 6:00 the mayor said -- requested us to bring in the national guard and declare a state of emergency. we did so immediately because we had already prepared the order the week before. we already had called up and the national guard had already been put on alert. they were ready to act. the emergency command center was already activated. we had representatives from state agencies. we had already called local police and fire, other services throughout the state.

it was about 30 seconds before we completely activated all of the resources we had to bear. it's been now less than 24 hours. you see we have a couple thousand more people on the streets in baltimore. to my knowledge there's been no incidents. this morning we're still concerned what might happen this evening. we're continuing to bring more people in from around the state and around the country. we're going to put as much manpower and as many resources we can to make sure that we do not have that kind of situation. reporter: you did nothing until the -- you could do nothing until the mayor made a phone call? governor hogan: no. what i told you is we had been working all week and called up the national guard. we already activated the emergency command center and when the mayor requested we brought them in. reporter: between 3:00 and 6:00 yesterday, you could do nothing? governor hogan: we did quite a bit but we waited until the mayor asked for us to come in.

we didn't think it was appropriate to come in and take over the city without the request of the mayor. reporter: who's ultimately to blame? governor hogan: well, i don't want to place any blame. i want to focus -- our response has been incredible. as i said we acted instantaneous. i'm proud of the effort by all of the state and the local partners have been working together. reporter: does this qualify, do you think, or do you seek disaster relief? governor hogan: our folks are in communication with the federal government. i plan to talk with the president a little bit later. we're going to make sure we provide all the assistance from the federal, state and local level. we toured businesses that were burned and looted. we've met with citizens who've -- lost their homes. we've talked -- we had a cabinet meeting before the community leader meeting. our insurance commissioner already started a rapid response who has insurance.

we talked to the small business administration about financial assistance for folks that do not have insurance. whatever resources are necessary from the federal, state and local level we will provide. reporter: governor, can you talk a little bit about the immediate needs in the community over the next 48 and 72 hours and what will your department bring to bear? governor hogan: our immediate thing is to bring calm and peace. i think we're well under way of getting that accomplished. there are no more fires burning. there are no more looting going on. you see a tremendous presence on the streets now which we didn't see yesterday. there's also issues like emergency housing which we're providing from both the department of human resources and the housing agency. there's financial assistance. we activated 2,000 volunteers through the governor's office of community initiatives from around the state. we're asking for volunteers and donations. we've been in communication with other states to bring in resources. governor christie in new jersey

has agreed to send in 150 new jersey state troopers and a lot of assets to help us. the guard is calling up another 1,000 who will be here by tonight. and we're going to make sure that the city is brought back to peace. reporter: how many assets are here now? governor hogan: we have a couple thousand new police officers and guard on the street currently and is going to continue to grow. we'll put as many as we need. reporter: governor, some of these community leaders last week asked for long-term help for systemic problems in baltimore jobs programs. what are you trying to do to help the systemic problems in baltimore? governor hogan: we sent the lieutenant governor and kieffer mitchell, former delegate to the meeting. we met with the groups again today. we talked about some of those issues. i expressed to them my number one concern is jobs. it's what i've been focused on. creating more jobs and -- is our top priority of the administration.

today is the emergency actions that need to take place. tomorrow we work on how to create more jobs. reporter: what can you do to convince businesses to come back into baltimore given what happened yesterday? governor hogan: it won't be easy. reporter: did you call the mayor or did she call you? governor hogan: i called the mayor multiple times yesterday. reporter: between 3:00 and 6:00. who is ultimately responsible for all the crews on the ground, you or the mayor of baltimore? >> the mayor of baltimore had the city of baltimore police on the ground. quite frankly, they were overwhelmed. all the rest of the boots on the ground came from us. reporter: so you're in charge? [inaudible] reporter: is that a concern -- governor hogan: sure, it is a concern. this is not the baltimore that we know and love. this is certainly not putting us in very good light. it doesn't help with tourism.

it doesn't help bring in businesses but we're going to be stronger after this is over with. it's very unfortunate and sad incident. we're going to do everything we can to move on from here. reporter: can you talk about the -- whether there were any conversations with the mayor about ferguson, what might have been learned from ferguson whether you decided to pull back on bringing in troops because of what might have been learned in ferguson? governor hogan: those are questions you should probably direct to the mayor. i don't know if she had discussions about ferguson. as soon as she made the decision we got to work. reporter: are there damage estimates at this point? at least a number of businesses and homes that have been damaged or destroyed? governor hogan: i know our insurance commissioner has called to make those assessments and make it priority. i don't have an assessment at

this point. >> thank you very much. governor hogan: thank you, everybody. >> now, reaction from the senate on the ongoing riots and protests in baltimore. we will show you this morning's prayer to the city from senate chaplain barry black followed by remarks from ben cardin and minority leader harry reid. this is about 10 minutes. chaplain black: let us pray. oh, god, our help in ages past o god our help in ages past and our hope in years to come, as baltimore, maryland, descends into chaos and the death toll in nepal rises, we come to you

today in the assurance not of our feeble hold on you but of your mighty grasp on us. thank you for the beckoning glory and the fresh vigor of a new day. sustain our senators in their work. may they trust in your power as they strive to solve the vexing problems of our time. lord use them to ensure that justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream strengthen them with your might

and fill them with the spirit of your love. we pray in your merciful name. amen.ing officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president i know everyone in this body, this country has been focused on the events in baltimore. i live in baltimore. it is -- it has really affected all of us in our city. we love baltimore. it's heart breaking to see the violence that has taken place over the last several days, particularly yesterday. baltimore is known for its neighborhoods. neighborhoods are our strength. people take great pride in their neighborhood. there's a lot of ethnic pride in baltimore. we have a proud tradition. we have a proud tradition of blue-collar workers who help build -- helped build this great country in steel making and shipbuilding and auto making. we have government workers who have helped provide the services

to the people of this country. we have a high-tech work force that is the future of bulletin bulletin -- baltimore. baltimore's a great destination for tourists, our inner harbor. and i could go on and on and on. but baltimore is known for its people its friendliness and its real pride in the strong neighborhoods. that was shaken very badly during the events of yesterday as we saw violence. what happened to freddie gray is something that needs to be fully investigated. we want justice. all of us want justice. i was pleased that we will have that independent investigation done by the department of justice. thousands of protesters were out on the streets in baltimore exercising their first amendment rights expressing their frustration, and they did it in an orderly way, in the way that i think we would want to see people express their views about matters of importance including justice for freddie gray. there were a small number that

decided to take to the streets in violence. it was counterproductive to the message. the family of freddie gray urged yesterday, particularly the day of his funeral, to be a day without protests, but these individuals decided that they would take matters into their own hands and what they did was hurt their community hurt their neighborhood and hurt the city i love. senator mikulski and congressman cummings congressman sarbanes and others have been in touch with the mayor of baltimore steffi blake with our governor, governor hogan, with the white house, and we are taking all the steps to preserve public safety in baltimore and ensure that justice is provided in regards to the tragic death of freddie gray. i would just urge all people to exercise restraint so that we can provide the safe communities

for the people of baltimore that we will rebuild from this episode and we will move forward. so madam president i just really want to thank many of my colleagues who have contacted senator mikulski and myself to express their concerns. we know that these are very, very challenging times. we just urge all citizens of baltimore to exercise restraint but to continue their passion for justice as certainly senator mikulski and i and our congressional delegation will insist upon. with that, madam president i the two fine senators were able to come up with. mr. president, on another subject, we're all saddened by p what we've witnessed unfold in the streets of baltimore. a man is dead who should not be dead. his name was freddie gray. freddie gray's name will not be forgotten. this young man's death is the latest in a series of disturbing and unnecessary deaths of young men of color at the hands of

