could use as a common ground for geographically understanding or plan what we wanted to do together. vegetation types, there are many. what is a good one that we can use to really understand -- using our only scientific development, and why they should be our concern. so we started to work in using an interesting approach. >> it is a map that we share. we all lead that. it is a practical tool that we used for beginning to organize

our mission in the geographic scale. there were also the need or the time to replicate or see how we could use some of the and canadian experience in thenizing the society in joint ventures. which is something that we don't have down there. invented a concept which was alliances. was to have an analogous organization system that works in society and the state agencies and federal government or international. to help to create this organizations in mexico. many likeere are that. it is a different understanding they are all and what type of object they can pursue. we did a -- there used to be

the u.s. foror in quite sometime. fun years.as very we were very active. insistent to know, begin tostakeholders think differently. which is basically more difficult to do when you work planning for your day. binational, or graphically speaking the level. how to change people in order to begin to think differently. institutions. it's happened very slowly. we intenderstand what to do or the solution takes five that to really assume change, no? foray we worked very hard

implementing five of the mexico that was intended to be connected with ventures of canada and the united states. explainingmuch connect the rio with the of entire species. it is very important. and it is working. in some ways it is working. is working not the way we imagine it, which is one big lesson. think let's organize the -- reanalyze in mexico. it is going to be connected with giant -- the history of the united states -- and i don't know. it is shared. it is not happening exactly that way. but it is happening. collaborations. we have those maps that we developed. maps.r we have many other tools that we applying right now almost 20

years ago. after. years the other example that i wanted to point out is that -- how -- we came up with this thing. saysse i mean -- basically very bad news. no? diagnostic of what is coming. talking about the approach, it sin 20 years ago. almost forbidden. u.s.n the groups in the were very divided. in ones that are specialized shore birds or docks or land birds. other country in the that that can replicate incredible organization and number of specialist and resources and everything. is impossible. but i mean the concern and the agencies and our the scientists and the people that is involved in conservation two countries and north

changingas the key for that mission. i mean that system. mentally i remember many where people really maps initiative which is all birds forever. like a threat. because it was a proposal that intended to change the way we were working. as i said before, we were focus on my own university. i don't have times for developing signs and institution strategies for shore birds. i need to work with birds. that's the best way to associate partners in canada and the united states for accelerating the process of generating knowledge to be applied for long-time conservation in north america. and it took time and a lot of

meetings and a lot of resources and a lot of developments to really come up to where we are now. says andbody understandings and thinks in terms of the university. thethey are still work on main focus. towas really not a threat try to have a more vision of was needed for bird conservation in the context of the university. data don't have 100 year of bird monitoring in mexico. birdtly they canadian banding program, it's about 20 years, that's all we have. bandinge's not a bird program in mexico. we have not gotten yet to the the agencies

understand that you need a banding program for generating for making you need decisions. they are -- i mean in the u.s. and canada, that information is generated and it is used for relations.sions and which is very important. but thanks to that, now we have signed an agreement for cooperating for canada and the mexicod the country of to develop their own bird banding program, connected with the ones we have. again coming back to the question of -- how do we come up with this? what about the information? well, the first thing was we i mean -- we were hesitating to use them. in mexicoe scientists were not very comfortable with approach and the methodology that was proposed to come up assessment of the conservation statue of birds in north america. and it was a process to -- for

convincing people, including me tell you, because i have been the coordinator in mexico 15, 16 years now. to take that approach and have an idea of how birds are doing continent in north america. about seven orn eight years of workshops, experts tol of the participate in the economic and worship where they had opportunity to provide all of their knowledge and all of their experience to using a system of evolution providing a value that we needed to assess the mexico birds. one zesting thing is when we these -- the world was

divided into short birds. theecided to do all of birds at once. different from the u.s. that -- i mean land birds with the first group and then aquatic birds and then marine species and at the very end, the ducks. they have other sources of data. anally we came up with complete database within an assessment of the north america species. some parts of the process were because, difficult, for example, birds that the u.s.e is south of tend to rank high in the u.s., limited species. there are a few registered. but it is so common. the south ofe in

u.s. and once in mexico, no? we had to do that what we call process for putting together and try to, you know, this difference of arception and come up with very strong and solid database basically the basis of this document. mean another tool in common our bestdeveloped by scientists and administerrer and juste from the government in mexico we had the participation of more than 150 in birds. with all of the support in the partners in the u.s. come up with that level for conservation by the public. you rate this, you'll find the web site here which is

stateofthebirds.com. then you'll have access to the database. interested in a specific species, you can take a look there. finish that saying with 16-20 years, we have been accelerating and way weng the collaborate. we have learned a lot from each other. new visions and new and -- i think we are equipped for trying to face some of the challenges that we are facing now. what are we going to do to stop and reverse what is happening with that third of the species. it is not only as charles mentioned, not only about maritime species. changeshe things that