police and vigilantes. to be clear violence is never acceptable in any regard. it's nevada an acceptable response -- it's never an acceptable response, even in tragedies such as these. the rioting that we're seeing in baltimore is only further hurting the city. we should not letmillions of americans feel powerless in the face of a system that is rigged against them. it's easy to feel powerless when you see the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the opportunities to build a better life are nonexistent this their community. it is easy to feel devalued when schools in your community are failing. it is easy to believe the system is rigged against you when you spent years watching what president obama called a slow-rolling crisis of troubling police interactions with people

of color. no american should ever feel powerless, no american. no american should ever feel like their life is not valued. but that is what our system says to many of our fellow citizens. no american should be denied the opportunity to better their lives through their own hard work. but that is really a reality that too many face. in a nation that prides itself on being a land of opportunity millions -- not thousands millions of our fell will he fellow citizens have little hope of building a better future, no matter how hard they try. we can't condone the violence we see in baltimore but we must not ignore the despair and hopelessness that gives rise to the kind of violence. this isn't just about inner cities. this is about the deep crushing poverty that infects rural and suburban communities across our great country. it doesn't matter if you live in searchlight, nevada, or the metropolitan las vegas area, which is now more than 2 million

people. or in battle baltimore or rural maryland. when there is no hope, anger and despair move in. that's the way it is. we can't ignore that. so let's condemn the violence but not ignore the underlying problem. let's not pretend the system is fair. let's not pretend everything is okay. let's not pretend the path from poverty like the one i trailed -- like the one i traveled is still available, because it is not. for hard work to bear fruit there must be opportunity and there must be hope. i can't imagine what direction my life would have taken without the hope of the american dream. as a little boy, i had that. as a teenagers i had it. i had it in college. so instead of turning a blind eye, let's work together and take the probs problem seriously -- the problem seriously. there's bipartisan work being done on criminal justice. we need criminal justice reform. that's a good start but it is knoll a start. ensuring that populations are

not unfairly targeted for incarceration will be a real positive step. but we also need to be investing in inner cities and rural areas and ensuring that jobs and training and educational opportunities are available where they're needed the most. looking out at the year ahead the only piece of legislation i see on the agenda that does anything to create jobs is a surface transportation bill. there's nothing else. look around. that's not enough. we need to do more. it's up to us here in this capitol to create these jobs. dellsdemocrats and republicans must work together to make sure that americans have the right to succeed, that opportunity continues to be available to all of our citizens. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: let me thank leader reid for his comments about the circumstances in baltimore. i spoke a little bit earlier today about baltimore. it is my home city, it is the city i love. it is the people i love.

and we are really hurting from what happened, and i appreciate the leader's comments about it. we're going to get through this. we're going to restore order in baltimore, and there will be justice for freddie gray, and we're all going to work together. i appreciate the outreach we've received from the white house and from the federal state in >>'s remarks run about 10 minutes -- his remarks run about 10 minutes. mr.ush: tha you, madam ker. damspeaker,otr's day i on aapprohing.and a, r nation takes

tto hon o mothersi would li ke a special appeal to acan-america mothers acssth cntry. th theyeg to use eir es powe to take ba our streets fro dly vlence at far tooma of our youth, far o o far too many of our communities are experiencing each and every day. it is now time, time right now for black mothers to once again

rise up to stop the unmitigated and endless violence that are occurring often, far too often in our natoion's streets. madam speaker, there is no power like the power of a mother. beside me today is an image that many of us have seen and it's the subject of conversation all across our country. the image of a strong black mother giving her son what i

would call a love whooping. a love whooping, madam speaker, to snatch him back from the grips of senseless violence that is currently plaguing the city of baltimore maryland. as this picture demonstrates, madam speaker mothers can and mothers must be the mobilizing force to take back our streets. mothers feel the pain of a loss of a child on like any other. the primal scream of a mother and her child is unlike any

other outcry known to mankind. as my own history has demonstrated, i'm not one to excuse police brutality and police murder and holies police mayhem and police disrespect for the citizens they are pledged to serve and protect. as a former member of the black panther party, we have always said "l spontaneity is art of the foolish." baltimore riots and other riots across the nation failed to understand. what they fail to consider is how many people in that

neighborhood were depending on the cbsvs drugstore or how many owner neighbors of those same young people were looking forward to the day that they could call their burned down senior center home for themselves. neighbors were waiting for it to be completed. they would looking forward to the comfort of that senior home. simply put, madam speaker senseless destruction of your own neighborhood is not protesting it's pillaging. it's not political it's pillaging.

nothing more, nothing less -- it's pillaging your own neighborhood. that is unintelligent. that makes no sense. that is eating the wrapper and throwing the candy bar away. it makes no sense to pillage your own neighborhood and deny your own people. beyond baltimore there is a beyond baltimore -- beyond baltimore, we must look at the whole picture of violence in our nation. the violence that has plagued baltimore did not come out of nowhere. it was not just a spark out of nowhere. instead, madam speaker, it was

out of frustration that so many african-americans with the reports of yet another african-american man at the hand of our nationa's police. it was sparked by the flame of frustration that far too many of our nation's youth are facing each and every day of their lives. unemployment disrespect, broken down homes, broken down communities, failed education system -- all these frustrations frustrations that denies them a sense there is a future for them in this nation. these frustrations inflame all

the fires in baltimore or in other places across this nation. that said, madam speaker, for my friend fred hamilton, my friend in 1969, to michael brown and aaron garner and tamir rice and now freddie gray in 2015, we are seeing too many young men of color fall victim to the very same people who were sworn to serve and protect. this mother is demonstrating the power of a mother's love. the power of a mother's courage. she walked into harm's way

straightforward, directly to, located her son evan's demonstrating -- and is demonstrating the power that is beyond imagination and beyond a ll selflessness. to honor her and the important role that all mothers, mamas, our mothers, including my own mother, to honor them and to honor all the role they play in taking back our streets. and ending the violence that plagues our communities all across the nation. i humbly call on america's mothers, those in the african -american community in those outside, those in urban

areas and those in rural areas. all american mothers to wear ye llow, to wear yellow, to wear yellow on mother's day in a symbolic show of solidarity and to create a mother's in yellow movement to end the violence of that plagues this nation's cities this nation's communities, this nation's neighborhoods. mothers, rise up now. use this as an occasion to take back the streets. your pain, the pain that you feel your sense of loss of hope for your child, your sense of finality in terms of a future for your child -- that pain must

stop and you have the power to stop it. that ismadam speaker, i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. >> president obama spoke for 15 minutes today for the situation on baltimore. histhe leaders spoke about u.s.-japan relations and trade negotiations. from the white house, this is one hour. president obama: it is an honor to welcome my partner and friend, prime minister abe, to the white house. i am told there is a phrase in

japanese culture that speaks to the spirit that brings us together. it is an idea rooted in loyalty an expression of mutuality respect, and shared obligation. it transcends any specific moment or challenge. the foundation of a relationship that endures. it allows us to say that the united states and japan stand together. [speaking japanese] "with and for each other." this is the essence of the alliance between the u.s. and japan. the prime minister and i have the opportunity to visit our memorial to president lincoln who believe great conflict had to be followed with reconciliation. on behalf of the american people, i want to thank you for your visit to arlington national cemetery your jester is a powerful reminder that the past can be overcome.

former adversaries can become the closest of allies. and nations can build a future together. our nations have become not just allies, but true partners and friends. that mutual affection will be on display tomorrow, when shinzo becomes the first japanese prime minister to address a joint meeting of congress. and we are global partners that stand together for security and human dignity around the world opposing russia's aggression against ukraine, providing relief to millions threatened by isil, combating ebola and offering help to the people of nepal, who are in our prayers today. this friendship includes my partnership with prime minister abe. since taking office, i have worked to rebalance foreign policy to make sure we are playing a balanced role in the asian pacific.

i am grateful to shinzo for his commitment to the alliance. she is pursuing a vision of japan where the economy is reinvigorated and where japan makes greater contributions to security and peace in the region and around the world. thank you. i believe the progress we have made today will help to guide the u.s.-japanese partnership for decades to come. specifically, we talked about transforming our security alliance. for the first time in nearly two decades, we have updated the guidelines for defense. our forces will be more flexible and better prepared. our forces will train and operate more closely, expand our cooperation on cyber threat and in space. japan will take on greater roles

and responsibility in the asia-pacific and around the world. our new guidelines complement our effort to realign u.s. forces across the region including okinawa to lessen our effect on local communities. i have reaffirmed our commitment to move forward with relocation of marines from okinawa to guam. our treaty commitment is absolute. we share a concern about china's activities and the south china sea. concerns of international law and peaceful resolutions to dispute. we remain united in pursuit of peaceful coordination in the korean peninsula and addressing provocations. we fully support japan's effort

to resolve the effort of abduction of japanese citizens. i met with the mother of one of the abductees, so i know how important this is to the japanese people. meanwhile, our growing trilateral cooperation with korea and australia gives us new opportunities to enhance the security across the region. with respect to trade, we reviewed the progress our teams have made toward the transpacific partnership. i know the politics with long can be hard in both countries. i know that prime minister abe is committed to getting this done. i am confident we will. there are many japanese cars in america. i want to see more american cars in japan as well. tpp will help level the playing field. it will be good for the workers of our countries.

moreover tpp will have strong protections for workers and environment. japan and the united states try to be responsible when it comes to corporate citizenship and high standards will be good for us and the region. based on the progress we have made, prime minister abe have discussed how we will work together to lead our partners to swift and successful conclusions of our negotiations. we also agreed on climate change. the countries that have made the largest pledges to the climate fund were committed to helping nations seize the opportunities to transitioning to low carbon economies. we discussed the importance of all major economies setting

ambitious targets to reduce emissions to meet a target in paris. finally, we agreed to keep investing in our people. so that they and our country can reach full potential. i want to once again commend the promised her for his efforts to bring more japanese women into the workforce. it is very much my view in the u.s. and around the world that women when they are given opportunity, when they are full-fledged members of the political community and economic community, when they have opportunity, those countries succeed. it is good for everybody.

prime minister arigato. interpreter: thank you for inviting me to make an official visit. 70 years after the war. working together with you at the lincoln memorial will be an extraordinary memory to be cherished. we have a dream. that is to create a world of

peace and prosperity. to realize this common dream japan and the united states will pave the way towards a new era. i was able to confirm this resolved with president obama in this milestone year of 70 years after the war. today, we turn a new page in the history of the u.s.-japan alliance, which exceeds half a century. this is an alliance within the context of the world. japan and the u.s. our partners who share basic values like freedom, democracy, and basic human rights and the rule of law. the u.s.-japan alliance is

characterized the firmness of its bond and is indispensable to the peace and stability of not only the asia-pacific, but the world. we are united in our resoluteness in opposing unilateral attempts to change the status quo in whatever form. disputes should be resolved peacefully, based on international law, and not through coercion or intimidation. japan welcomes the united states policy of rebalancing with emphasis on the asia-pacific. and president obama has expressed his support for japan's principles of future bidding to peace through coordination of these policies. our alliance will no doubt be further strengthened.

against this backdrop, we have reaffirmed our resolve to steadily move forward with realignment of u.s. forces in japan. the dangers arising from the air station being surrounded by housing and schools should be eliminated by relocation as soon as possible. we will move forward with mitigating impact founded on a strong relationship of trust with japan and the u.s. this is prosperity that brings peace. we are eager to see the early conclusions of the tpp. on the bilateral outstanding issues, we welcome the fact significant process -- progress was made. we will continue to cooperate to lead the tpp talks to his last

phase. we have confirmed we would work together for the successful conclusion of talks. in addition, with regards to the situation in east asia abduction by north korea nuclearization of iran, and the threat of terrorism, climate change, communicable diseases the world has a multitude of issues facing it. when it comes to the future of japan and the united states, there are infinite possibilities. energy infrastructure, science and technology. and in addition to this, we

agree that we would cooperate and move forward in making investments for the future. i would like to express my heartfelt respect once again to president obama. and the citizens of united states for taking on the multiple challenges of the world . yesterday, i visited the jfk library in boston. i saw president kennedy deliver his inauguration speech. it resonated with me. it still has a lingering effect. i recall the following quote "my fellow citizens of the world ask not what america will do for you, but what together, we can do for the freedom of mankind."

japan wants to be a country that can respond to such calls. hand-in-hand we want to work together with the united states to spread basic values throughout the world, such as those of freedom and democracy. and we want to be a country that can contribute to peace and prosperity of the world. in visiting the united states, i have had a heartfelt reception why all citizens of the united states. i would like to express my gratitude. lastly, i would like to emphasize the following. as we stand here, we will be starting a new era for japan and the united states. i think that 70 years from now

our children and grandchildren will look back on the talks we had as one of historical significance. thank you very much. president obama: we will take a couple of questions. >> thank you, mr. president. first of all, i want to know if you think there is a risk. that it might be seen as a provocation in beijing or the south china seas. for mr. abe you stopped short of a full apology for japan's actions, in world war ii. including with regard the estimated 200,000 women enslaved by imperial forces. would you make an apology for that today. thank you?

president obama: i think it's very important to recognize that the u.s.-japan alliance hasn't just been good for the united states and japan, it's been good for the asia pacific region and the world. the basic foundation of peace, stability ensuring that territorial borders were respected, freedom of navigation, all that has underwritten the incredible growth that's taking place in the asia pacific region. china has benefited from it. it's on that basis that china became an economic juggernaut that ended up being incorporated into global trade. and so no, we don't thinkit should

be seen as a continuation of the work we have done to ensure we have a stable area where there are no diplomatic conflicts, healthy competition. . we have been able to maintain forward progress for a whole bunch of nations. our treaty alliances have been critical for that. the u.s., serving as an asia-pacific power, has been great. -- critical. and we welcome china's useful rise. -- peaceful rise. china is a booming potential market. we think it allows china to potentially share some burdens

with us. in helping countries not as far along. we think it is good that hundreds of millions of citizens have been able to rise out of poverty at incredible speed. they could not have done that had it not been for a stable trading system and world order. that is underwritten in large part by the work our alliances to. -- do. it will be important for us to continue to adapt to do challenges -- new challenges. part of the goal is the same principles the alliance was founded on continually update to concerns about cyber threats. that we are nimble and responsive to potential conflicts that may arise because of maritime disputes.

but i think we have to do it in a way that brings in china and other countries into a common effort to maintain order and peace in the region. we are seeking to strengthen military cooperation with china even as we continue to upgrade our alliance efforts. obviously, the republican committee is a critical part of our alliance. the trilateral alliance will be very important. i do not want to minimize the fact there are some real tensions that have arisen. with china, around its approach to maritime issues. but that is not an issue that is arising as a consequence of the u.s.-japan alliance. it is primarily a conflict between china and various

claimants throughout east asia and southeast asia. and they feel that, rather than resolve these issues through normal dispute settlements they are flexing their muscles. and we have said to china what we would say to any country in that circumstance. that is the wrong way to go about it. we will continue to work with all countries in the region starting with our treaty allies, to make sure basic international norms continue to be observed. interpreter: i am deeply pained to think about the comfort women who experienced pain and suffering as a result of victimization due to human

trafficking. this is a feeling i share equally with my predecessors. the abe cabinet upholds our statement. based on this position, japan has made various efforts to provide realistic relief for comfort women. throughout the 20th century women's basic human rights have been infringed upon during war. we intend to make the 21st century old world -- a world with no violations against women. i promise the general assembly last year that japan would lead the international community in eliminating sexual violence during conflict.