is that we started to try to perception and the our understanding that the shared birds are the birds in in our home.d this is another small but very important change. there's a species in yucatan part of the habit that's shared with the winter. it is the neighbor. they interact with each other theyg the winter time when spend the winter down in mexico. understanding that to complete to incorporate that into a vision for protecting the cycle of birds where they fly through and where they is incredibly important. especially if we want to provide

solutions in the future for helping them to recover from many of the threats they are right now. they are serving as a -- the cannery and the coal mine; right? they are telling us something. something that we are about toy wrong we are lose one out of three species in the next few years. to activate the society. much with work very many different stakeholders and ways of facing these the peopled empowers are going to be one of the key solutions in the short term. that has become a major force for generating very, very valuable information. as they explained with that map stimulating that models the

distribution in the north american species. andave better scientists many more scientists in the thee countries than -- and sensitivity to do things and to act in that direction. with the participation of the citizens.f the normal that has become -- i will finish with that an important part of are doing in mexico. thanks to the collaboration with partners we are developing a scienceong citizen strategies for involving the assessing what is the status of the birds when they leave and the same time it perception of territory. the people fall in love with the and they begin to be concerned about it. that changes everything.

that changes everything. the same time, we're trying to use birds as indicators that you mentioned -- for example, if we change the way that we timber in a particular ifa, we can use birds to say that's sustainable practice is theng an impact on diversity of birds. so birds have very, very good indicators of that. also makey to understand some of the project planners, the economist that birds are an incredible tool for assessing interventions our in social and economic issues. to put that- try doinger is helping us to things better and always in the

collaboration of the two majors. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, humberto. would like to give a concluding presentation. there might be some information kind of on -- especially in the spirit of the competitiveness in the north america regions and pull together some information on it,ever you want to call birds, birds watching, adventurism as an economic force here in north america. pulled together a little bit of information from some of the literature that's out there on this stuff. unfortunately or the way it works is there's quite a bit of thermation available from u.s. some good information available

from canada and much less from mexico. i think we'll see more of these kind of analyses coming forward in the future. focusing here on the u.s. again there's more information on wildlife watching or bird big business very if you will here in the united states. effortse some recent from a five-year study that's that'sery -- a study done every five years on that with some very large numbers. one estimate has over 70 million people in the united states engage in some form of wildlife watching. i think most of that is birds. not all of it. is the number show is around where we live in the houses. bit of it are people who travel away from their homes. large differences. the estimate that this study has come up with is quite large. over $50e spending billion u.s. a year on this kind

of activity. these are two pie charts to how these numbers break out. as you can see, a lot of the at thetures, if you look lefthand pie chart, they are binoculars,ipment, tripods, cameras, all of that kind of stuff. a fair bit is related to travel and other expenditures. a lot oferate in communities income and dollars economies.the local and again if you look at this sort of by where it is distributed in the u.s., people all over the country are traveling different related amounts. it varies a little bit from region to region. is still pretty high pretty much all over the country which national pastime if you will. and then another thing, of course, which interests a lot of us particularly in non-profit

are trying to raise funding, as you might expect. expenditures are where the participation is skewed to people with higher incomes. it is both an opportunity and a think, going us, i forward. of breakif you kind this out in terms of trends, as i said, the surveyens will done every five years. some of this is very interesting, particularly here on the right. definiteme very increasing trends in the united oftes and in the number people and expenditures over time. we expect these trends to as we go forward and interestingy because other similar trends for some of the more traditional activities like hunting are same time.ard at the looking at some generally

similar data from canada, we see a lot of similar stuff. -- this is percentage of canadians participating in sort of nature-related all kinds.of some of these numbers are extremely high. a lotquarters, over half, of us as we see perhaps in the u.s., a lot of people are there, participating canada. activities, in again similarly a lot of canadians are spending a lot of theseut there in activities. again this is data sort of days spend on it. again most of the time is spent near where people live. sizable proportion again involves travel to different the country. and summaries here -- again it sizable expenditures over 40 billion canadian annually being spent on the activities. again these are sizable

on this type of activity with, i think, eyeballing it roughly similar breakdowns in terms of spending on equipment and travel and things like that. again in canada much like the opportunitiesl are deriving significant benefit from birding and nature-related tourism. to what we seear in the u.s., a lot of this peopleg is skewed toward with higher relative incomes. in mexico there's very little about their available. we have at least one estimate bird watchers rather over $24 million in u.s. and mexico in one year. that's ten years ago. know this has only increased over time. what i think what is