for an international framework japan provided approximately $12 million in 2014 and decided it would provide approximately $22 million in 2015. in any case, the 21st century should be an age where women's rights are never infringed upon. that is our strong resolve. thank you very much. >> i am from nhk. in the east china sea, china

continues to make forays into the ocean. islamic state is still very active. how do the u.s. and japan intend to collaborate and what do you expect of each other in terms of actions taken with regard to exercise of self-defense and new guidelines? there is strong concern japan will become involved in america's wars. how does the prime minister intend to dispel the fears, and what is president obama's take on the concerns? interpreter: on extremism and radicalism, which is on the rise, the world community should unite to counter such extremism.

moderation is the best method. we have to face extremism. there are moderates at the forefront facing extremism, and we want to support them. with the rise of extremism there are refugees. and also, there are countries faced with difficulties. to these countries, it is important that we provide support appropriately. to the moderate countries, we need to tell them they are not alone or isolated in the international society. moderate countries should be supported.

and we need to express that at all times. i believe that is important. in the middle east, there are people who are living there improving the welfare and likelihood of these people. the u.s. and japan would like to cooperate to respond to those challenges. another point, the guidelines, defense guidelines. and with regard to security legislation we might be involved or get caught up in war. people tend to label. it is very unfortunate, labeling activities of this kind. it is not the first time it has occurred. in 1960, when we revised the security treaty, some people

said that we would be involved in the wars of the united states. that was the core of the criticism then. it has been 55 years. this criticism has been proved totally wrong and that is very clear and evident. history has proved this. our choice at the time to revise the security treaty, and in case japan suffered a aggression we would respond through cooperation. in the far east, to maintain security, japan's facilities would be leveraged. and u.s.

through such activities japan's safety was protected and prosperity happened and safety in asia and the asia-pacific has been maintained. to further strengthen this trend is provided for through the new guidelines and seamless response is made possible. and by so doing, deterrence would be enhanced. japan-u.s. alliance would be more efficient and more functional. deterrence and response capabilities would be heightened as a result. and this would lead to peace and prosperity of japan and regional peace and prosperity as well. this is my firm conviction. in the streamlining of the laws, i should like to explain to the citizens and the parliament in a detailed fashion. president obama: ultimately the people of japan and their elected representatives will be

making decisions about how best to approach their defense. but i think it's important to notice, as prime minister abe said, that we have seen over multiple decades now that japan is a peace-loving country, having absorbed some very difficult lessons from the past, japan does not engage in aggression on the international stage or in its region. and that the alliance that has been built with the united states is principally one that seeks to defend our countries from potential attack or aggression. and what the new defense

guidelines and the collective defense approach that prime minister abe's proposing, simply upgrades our ability to carry out those core functions. we do share, as people and countries all around the world share, a determination to eliminate the kind of barbaric terrorist acts perpetrated by organizations like isil that have resulted in the death of innocent citizens. from the united states, from japan, from other countries and most of all from muslim countries. and that's why we have a broad-based coalition designed to defeat isil. and we will continue to work with a wide range of countries

around the world in our counterterrorism efforts. japan's cooperation in that is vital and appreciated. but there are many ways in which coalition members participate. japan's willingness and commitment to provide humanitarian assistance makes an enormous difference in countries that have been destabilized. japan's willingness to serve in areas of peace keeping and working with other countries to rebuild after they've been destroyed makes a big difference. so i think it's important to recognize we do not expect some instant and major transformation in terms of how japan projects military power. but we do expect that japan, like all of our allies and like ourselves, will continue to

adapt to new threats. understanding that our basic core principle is not territorial ambition, it's not aggression towards others, but it's simply to defend prosperity and liberty and the sovereignty of countries as we have done for a very long time now. as we have done together for a very long time. questioner: thank you, mr. president. as you know, the national guard is now on the streets of baltimore. the latest aftermath in a series of what have been high profile confrontations between black men and police officers. and there seems to be growing frustration among african-american leaders that not enough is being done quickly enough. mark l'oreal of -- mark morial

of the urban league said the u.s. is in a state of emergency of tremendous proportions. the president of the naacp legal defense fund says, we are in the throes of a national crisis. are we in the throes of a national crisis? what are you prepared to do about it? both in terms of baltimore and the larger picture? and what do you say to critics who say that since the death of trayvon martin you have not been aggressive enough in your response? and to prime minister abe, how important is a pacific trade deal to keeping the influence of china in check, both economically and militarily? and do you agree with president obama when he says that failing to complete a deal will simply further china's influence? thank you. president obama: before i answer the question about baltimore i'm going to horn in on your question to prime minister abe. i've been very clear that t.p.p. is good for american businesses and american workers. regardless of what china's doing. and we will make the case on the

merits as to why it will open up markets for american goods american exports and create american jobs. so this is not simply a defensive agreement, this is something that is going to be part and parcel of our broader economic agenda moving forward. and when 95% of the world's markets are outside our shores we have to make sure we're out there competing and i'm confident we can compete. with respect to baltimore, let me make a couple of points. first, obviously our thoughts continue to be with the family of freddie gray. understandably they want answers. d.o.j. has opened an investigation. it is working with local law enforcement to find out exactly what happened and i think there should be full transparency and accountability. second, my thoughts are with the police officers who were injured in last night's disturbances. it underscores that that's a

tough job and we have to keep that in mind and my hope is that they can heal and get back to work as soon as possible. point number three, there's no excuse for the kind of violence we saw yesterday. it is counterproductive. when individuals get crowbars and start prying open doors to a lot, they're not protesting. -- doors to loot, they're not protesting. they're not making a statement. they're stealing. when they burn down a building they're committing arson. and they're destroying and undermining businesses and opportunities in their own communities that rob jobs and opportunity from people in that area.

so it is entirely appropriate that the mayor of baltimore, who i spoke to yesterday, and the governor, who i spoke to yesterday, work to stop that kind of senseless violence and destruction. that is not a protest. that is not a statement. it's people -- a handful of people taking advantage of the situation for their own purposes and they need to be treated as criminals. point number four. the violence that happened yesterday distracted from the fact that you had seen multiple days of peaceful protests that were focused on entirely legitimate concerns of these communities in baltimore.