course, is that as i'm sure all of you know, major tourismjor, hub for all kinds of things. the two biggest sources of tourist to mexico are the united states and canada. i think while we know a lot of are going to cancun or there for the wildlife and birds and other wildlife, it is -- it is -- it lot oflutely true that a people are going to mexico for of sort of natural riches all different kinds. infact, i was able to find -- in 2009 i was the tenth most the world. i thought to finally conclude the reason to give you a flavor are not as much into this as some of this and there are things to be seen in mexico and the natural world. i included two samples of this. the left which looks to you like a bunch of

sky.e black dots in the this is a shot of migrating hawks and vultures taking on mexico. i think humberto, you might agree with me. think it is an exaggeration to say that the veinvinitothe hotel one of the top bird watching in the entire world because you raptor the largest migration again on the planet passes through the area on on exceptional days over one million individual raptors pass through that one mexico. if you want to see that, that's that. a fabuloust this is bird that i've never seen. the rose-bellied bunting. it is a beautiful bird. want to see this bird, which many of us do not only in

of u.s. and other parts europe, you have to go to mexico. a small mexico, but part to see this bird. ofs is what motivates a lot us to spend some of these large quantities of money to do these things. so not to bore with more numbers, here are some of the sources that i used. if you want to follow up on recommendation digging into this. this bottom one in the u.s. is goldteresting -- it is a mine of statistical information for those of you who are oferested in that kind activity. so that's all i'm going to say. so i think we'll be -- we'll sit here and be happy to take any questions that anyone has. i think there are microphones. which might be easy. hi. thank you.

hi, thank you very much. was really a terrific and interesting -- i have one question just going from what humberto was saying toward the talk, humberto, as birds serving as impact a canary in the coal mine. your wondering unscientific take on how often and governments use bird impact indicators as indicators of our interventions? really that's a interesting -- >> yeah. it is a great question. i'll just add a couple that i know. both the state of the birds know,s are, i guess, you -- we didn't invent them in north america. were frome first ones the united kingdom, australia, places.r they have great examples of using some of those indicators

in what they call quality of life indicators. use theirthey birds asor grassland one, indicators of their and agriculture and quality of life. there are places that do that at country-wide scale. i think it is fairly rare. others may have other examples local examples of where people are doing that from a showing thatfe or a wetland is healthy by the has anof birds it indicator. anyone else want to add? just add to that, canada has sustainability indicators. two of those are based on birds. have they driven policy? probably not yet. they are part of the suite. relatively new at that set of indicators. i'm not sure the indicators are

way thethe same economic indicators are. if the economy drops, there's a huge concern. the environmental quality of life indicators drop, i don't we get the same thing. indicators. perfect some birds isn't that sensitive change compared wildlife. they have two assets. ones by far there's lots of people that watch birds. a huge database. even if they are not a perfect we have butterflies or rare insects that disappear, a lot of diversity if we keep birds. because we can get data and isention from birds, which the other piece of it. they are widely used in sort of forestryts of of -- this emulating the natural

disturbance. it doesn't mean everything else is perfect, if we are keeping the birds we're keeping a good thek of the rest of ecosystem functions. it is used a little bit. is driving policy. farm policy is being driven by the indicators. itsanada, i don't think driving policy yet. that's where we want to go. we want people to look at these indicators and when the indicator declines realize that this is something they should take action on to try to increase the indicator. and in mexico i would like to give a specific example. which is in the context and the covers of mexico that the central mexico to the south another violation associated with central america. it is a very, very diverse area region. we are applying -- there's a intervention in order to improve the likelihoods of

health of the environmental by improving the say timberuce let's and cocoaand coffee or provide some services such as the ecotourism. have been working on very hard in the last few years to incorporate system of the response of birds to those interventions. mean what -- are birds a good value in group practice -- for example talking about coffee, time for that is maybe a few years. you have maybe a baseline. it's not rocket science. it's very easy to understand for the people that work in the field. that helps to connect to -- what is the status of our birds here?

if you modify a practice into a more sustainable one with involvement to assess using natural history and knowledge, as you monitor the populations, see how the birds react to that change. well, we started a few years ago and we have a troop of more than 350 who are trained in the equipped working in 11 states, trying to help us to assess the impact of sustainable practices that are being imposed in order to help create and maintain connectivity between protected areas in the southwest of mexico. it is in some way and experiment, to have like a more formal approach to it.