led by clergy and community leaders and they were constructive and they were thoughtful. and frankly didn't get that much attention. and one burning building will be looped on television over and over and over again and the thousands of demonstrators who did it the right way i think have been lost in the discussion. the overwhelming majority of the community in baltimore i think have handled this appropriately. expressing real concern and outrage over the possibility that our laws do not apply evenly in the case of mr. gray and that accountability needs to exist. i think we have to give them credit. my understanding is you've got some of the same organizers now going back into these communities to try to clean up in the aftermath of a handful of criminals and thugs who tore up the place. what they were doing, what those

community leaders and clergy and others were doing, that is a statement. that's the kind of organizing that needs to take place if we're going to tackle this problem and they deserve credit for it and we should be lifting them up. point number five. and i've got six. because this is important. since ferguson and the task force that we put together, we have seen too many instances of what appears to be police officers interacting with individuals, primarily african-american, often poor, in

ways that raise troubling questions. and it comes up, it seems like once a week now or once every couple of weeks, and so i think it is pretty understandable why the leaders of civil rights organizations, but more importantly moms and dads across the country start saying, this is a crisis. what i'd say is, there has been a slow rolling crisis and been going on for a long time. this isn't new. and we shouldn't pretend that it's new. the good news is that perhaps there is some newfound awareness because of social media and video cameras and so forth that there are problems and challenges when it comes to how policing and our laws are

applied in certain communities and we have to pay attention to it and respond. what's also good news is the task force that was made up of law enforcement and community activists that we brought to the white house have come up with very constructive, concrete proposals that if adopted by local communities and by states and by counties, by law enforcement generally, would make a difference. wouldn't solve every problem, but would make a concrete difference in rebuilding trust and making sure that the overwhelming majority of effective, honest and fair law enforcement officers, that they're able to do their job better because it will weed out or retrain or put a stop to those handful who may be not doing what they are supposed to

be doing. now the challenge for us for the federal government is we don't run these police forces. i can't federalize every police force in the country and force them to retrain, but what i can do is to start working with them collaboratively so they can begin this process of change themselves. and coming out of the task force that we put together, we are now working with local communities. department of justice has announced a grant program for those jurisdictions that want to purchase body cameras. we are going to be issuing grants for those jurisdictions that are prepared to start trying to implement some of the new training and data collection and other things that can make a difference and we're going to keep working on with those local jurisdictions so that they can begin to make the changes that are necessary.

i think it's going to be important for organizations like the fraternal order of police and other police unions and other organizations to acknowledge that this is not good for police. we have to own up to the fact that occasionally there are going to be problems here, just as there are in every other occupation. there are some bad politicians who are corrupt. there are folks in the business community or on wall street that don't do the right thing, well there are some police who aren't doing the right thing. and rather than close ranks, what we have seen is a number of thoughtful police chiefs and commissioners and others recognize they have to get their arms around this thing and work together with the community to solve the problem. and we are committed to facilitating that process. so the heads of our cops agency that helps with community

policing, they are already out in baltimore. our head assistant attorney general for civil rights division is already out in baltimore, but we are going to be working with every city and jurisdiction around the country to try to help them implement some solutions that we know work. i'll make my final point, i'm sorry mr. prime minister, but this is a pretty important issue for us. we can't just leave this to the police. i think there are police departments that have to do some soul searching. i think there are some communities that have to do some soul searching, but we as a country have to do some soul searching. this is not new. it's been going on for decades. and without making any excuses for criminal activities that

take place in the communities, what we also know is that if you have impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity, where children are born into abject poverty. they've got parents often because of substance abuse problems or incarceration or lack of education themselves can't do right by their kids. if it's more likely that those kids end up in jail or dead than that they go to college. in communities where there are no fathers who can provide guidance to young men. communities that where there's no investment and manufacturing has been stripped away. and drugs have flooded the community and the drug industry ends up being the employer for a whole lot of folks.

in those environments, if they -- we think we are going to send police to contain the dirty work without as a nation and as society saying what can we do to change those communities, to help uplift those communities and give those kids opportunity, then we're not going to solve this problem, and go through the same cycles of periodic conflicts between the police and communities and the occasional riots in the streets and everybody will have concern -- feign concern until it goes away and then we go about our business as usual. if we are serious about solving

this problem, we not only have to help the police but what can we do, the rest of us, to provide early education to these kids, to make sure we are reforming our criminal justice system so it's not just a pipeline from schools to prisons, so we are not rendering men in these communities unemployable because of a felony record for a nonviolent drug offense, that we're making investments so they can get the training they need to find jobs. that's hard. that requires more than just the occasional news report or task force and there is a bunch of my agenda that would make a difference right now. i'm not under an illusion that under this congress, we will get massive investments into urban communities. so we will try to find to make a

difference in job training and school reform, and some investments in infrastructure in these communities trying to attract new businesses. but if we really want to solve the problem, if our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could, it's just it would require everybody saying this is important, this is significant. and that we don't pay attention to these communities when there is a cvs burning or there is a riot or when a young man gets shot or has his spine snapped. we are paying attention all the time because we consider those kids are our kids and they are important and shouldn't be living in poverty and violence. that's how i feel.

i think there are a lot of good-meaning people around the country that feel that way, but that kind of political mobilization we haven't seen in quite some time and i have tried to promote those ideas that would make a difference, but i think we all understand that politics of that is tough because it's easy to ignore those problems, or treat them just as law an order issue as opposed to a social issue. that's a long answer, but i feel strongly about it. prime minister abe: first of all, t.p.p., this is not something we create out of consciousness about china. the economic growth of the region will be a positive and create opportunities for japan and united states and around the world. it is such that to the eyes of many countries, it has to become a model, a model to china.

it is an ambitious attempt to create a new economic tear -- tier so that people, goods and money will flow freely within the asia-pacific region. it's a new economic region. freedom, democracy, basic human rights and rule of law with countries who share these universal values will create a new rule. this rule benefits regional prosperity. and it also has strategic significance related to regional stability. on these points we see completely eye to eye between president obama and myself. the early conclusion of t.p.p. by achieving this, this will work on other countries and nonmembers of the t.p.p. to follow rules and i believe this

will lead to prosperity. reporter: china is working towards the establishment of the aiid and enhances its influence in the international community and china. what is the strategic significance of the early conclusion of the t.p.p.? and the next question is to president obama, do you have confidence or how do you intend to work on congress to pass the t.p.p.-related bills and how confident will you be able to pass this bill? prime minister abe: on the t.p.p., as i mentioned in my answer previously, in the

asia-pacific region, this is a region where growth is very prominent and in such a region for people and goods and money under proper rules to flow freely. without a doubt, the countries participating in the t.p.p. and asia pacific and the people in the countries will be able to lead. so for this purpose as well, as soon as possible, with the general public understanding towards early conclusion of the t.p.p. and in this context china, united states and -- japan and that united states

we want to bring about an early , conclusion of the t.p.p. on the aiid, in asia, there is a tremendous demand for infrastructure and it is important. and we see eye to eye between china and myself and this is a point that we see eye to eye on many countries. for the japan to participate in the aiid is a decision we have not taken yet but to create such an enormous financial institution and since this will have an enormous impact on asian countries, a fair government is necessary. in particular, the board to review individual progress and to approve of it is indispensible.

and to sustainability and the , environment and society and the impact of this should be considered. we need to secure this. it's not only about lending, but the borrowing nations. for example various infrastructure projects that may not be sustainable. it may have too much of a burden on the environment. if that is the case, this will be a very negative result for the citizens living in the countries. it will prove to be a burden. and so in that sense, a proper review as to whether lending the money to a country will be of benefit to the country. rigorous review is very important.

from japan's standpoint, the two points to be secured is very important. from a certain standpoint japan , and the united states should cooperate and we need to continue dialogue with china and it is my intention to do so. president obama: let me agree with prime minister abe when it comes to the infrastructure bank proposal that has been made by china. asia needs infrastructure. there are a lot of countries that have difficulty financing infrastructure, but if they got that put in place and developed, they can grow much more rapidly and it's good for everybody. it's good for that country, it's good for the world economy, it's good for us, we want more markets, to be able to get our goods in and sell our services that are some of the best in the world. and china's got a lot of money. it has been running a big surplus for quite some time.

to the extent that china wants to put capital into development projects around the region that's a positive. that's a good thing. so let me be very clear and dispel this notion that we were opposed or opposed to other countries participating in the asia infrastructure bank. that is not true. it sprung up out of one story after the brits decided they were going to join up and folks have just been running with it. and there have been all these editorials subsequently based on these reports, not from any official position of the united states government but from a series of behind the scenes quotes. what we have said and what we said to all the other countries involved is exactly what prime minister abe said, if we are going to have a multi lateral

lending institution, then you have to have some guidelines by which it's going to operate. that's how the world bank operates. that's how the i.m.f. operates. there may be weighted votes in terms of who's the biggest contributor, but you've got to have some transparency in terms of how the thing is going to operate, because if not, a number of things can happen. number one, money could end up flowing that is misused or doesn't have high accounting standards and we don't know what happens to money that is going into projects. as prime minister abe said, the projects themselves may not be well designed. they may be good for the leaders of some countries and contractors, but may not be good for the actual people who live there.

and the reason i can say that is because in the past, some of the efforts of multi lateral institutions that the united states set up didn't always do right by the actual people in those countries. and we learned some lessons from that and got better at making sure we were listening to the community and thinking about how this would affect the environment, and whether it was sustainable. and so, our simple point to everybody in these conversations around the asia infrastructure bank is, let's make sure we are running it based on best practices, based on what we've learned from the entire post-war era and how multi lateral financing mechanisms have worked. and if, in fact, the asia infrastructure bank that is being set up ends up having those kinds of safeguards is run in a way that ultimately is

actually going to lead to good infrastructure and benefit the borrowing countries, then we're all for it and look forward to collaborating with the asia infrastructure bank just like we do with the asia development bank and the world bank on a whole bunch of stuff. so this could be a positive thing. but if it's not run well, then it could be a negative thing. and what we don't want to do is just be participating in something and providing cover for an institution that does not end up doing right by its people. because when these countries borrow money even from a development bank for a boondoggle project that doesn't work, they are often on the hook for paying the money back and there have been experiences like that across continents.

and across decades. with respect to t.p.p., it is never fun passing a trade bill in this town and because people are understandably concerned about its potential impact on specific industries, but also the general concerns that people have had about globalization and technology displacing workers. we are addressing those. systematically. here is what i'm confident about. this will be the most progressive trade bill in history. it will have the kinds of labor and environmental and human rights protections that have been absent in previous agreements. it's going to be enforceable and it's going to open up markets that currently are not fully open to u.s. businesses. it's going to be good for the u.s. economy and because i always believe good policy ends up being good politics and i'm

confident that congress will have the votes and congress will have a lot of time to review it, when and if it's actually completed. this whole notion is no secret. they will have 60 days days before i sign it to look at the text, and a number of months before that before a final vote. thank you very much, everybody >> she didn't save the portrait of washington, which was one of the things that india her to the nation. 0>> whoever could find out what she looked like, who she was seeing, that was going to sell papers. >> she takes over the radio station and starts running it. >> she exerted enormous

influence. she would move a mountain to make sure her husband was protected. >> "first ladies" now a book. looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history, based on interviews from c-span's "first ladies" series. learn about their lives. "first ladies" presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women, filled with the stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. "first ladies" is an illuminating and inspiring read now available as a hardcover or e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> coming up next on c-span, the supreme court considers the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

then "washington journal" live with your calls and today's news. later, a live address from the japanese prime minister before a joint meeting of congress. on tuesday, attorneys argued for and against the same-sex marriage laws before the supreme court. the high court considered two legal questions, the first being whether states are constitutionally required to license same-sex marriage. the second is whether states must recognize marriages from other states where they are legal. combined, these arguments run about two hours and 20 minutes. >> we will hear argument in 14256 obergefell v. hodges and the consolidate case. >> the intimate and committed

relationships of same-sex couples just like those of ms. bonauto: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the intimate and committed relationships of same-sex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society. if a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity. indeed, the abiding purpose of the 14th amendment is to preclude relegating classes of persons to second-tier status. justice ginsburg: what do you do with the windsor case where the court stressed the federal government's historic deference to states when it comes to matters of domestic relations? ms. bonauto: states do have primacy over domestic relations except that their laws must respect the constitutional rights of persons, and windsor couldn't have been clearer about that. and here we have a whole class of people who are denied the equal right to be able to join

in this very extensive government institution that provides protection for families. justice roberts: well, you say join in the institution. the argument on the other side is that they're seeking to redefine the institution. every definition that i looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife. obviously, if you succeed, that core definition will no longer be operable. ms. bonauto: i hope not, your honor, because what we're really talking about here is a class of people who are, by state laws, excluded from being able to participate in this institution. and if your honor's question is about does this really draw a sexual orientation line -- justice roberts: no. my question is you're not seeking to join the institution, you're seeking to change what the institution is. the fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex

relationship. ms. bonauto: two points on that, your honor. to the extent that if you're talking about the fundamental right to marry as a core male-female institution, i think when we look at the 14th amendment, we know that it provides enduring guarantees in that what we once viewed as the role of women, or even the role of gay people, is something that has changed in our society. so in a sense, just as the lawrence court called out the bowers court for not appreciating the extent of the liberty at stake, in the same vein here, the question is whether gay people share that same liberty to be -- justice kennedy: the problem -- mr. bursch: able to form family relationships. justice kennedy: one of the problems is when you think about these cases you think about words or cases, and the word that keeps coming back to me in this case is millennia, plus time. first of all, there has not been really time, so the respondents say, for the federal system to engage in this debate, the separate states.

but on a larger scale, it's been it was about the same time between brown and loving as between lawrence and this case. it's about 10 years. and so there's time for the scholars and the commentators and the bar and the public to engage in it. but still, 10 years is i don't even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia. this definition has been with us for millennia. and it it's very difficult for the court to say, oh, well, we know better. ms. bonauto: well, i don't think this is a question of the court knowing better. when we think about the debate the place of gay people in our civic society is something that has been contested for more than a century. and in this in the last century, immigration exclusions, the place of gay people in public employment and federal service these are all things that have been contested and you can say 10 years of marriage for massachusetts, but it's also in

the 1970's that the baker case from minnesota reached this court, and that's over 40 years ago. and it was over 20 years ago that the hawaii supreme court seemed to indicate that it would rule in favor of marriage, and the american people have been debating and discussing this. it has been exhaustively aired and the bottom line is that gay and lesbian families live in communities as neighbors throughout this whole country. and we have seen this -- justice alito: you argue in your you argue in your brief that the primary purpose of the michigan law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was to demean gay people. is that correct? ms. bonauto: the michigan the michigan statute and amendment certainly went out of their way to say that gay people were in some sense antithetical to the good of society. they wrote that -- justice alito: and did you say in your brief that the primary purpose of that was to demean gay people? ms. bonauto: i think it has that effect, your honor. i do. now, at the same time -- justice alito: is that true just in michigan or is that true of every other state that has a similar definition of marriage?