>> thank you very much. my name is alexander, former salvatori and diplomat -- salvadorian diplomat. the question for charles francis is -- i'm curious, when is the next one going to come out? [laughter] that is 1a. 1b is -- how difficult would it be to include central america -- or at least the northern triangle -- into this? if i could ask deborah in particular, and humberto, it was interesting to hear what it was like 15, 16 years ago.

i wonder, at the risk of you being mexican and talking about the central americans, i would be interested to hear your assessment of where things are in central america by comparison to where you were, 15, second -- 16 years ago. that is 2a. 2b, deborah, how could one incorporate more? i understand that there are some of these activities in the triangle to fund these u.s. government, federally funded programs. charles: we had a lively debate on when the next one is coming out yesterday. the question is, how often do we need them? [coughing] excuse me, sorry. there are two pieces to that. one, how often we update the database behind it. the other is how often we take the trouble and time to generate

one of these reports for distribution. i would say that we would not do another one for at least five years. we haven't decided on that. there was also a debate because there was a different report in canada. they have done two of this type in the u.s., but several in between as well, looking at the trends of data we can do for mexico because we don't have a long-term monitoring. we have that same debate. generating these reports from time to time we think is very valuable for attracting attention in bringing in the awareness as an indicator. you know, some of these things don't change that quickly. bird populations just don't respond every year, unless it's built into a policy use, in which case we could do some quickly. so i think we might do another one in perhaps five years? whether it is a joint one or how

we do that, it hasn't been decided yet. bringing in central america, the protest of creating the database is actually underway. as to whether to do the report i don't think is that much discussion. i think that humberto has been involved, in his experience, to take his north american and us-based methodology into mexico and it has worked closely with the rocky mountain observatory, which was leading this exercise. i will actually punt that one part two humberto -- to humberto as well. humberto: the prime minister in some way took our advice as to what the best way was to make sure that the process of developing assessment of the population of the central

american species could be more -- more better done. particularly from costa rica. we were insistent in involving the local authorities in order to create the involvement, connection, and commitment of the local authorities. they had this specific group a few years ago. to at least provide a blessing or a framework for us to help organize their own assessment, based on our experience. for example that translates with the rules and was able to be easily shared with the world, our friends.

in its principles, there is a name and interest in explaining the expansion or shedding of the continent. central america is an important area for the three of us. that is shared with mexico. we have done three workshops so far. the conservancy of the rockies? sorry, the name changed. they work for this. you have seen support from many of these institutions. deborah: u.s. fish and wildlife service? the missouri department of conservation? humberto: they have handled resources for workshops.

we have had one in panama, costa rica, and nicaragua. next year we will have the final one in honduras. the governments are involved. it's a process that is there. it is their assessment. they have done this. not we. we didn't expect this, and so on. ownership. they perceive a lot of things that they gather with that information. even circulations. the last part of this is that finally we have a database we can share. using the same methodology from panama to work to northern canada. i hope i answered your question.

>> quickly on the international component, in a sense our leaders have challenged us in that recent meeting. part of it was about developing for conservation over the next 100 years. we sort of hoped they might say something like that. now they hope -- now we hope they can deliver. that would not involve just u.s., canada, and mexico. many of the canadian species don't stop there. they keep going. we are working throughout the hemisphere. of course, i hope we care about more than that, but if we only care about the ones coming to the u.s. and canada every year, we definitely need to protect their habitats elsewhere. we are definitely working towards hemispheric policy and cooperation. it's going to take a while, it's challenging. as humberto said, we can't just come down and tell them what to do.

we have to work with them as they tell us how to conserve the birds there. we need to work towards getting that dialogue and conversation. deborah: i know you guys are running out of time. i will quickly answer your questions. from a u.s. perspective, the neotropical migratory conservation act that i mentioned, any of that funding can be spent in south america, central america, the caribbean. there are many projects throughout central america already happening. as i mentioned, we also have a kind of southern wings program. the state fish wildlife agencies are working together, where we have been helping an organization that is implementing a landscape conservation strategy on the caribbean coast and we have been helping them to work on that

from our bird perspective. why they are doing it is watershed protection for the both, amphibian, and endemic word species. coming together where we have a shared goal. those funds could be used in we continue to reach out to partners to make sure that people know that they can apply for those grants. i also think that having conversations with groups like this and talking about how you can help us support policies in the u.s. that help work on providing funding outside the united states, whether it's support from ambassadors or centers in mexico and canada. sometimes it's a hard sell for our congress to say -- we want to send tax dollars outside the country. but there's very good reason to do that. we share these species. from our perspective, bringing people together even lose into

the security realm, where you are creating goodwill in joining together for a common cause. whether that is watershed protection or birds. >> [inaudible] deborah: sure. >> hi, there. i'm with the united nations environment program. thank you for sharing your knowledge up there today. what charles was speaking about, engaging on a hemispheric level, some of the things we are trying to do working with arthur's in canada and the u.s., some of the countries in south america, it's using the arctic council as an mechanism to advance the bird initiative. with canada's leadership it comes in waves in terms of developing a work plan and a

implimentation strategy. i believe that a letter has gone out to you, humberto, for engagement from mexico in this initiative. i guess one of my questions is -- are there sufficient institutional mechanisms in place to institute the collaboration we're talking about at a hemispheric level? if not, what could be done to enhance those? you have mentioned all which a fair bit. i don't know how familiar you are -- familiar you are with the treaty, but i know there has been much interest in perhaps advancing that, whether it's getting the u.s. or other countries to sign onto that pathway. eagerly elevating opportunities in advancing that particular treaty. thoughts and those mechanisms and ideas, welcomed. [laughter] >> [inaudible]