ms. bonauto: well, if we're talking about the states that have constitutional amendments many of them are similar. there are a few states that have just statutes and didn't have amendments, and there's some, of course, that had none of the above. but even if there's not a purpose to demean, i think the common commonality among all of the statutes, whether they were enacted long ago or more recently, is that they encompass moral judgments and stereotypes about gay people. even if you think about something 100 years ago, gay people were not worthy of the concern of the government and the and moral judgments about -- justice alito: well, how do you account for the fact that, as far as i'm aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? now, can we infer from that that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for

defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice? ms. bonauto: your honor, my position is that times can blind. and if you think about the example of sex discrimination and what it again, i assume it was protected by the 14th amendment, but it took over 100 years for this court to recognize that a sex classification contravened the constitution. but then, in short order between reed and craig v. boren, we went from a rational-basis approach to heightened scrutiny, acknowledging that this kind of discrimination is invidious. and in the same vein here, we have a foundation of romer, of lawrence, of windsor -- justice ginsburg: and an institution -- justice alito: i don't really think you answered my question. ms. bonauto: i'm sorry. justice alito: can we infer that these societies all thought there was a rational reason for this and a practical reason for this? ms. bonauto: i don't know what other societies assumed, but i do believe that times can blind and it takes time to see stereotypes and to see the common humanity of people who

had once been ignored or excluded. and i do believe -- justice ginsburg: but you wouldn't be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. i mean, it wasn't possible. same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled. it was her obligation to follow him. there was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn't egalitarian. and same-sex unions wouldn't fit into what marriage was once. ms. bonauto: that's correct. i mean, for centuries we had we had and europe had this coverture system where a woman's

legal identity was absorbed into that of her husband and men and women had different prescribed legal roles. and again, because of equality and changing social circumstances, all of those gender differences in the rights and responsibilities of the married pair have been eliminated. and that, of course, is a system in which committed, same-sex couples fit quite well. justice sotomayor: could you -- justice roberts: coverture was not a universal aspect of marriage around the world. and there again, if you look at the basic definition, it is between a man and a woman. it does not always say between a man and a woman in which the woman is subordinate in legal respects. so i'm not sure it's still again a fair analogy to your situation. ms. bonauto: well, your honor, the thing about marriage is that it's controlled and regulated by the states. the states create the definition of civil marriage and certainly are accountable for those definitions and any exclusions which follow.

and, of course, we all know there were exclusions in cases like loving and zablocki and turner where in each case with prisoners, the people behind on their child support payments with a mixed-race couple who wanted to be able to join this institution, and even though some of those exclusions were quite traditional, they could not -- justice scalia: well, it was not all societies banned mixed-race marriages. in fact, not even all states in this country banned. but i don't know of any do you know of any society, prior to the netherlands in 2001, that permitted same-sex marriage? ms. bonauto: as a legal matter your honor? justice scalia: as a legal matter. ms. bonauto: i am not. i am not. at -- justice scalia: for millennia, not a single other society until the netherlands in 2001, and you're telling me they were all i don't know what. ms. bonauto: no. what i'm saying is setting taking that tradition as it is one still needs the court still

needs a reason to maintain that tradition when it has the effect -- justice sotomayor: well, may i ask a -- justice scalia: well, the issue, of course, is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point. ms. bonauto: yes, and we -- justice scalia: and you're asking us to decide it for this society when no other society until 2001 ever had it. and how many states have voted to have same-sex marriage or their legislature or by referendum? i think it's 11, isn't it? ms. bonauto: yes. but i would also count the state courts that interpret their constitutions. justice scalia: well, yes, that the state courts will agree with you. but once again, that's not the people deciding it. it's judges deciding it. justice sotomayor: now counselor, in terms of this millennium, what's been the status or the view of gay people in most of those countries?

have they been subject to the kinds of discrimination that they were subject to here? were they welcomed into the worldwide community? was it free of discrimination? ms. bonauto: well, if you're speaking of the world, not every legal system around the world has the kind of system with its explicit constitutional guarantees for all persons of liberty and equality, and that immediately sets the united states off from so many other countries. and of course there are now, i don't know if it's 17 or 18 countries that actually do authorize marriage for same-sex couples in europe, in south america, new zealand. justice alito: but there have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. that is not a universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures. ancient greece is an example. it was it was well accepted within certain bounds. but did they have same-sex marriage in ancient greece? ms. bonauto: yeah. they don't i don't believe they had anything comparable to what we have, your honor. you know, and we're talking

about -- justice alito: well, they had marriage, didn't they? ms. bonauto: yeah, they had yes. they had some sort of marriage. justice alito: and they had and they had same-sex relations, did they not? ms. bonauto: yes. and they also were able to -- justice alito: people like plato wrote in favor of that, did he not? ms. bonauto: in favor of?approvingly of same-sex relationships, did he not? ms. bonauto: i believe so, your honor. justice alito: so their limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex was not based on prejudice against gay people was it? ms. bonauto: i can't speak to what was happening with the ancient philosophers. what i feel like -- justice kennedy: but it's you said that, well, marriage is different because it's controlled by the government. but from a historical -- from anthropological standpoint, justice scalia was very careful to talk about societies. justice alito talked about cultures. if you read the about the kalahari people or ancient peoples, they didn't have a government like this. they made it themselves and it

was man and a woman. ms. bonauto: there were certainly prior to there were marriages prior to the united states forming and we recognize that. but when our nation did form into this union in 1787 and then when it affirmed the 14th amendment in 1868, that's when we made our nation collectively made a commitment to individual liberty and equality. justice breyer: well, what maybe you're doing that, but i would like to hear the precise answer to the question you've been asked several times. ms. bonauto: ok. justice breyer: and to me, it takes the form, the opposite view has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don't want to do it to change what you've heard is change what marriage is to include gay people. why cannot those states at least

wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage? now, that same question has been put in many, many ways in the briefs on our subject. you've received it in three or four different ways. i would like to know, so i can hear and understand it, just what your response is. ms. bonauto: ok. and i apologize if i haven't. in our system, you know, with the 14th amendment, which again is sets forth principles that we all are governed by and govern our lives, and you look at examples like coverture. ok? even if it was not universal, it was still something that was wide 4 widespread in this nation for a very, very long time, and that change in marriage was deeply unsettling to people. likewise, even if race was not used as a basis for discriminating in every single state as a matter of law by criminal law and constitutional law, it was incredibly pervasive.

and again, changing that, as virginia resisted in the loving case, resisted and said please wait and see, 80% of the american public was with virginia on that. but again, it was the question of the individual liberty of the person to do something that was considered a profound change in its time. justice alito: suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. would there be any ground for denying them a license? ms. bonauto: i believe so, your honor. justice alito: what would be the reason? ms. bonauto: there'd be two. one is whether the state would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. but i want to also just go back to the latency question for a moment, if i may. because -- justice scalia: well, i didn't understand your answer. justice alito: yes.

i hope you will come back to mine. if you want to go back to the earlier one -- ms. bonauto: no, no. justice alito: then you can come back to mine. ms. bonauto: well, that's what i mean, that is -- i mean, the state -- justice alito: well, what if there's no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. and let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. they're all lawyers. justice alito: what would be the ground under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? what would be the logic of denying them the same right? ms. bonauto: number one, i assume the states would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental -- justice alito: but well, i don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same

sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. maybe it's a good one. so this is no why is that a greater break? ms. bonauto: the question is one of -- again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. and i assume that the states would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. if there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? there are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. i assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. so that's my answer on that. and just if i may turn for a moment to the wait and see for a moment. wait and see by itself has never been considered a legitimate justification, a freestanding justification under the 14th amendment. and what we're talking about here with waiting and seeing is we're talking about we're talking about the petitioners being denied marriage. and we're talking about a second

class status being tried as a matter of the constitution -- justice kennedy: well, part of wait and see, i suppose, is to ascertain whether the social science, the new studies are accurate. but that it seems to me, then, that we should not consult at all the social science on this because it's too new. you think you say we don't need to wait for changes. so it seems to me that if we're not going to wait, then it's only fair for us to say, well, we're not going to consult social science. ms. bonauto: well, two points on that, if i may. in terms of waiting, i do think the effect of waiting is not neutral, it does consign same-sex couples to this outlier status, and there will be profound consequences that follow from that. but then setting that aside vis-a-vis the social science there have been trials, of course in the michigan case, in arkansas, in florida about adoption bans.