>> i teach at trinity washington university. if you recall, we had oil in the gulf of mexico and i was wondering if your research addresses that in terms of the affected has on bird migration. deborah: those are both good questions. there are certainly conversations going on hemispheric weight. the convention on migratory species, which not all countries in the western hemisphere are part of, but there was an american flyway's framework developed to try to get at these high-level policies, that we could all work together within the government on biodiversity and bird conservation. you got the wetlands conservation throughout the hemisphere. we have had conversations about -- do we? how do we expand the north american bird conservation to be

a american bird initiative and whether that would work in central and south america or if they would need something different. there are a lot of discussions going on out there. we have been talking with our congress for years and many ngo's ovens warning the u.s. in that and that will keep -- i think it will continue, fortunately. and we will continue to try. i don't think -- a lot of what was done in the gulf uses a lot of the data we have used in the report. over the past number of years it has specifically looked at the impact. also trying to say that we don't just want to spend the money only in the gulf. there are places in canada and other spots where we need to spend that money. the impacted species migrate to other places. the data used to create the report was used to impact the restoration of species in the

gulf, but not necessarily through this particular report. charles: adding onto the policy mechanism, we are still basically trying to explore that. one of the things that we did at the trilateral meeting, there's a trilateral meeting between the u.s., canadian, mexican wildlife agencies that was established partly through the framework of the cdc commission on environmental cooperation. basically it's part of the nafta free trade agreement. between that year and this year we did have representatives from the convention of migratory species, the convention that created the agreement. the convention of migratory species has mechanisms to create agreements within it, which can include signatories that are not part of cms. one of the interesting questions

is -- how well we as north american countries, none of which are signatories or maybe challenging the change can work together with cms, which has no central -- which does have dignity or to develop appropriate mechanisms. i think the answer is that we are still exploring that and that people interested in that type of realm, it would be very interesting to get together. it's not my area of expertise. i'm more on the technical side, but i am engaged with the trilateral as well. it's an area we want to continue to explore. what is -- in a sense -- the lowest overhead and most comfortable approach for getting everyone together? is challenging. we don't want something imposed from any one of the countries. we can't say to south america -- join us. we have to find a way to join in

the common ground. whether it's through in the cms or through a new agreement, or through something less formal -- there are networks that are also very well represented. what we also need is a government that works, so that we can get the policies and legislations needed to implement what's needed. humberto: as debbie said, some is not reflected here. one of the big programs we have been talking about here is ebert, a very powerful source for information that is growing very fast. a database that is the fastest growing in the world.

it is in the hundreds of millions registered. we are now arriving at a moment that is in the history of science, one that we have never seen. developing new statistical tools. it's not structured information. leading to that information, trying to get the patterns and trends, as you mentioned, it is important. it created a particular tool for monitoring -- how do you say that? oil bert? affected by the oil problem. they did follow up with the birds and what was happening with them in the months after.

that information is all in the website. we have chosen people to get close to what is happening there on the dimension of this disaster. i wanted to mention that. in terms of instruments and mechanisms, there's a vision that we all share. the initiative took over the continent. hopefully one day we will get there. i think the three countries have done a good job in terms of accumulating experience and being more sensitive to each other's needs and concerns area i remember i forgot to say that. when i was -- these many

meetings -- we were planning about population objectives and habitat objectives. we were more concerned with improving and increasing, capabilities to begin to do those things. at the time we were in a position to much better understand also including population objectives in our priorities, as they can include the possibilities of components in the processes. that's like a very good example of the type of change that has happened in the last 20 years. >> before thanking the panel, i would be remiss not to recognize the great work of the staff members from canada and mexico,

some of which did the program repairs and so on. we want to thank them very much. i want to send a special thanks to the intellectual author of this collaboration, nadia in the back. [applause] >> i think that humberto's point in at the end is exactly what my vision of north american collaboration, bringing out the best of what we can all bring to a collaborative. talking about that, there are ways in which we need to learn from each other and learn together how to talk to each other and work together. i think you all have given us a great model for this, as we look within the wilson center for other ways in which we can help promote north american collaboration, be it in economic prosperity, security, or many other areas.

this is a great model. this is an interesting program for us here and we hope to continue with the collaboration. thank you all for attending and we hope to see you back here. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> while congress is on its him a break we following members in their home districts. any of them visiting farmers markets. messages representative niki tsongas stopped by new sustainable farm projects. here is her to in nearby rhode island, representative visited the hillandale farm as part of a road trip across his district.

you can see him with one of the farm seven local partners. in houston, texas rep at the jason smith drop by the farmers market at the lone star's plaza. here he is that a picture he tweeted. several homemade goods for sale of the farmers market there. in the second congressional district of kansas come up and the lynn jenkins towards several farms today. agriculture the lifeblood of the economy. congress returns and tuesday, september 6. you can follow live coverage here on c-span. >> a signature feature of c-span's book tv is our coverage of book fairs across the country featuring nonfiction authors. today, beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern, we will be live at the mississippi book festival for their second annual literary lawn party at the state capital.

the panel features discussions on civil rights, education, state, mississippi history, and the 2016 presidential election. notable authors include john was written biographies on thomas jefferson, andrew jackson, and george h.w. bush. senate majority leader trent lott discussing his book on political polarization. go to book tv.org for the full weekend schedule. monday march the 20th anniversary of the 1996 welfare act. it was signed into law by president clinton. we'll be at the cato institute conference looking at how the programs in the country have worked over the past two decades. on a clicke and eastern on our companion network, c-span2. the americanday, enterprise institute hosts many of the people responsible for the enactment of the law for a conversation on the future of welfare. that is live at 3:00 p.m. on c-span, and c-span radio.

>> the u.s. commission on civil rights men for its august meeting of members discussed and voted on the issuing of birth certificates in texas, north carolina voter id laws, and bathrooms for chance render students most their meeting is two hours. we're fine to start? ok, that is what we will do. i'm calling this meeting of the u.s. commission on civil rights to order. we are meeting here at the commission headquarters at 1331 pennsylvania avenue northwest. i am chairman marty castro. commissioners who are present our commissioners norris sake -- commissioners narasaki

and heriot. we have others joining us by phone and that gives us a quorum. is the court reporter present? >> aye. the first item: is the approval of the agenda. i moved that we approve the agenda. is there a second? we have some amendments. add a discussion and vote on the approval of a press release based on a ruling of a recent decision and also the consideration of the d.c. at ohio packages which were not fully complete for this meeting, we expect there will be fully available for the next meeting. is there a second?

>> thank you. no one has asked to pull them. we will see where they go. unless you want to make an additional minute -- an additional motion to amend? commissioner narasaki: i would like to remove the -- removed the other ofation the hundred anniversary for the first female. chairman castro: is there a second -- is there a second to that? >> why are we doing that? >> i will second. a question? commissioner heriot: you don't want to do it? is her forstro:

november's allegedly by we might want to consider doing it as a joint -- some of the issues but that we might want to consolidate some of these. i will have our press secretary talk about that once we vote on these. we are going to look at whether there is a way to consolidate some of these because we are doing a lot of commemorative. commissioner heriot: i have some amendments to those. i think i can improve them. chairman castro: they don't come up until november so we have a little bit of time. that we vote on the agenda as amended. all those in favor, say aye. and he opposed? any abstention? our first item is a discussion and vote on the commission statement regarding a recent settlement in the texas burst of ticket case.

you all know that this is a case that we as the commission have been following closely. we have engaged in it from our perspective, giving statements to cease andm desist. it also asks that the justice department look into this and become engaged. there was a lawsuit that was filed by public interest civil rights groups in texas which .esulted in a settlement you have all received a copy of the proposed statement. let me read that into the record , especially for those who are participating on the phone. i would move that we adopt the following statement. "the united states commission on civil rights opens the recent settlement requiring texas to issue birth certificates to children born in the u.s. of undocumented immigrants. thesettlement against

denial of birth certificates to u.s. citizen children born in the united states to undocumented parents. this is an issue that the committee engaged when we learned of the texas state's we believech violates the u.s. constitution. it denies u.s. citizens the documentation needed to prove their status and access benefits to which they and every other u.s. citizen are entitled. 2016, the commission wrote to the commissioner demanding that texas cease and desist the denial of birth and it gets u.s. citizen children of undocumented parents. on the same day, the commission recommended that the attorney general of the united states open an investigation. on march 21, 2016, the commission followed up with the assistant attorney general for civil rights and insist that the

u.s. department of justice consider intervening in the suit given the important federal issues at stake. on july 22, 2016, texas agreed to a settlement, under the terms of which it will begin issuing the previously denied birth certificates by accepting from undocumented parents additional forms of identification. these will include forms it has accepted in the past such as mexican voter identification cards. the commission welcomes the news that texas will end its practice of denying vital documents to u.s. citizens. these documents not only prove u.s. citizenship, they enable parents to have their children enrolled in school and daycare, be immunized, and have access to health care. the commend the bravery of immigrant parents who saw justice for their u.s. citizen children in courts, even when knowing that doing so would put them at risk for deportation. the settlement of this case

should send a clear message to to know that the denial of u.s. citizen children the rights of citizenship will not stand. stated commission chairman martin r castro." do i have a second? those on the phone, please mention your name when you make a statement. any discussion? : i am going heriot to be voting against this statement. i think it on character -- unfairly characterizes what the state of texas has been doing. texas, like any other state in the union, does not protect -- does not permit anyone to walk in off the street and ask for a