these issues have been aired repeatedly, and there is, as you all have heard, a social science consensus that there's nothing about the sex or sexual orientation of the parent, is it is going to affect child outcomes? and this isn't just research about gay people. it's research about, you know again, what is the effect of gender. it goes for 50 years. justice roberts: you're quite right that the consequences of waiting are not neutral. on the other hand, one of the things that's truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society. i don't know what the latest opinion polls show. the situation in maine, i think, is characteristic. in 2009, i guess it was by referendum. whatever. they banned gay marriage. in 2012, they enacted it as law. i mean, that sort of quick change has been a characteristic of this debate, but if you prevail here, there will be no more debate. i mean, closing of debate can

close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. people feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts. ms. bonauto: well, there's a few points there, and i hope i get them all. with respect to maine, one thing that separates maine from the states that we're talking about here is that there wasn't a constitutional amendment in place that really largely shuts down the process. it is extraordinarily difficult to amend the constitution, and an opinion poll is not a measure in any way of what a legislature is going to do in terms of approving an amendment to go out to the voters. so there are some serious structural problems that did not apply in a place like maine. and in terms of acceptance, when i think about acceptance, i think about the nation as a whole, and the and there are places where, again, there are no protections, virtually no protections for gay and lesbian

people in employment, in parenting. you know, the michigan petitioners, for example, are not allowed to be parents of their own children, the children that the state of michigan has placed with them and approved of their adoptions. justice scalia: ms. bonauto, i'm concerned about the wisdom of this court imposing through the constitution a requirement of action which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons. they are not likely to change their view about what marriage consists of. and were the states to adopt it by law, they could make exceptions to what is required for same-sex marriage, who has to honor it and so forth. but once it's made a matter of constitutional law, those exceptions for example, is it is

it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry? is it conceivable that that would be allowed? ms. bonauto: your honor, of course the constitution will continue to apply, and right to this day, no clergy is forced to marry any couple that they don't want to marry. we have those protections. justice scalia: but right to this day, we have never held that there is a constitutional right for these two people to marry, and the minister is to the extent he's conducting a civil marriage, he's an instrument of the state. i don't see how you could possibly allow that minister to say, i will only marry a man and a woman. i will not marry two men. which means you would you could you could have ministers who

conduct real marriages that that are civilly enforceable at the national cathedral, but not at st. matthew's downtown, because that minister refuses to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given the state power to make a real state marriage. i don't see any answer to that. i really don't. justice sotomayor: counselor there have been antidiscrimination laws in various states, correct? ms. bonauto: yes, your honor. justice sotomayor: antidiscrimination laws regarding gay people. ms. bonauto: correct. justice sotomayor: and in any of those states, have ministers been forced to do gay marriages? ms. bonauto: of course not, your honor. and -- justice scalia: they are laws. they are not constitutional requirements. that was the whole point of my question. if you let the states do it, you can make an exception. the state can say, yes, two men can marry, but ministers who do

not believe in same-sex marriage will still be authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the state. you can't do that once it is a constitutional proscription. ms. bonauto: if one thing is firm, and i believe it is firm that under the first amendment that a clergyperson cannot be forced to officiate at a marriage that he or she does not want to officiate at. and since there were several other questions, if i may. justice scalia: he's not being required to officiate. he's just not given the state's power, unless he agrees to use that power in accordance with the constitution. i don't seems to me you have to you have to make that exception. you can't appoint people who will then go ahead and violate the constitution. ms. bonauto: i think if we're talking about a government individual, a clerk, a judge who's empowered to authorize marriage, that is a different matter that they are going to have to follow through, unless again, a state decides to make

some exceptions. in connecticut, after the court permitted marriage, it did actually pass a law to do deal with implementation issues including these kinds of liberty issues. justice scalia: because it was a state law. that's my whole my point. if it's a state law, you can make those exceptions. but if it's a constitutional requirement, i don't see how you can. and every state allows ministers to marry people, and their marriages are effective under state law. that will not be the case if indeed, we hold, as a constitutional matter, that the state must marry two men. justice kagan: ms. bonauto maybe i'm just not understanding justice scalia's question, but for example, there are many rabbis that will not conduct marriages between jews and non-jews, notwithstanding that we have a constitutional prohibition against religious discrimination. and those rabbis get all the powers and privileges of the state, even if they have that rule, most many, many, many rabbis won't do that.

ms. bonauto: that's precisely -- justice breyer: it's called congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of religion -- ms. bonauto: so, yes -- justice breyer: but that -- ms. bonauto: can i -- justice breyer: it leaves this question -- ms. bonauto: yes. justice breyer: open? ms. bonauto: yes. and i will just say very briefly -- justice scalia: well, you -- ms. bonauto: and i need to -- justice scalia: you agree with that -- ms. bonauto: reserve my time, if i may. justice scalia: then? you agree that -- that ministers will not have to conduct same-sex marriages? ms. bonauto: if they do not want to, that is correct. i believe that is affirmed under the first amendment. and i will say before i sit down, if i may reserve my time your honor, that in terms of the question of who decides, it's not about the court versus the states. it's about the individual making the choice to marry and with whom to marry, or the government. justice roberts: thank you counsel. [shouting]

general, would you like to take a moment? mr. verrilli: i will. thank you, mr. chief justice. actually, mr. chief justice, if the court is ready. justice roberts: well, we're ready. ok. justice scalia: it was rather refreshing, actually. mr. verrilli: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity. excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage demeans the dignity of these couples. it did demeans their children, and it denies the both the couples and their children the stabilizing structure that marriage affords. now, the respondents' principal argument, and what we've been discussing this morning so far is whether this issue of whether this discrimination should persist is something that should

be left to the political process or whether it should be something decided by the court. and i'd like to make three points about that, if i could. first, the i think it's important to -- understand that if this court concludes that this issue should be left to the political process, what the court will be saying is that the demeaning second-class status that gay and lesbian couples now inhabit in states that do not provide for marriage is consistent with the equal protection of the laws. that is not a wait-and-see. that is a validation. and second, to the extent that the thought is that this can be left to the political process because this issue will take care of itself over time because attitudes are changing what i respectfully submit to the court is that although no one can see the future perfectly, of course, that it seems much more likely to me that the outcome that we're going to end up with is something that will approximate the nation as a house divided that we had with de jure racial segregation. you may have many states

perhaps most states, in which gay couples can live with equal dignity and status, but you will have a minority of states in which gay couples will be relegated to demeaning second-class status, and i don't know why we would want to repeat that history. and third -- justice roberts: but, general, i'm sorry. go ahead. mr. verrilli: and third, i want to expand on what ms. bonauto said, that that and i think you, mr. chief justice, you did recognize this, that the decision to leave this to the political process is going to impose enormous costs that this court thought were costs of constitutional stature in windsor. thousands and thousands of people are going to live out their lives and go to their deaths without their states ever recognizing the equal dignity of their relationships. justice kennedy: well, you could have said the same thing 10 years ago or so when we had lawrence. haven't we learned a tremendous amount since well, since lawrence, just in the last 10 years? mr. verrilli: yes. and, your honor, i actually think that's quite a critical point that goes to the questions

that your honor was asking earlier. i do think lawrence was an important catalyst that has brought us to where we are today. and i think what lawrence did was provide an assurance that gay and lesbian couples could live openly in society as free people and start families and raise families and participate fully in their communities without fear. and there are two things flow from that, i think. one is that has brought us to the point where we understand now, in a way even that we did not fully understand in lawrence, that gay and lesbian people and gay and lesbian couples are full and equal members of the community. and what we once thought of as necessary and proper reasons for ostracizing and marginalizing gay people, we now understand do not justify that kind of impression. justice roberts: the difference, of course, is lawrence, the whole argument is the state cannot intrude on that personal relationship. this, it seems to me, is different in that what the