birth certificate. you have to have a relationship to that person and have to be able to prove it. this litigation has been about are kinds of identification worthy for the state of texas to release information like this, which of course includes very sensitive information including , whichtion on paternity is often something people don't want anyone to be able to grab off the street. maybe texas should have allowed different identification. they have gone through this now, they have changed their procedures somewhat. to make this sound like the state of texas was trying to deny birth certificates in order to make life hard on people boarded the country to immigrant parents, i think is utter nonsense. chairman castro: let me respond to that. it is not like other states were denying these. it is texas. these other states were

accepting documents that texas is refusing from the same kind of parents. these are the parents of the children legally born in the united states. texas, unfortunately, is at the heart of so many recent cases and efforts to undercut the rights of voters, immigrants, people of color, whether in the area of affirmative action, voting rights, the issue of access to birth certificates. it is certainly an issue of great concern. had texas been able to continue with this conduct, you can rest assured that the 22 other states that joined texas in fighting orders would's probably end up denying these same birth certificates to children all over these countries -- all over this country. to make sure that does not happen on our watch. : that isner achtenberg

utter nonsense. commissioner heriot: first cap -- commissioner narasaki: first, i want to suggest that we amend -- she isstatement not confirmed as assistant attorney general. the second thing is, in response to the debate that we just heard , it is well-known that the reason that texas was doing this quest in order to punish undocumented immigrant parents. and, to circumvent clear supreme court law that states that children who are born in the u.s., whether they are born of undocumented parents or not, are u.s. citizens. that is what this case is about, making sure that children who are born here are able to claim their full rights of citizenship under the law.

commissioner heriot: commissioner narasaki just said, "it is well-known that." we have the u.s. commission on civil rights and we are not supposed to be acting on, it is well-known that. when then majority leader lyndon baines johnson was passing the statute that created our commission, he said that he wanted our commission to be able to establish facts. it is our job to actually state what we know based on actual facts, not on -- "it is well-known." this is a case where you are accusing a state of doing something wrong when in fact they have a duty to protect people's privacy. they made a judgment that the particular kind of id that was commonly being used that is the mexican consulate

there in texas was simply not reliable. they did not say that other methods of proving paternity or maternity wear unreliable. they were not keen on this method. maybe they have come up with something that will work better for everybody in the settlement, accusing them of being violators of the constitution is grossly unfair and fails to recognize the complexity of the issues before us. commissioner narasaki: i will stateote that clearly the felt that there was enough reason in the case of the plaintiff case that they were persuaded to settle. i don't think it is necessary to relitigate the case. this is a statement about amending the settlement and noting the long-held position that the commission has been taking on this particular issue. any otherastro:

commissioners wish to respond before i call the question for a vote? hearing none, let me take a roll call vote. commissioner kirsnow joined? commissioner kirsanow: yes. chairman castro: how do you vote? commissioner kirsanow: no. chairman castro: commissioner heriot. commissioner heriot: no. chairman castro: commissioner achtenberg, how you vote? >> yes. chairman castro: i vote yes. yeses, and 2s, 3 abstentions.

four yeses. no wait, we have 2 abstentions. commissioner kladney and the vice chair. , 2 no's.es there --

>> just trying to figure out -- >> abstentions count towards quorum. chairman castro: the motion passes. we will issue that air to how we a little later want to package the statements we have relating to various pieces of litigation. twoe we removed the statements related to the commemorations, i am next going to move on to a statement related to the peaceful coexistence report that we have voted to issue. we're going to have a statement that will accompany the report.

it has been circulated to everyone. hopefully everyone has had a chance to look at that. i don't know if there are any proposed changes or questions. i will make a motion. motion and if anyone wants to second it, we can discuss it. any questions or comments? >> in the third paragraph to , it is a bitt confusing here. it says, regarding the religious freedom restoration act, the commission found that in burwell versus hobby lobby stores supreme courtthe confirmed the narrowness of the analytical framework within which claims of governmental

interference to exercise religion must be construed. i must say, i am not certain what is meant by the concept of the narrowness of the analytical framework, but i think that is going to be interpreted to mean that the decision itself was narrow because firfra itself -- itself is narrow. i can read you some of the passages from the opinion. justice alito says, congress in 1993 in order to pass very broad protections for religious liberty. word on, he again uses the "broad". ginsberg, in her dissent, begins with the phrase, in a decision h. startling breadt

i'm not sure how we have come off using the word narrow to apply to hobby lobby. i suggest that we strike that paragraph for accuracy. let me askstro: which commissioner drafted this and if they might be able to respond? was that commissioner kladney or commissioner achtenberg. >> no, i was not making that noise. commissioner achtenberg this is -- commissioner achtenberg: this is a direct reference to a commission finding. there is an entire analysis that we undertook and that this commission adopted by a majority vote to which --

>> but it is wrong. withssioner achtenberg: regard to our finding, it is not wrong. that is your opinion, .ommissioner, which i respect we were reporting the court finding, which was adopted by majority vote. commissioners,: i know we are all passionate about these issues and we come to it from different expected, -- different perspectives, but let's let each commissioner say their piece. ismissioner achtenberg saying why and you may disagree, but we have to have inability to converse over one another.

-- have the ability to converse over one another. it issioner heriot: wrong. if you don't want to highlighted as a fine -- if you don't want to remove it as a finding, at least don't highlight it in the press release. i moved to delete that paragraph from the press release. is there astro: second? >> second. i'm going toro: call a voice vote on that. those in favor, say aye. those against, say no. -- anyensions abstentions? in the opinion of the chair, the

motion fails. back to the original statement drafted, any additional comments? if not, i will call the question on that. , how dooner kirsanow you vote? commissioner kirsanow: no. chairman castro: commissioner heriot, how you vote? commissioner heriot: no. chairman castro: commissioner kladney, how do you vote? , havesioner achtenberg: you vote? chairman castro: i vote yes. yeses., 4, 5 the motion passes and the statement will be issued as originally drafted. next, we move on to a statement regarding the upcoming statutory enforcement report for 2017 that

we approved at our prior meeting , on the issue of incarceration of women. you all received a copy of that press statement and hopefully you had a chance to take a look at it. questions? have any i will make a motion that we approve it. is there a second? >> i will be a second. chairman castro: any discussion? commissioner heriot: i guess i can make this comment. there is a quote and hear from to higher rates of incarceration for hispanic women in comparison to white women. it says it should because for concern for all of us.

thented to comment that rate of incarceration for hispanic women is only slightly elevated and that you can account for that mainly by the fact that the median age of hispanic women in this country is 28 years old whereas the median age for white women in this country is 44 years old. that is actually quite an enormous gap and is accounted for mainly by the notion that tends not to be elderly people who immigrate. a fairly significant percentage of the hispanic women in this country are either immigrants or the children of immigrants. so, rather than being cause for concern, i think it is actually kind of expected that you would have an elevated rate their based on age. most crimes are committed by young people. unfortunately,: i don't agree with you.

studies show for black and hispanic women that the incarceration rates are high. it is easy for us to sit here in and sayices in d.c. that is not a concern when we are not the individuals who are in the communities that are victimized by crime, that are victimized by police use of deadly force, that lack economic opportunities. as we will see, and as we have seen from our oklahoma report last month on the school to prison pipeline and we see about the inequalities in our schools and the hearings that we have had and how communities of color are targeted, in many instances this is all part and parcel to the same thing. an instance where we see a deviation from what we will be expected to see the norm -- and i disagree that just because they are younger, more hispanic women should be in prison. that is just not something that i believe in, hopefully

something that the majority of this commission will agree with me upon. commissioner heriot: it is your statement. if you want to make it, that is just fine. if it is your opinion that these statistics don't matter -- the point is, most people in prison have been committed of a crime. in fact, all of them have been. it should interest you to see that the elevation rates may not .e due to different behavior it may just be different ages. chairman castro: i guess our study will look into that. any other comments? voteng on, let me take a on this by rollcall. commissioner kladney: --commissioner kirsanow, how do you vote? commissioner kirsanow: no. chairman castro: commissioner heriot, how do you vote?

commissioner heriot: no. chairman castro: commissioner kladney, how do you vote? commissioner kladney: yes. chairman castro: that vice chair, how do you vote? : yes.hair timmons-goodson chairman castro: the motion passes. next, you all should have received a proposed statement on the issue of recent supreme court decision related to transgender bathroom issues, one that he -- one that we have also been very engaged in since it reared its ugly head a few months ago. i think we were among one of the first federal agencies to speak out against what was happening in the states. let me read this to you. i will make a motion that we approve the following statement.

"the u.s. commission on civil rights expresses its strong disappointment in the u.s. green court decision -- the u.s. supreme court decision. the decision to grant an emergency order blocking the fourth circuit appeals -- fourth circuit court of appeals order. the fourth circuit order, if enforced, would allow tonsgender boy gavin grimm, use the restroom. in commission has been vocal allowing transgender youth to use the restroom facilities in their school based on their gender identities. we've also supported the u.s. department of education's guidance to school districts nationwide on part of aspect -- on part of access to facilities by transgender students. we know the state order is only temporary to allow the virginia school board to file an appeal to the supreme court when it returns from recess. 'the right to our transgender

youth in schools throughout our --ion have become a defining the committee -- the commission will continue to be a strong voice to ensure that the voices will be heard by our government." do i have a second? any discussion? commissioner kirsanow: regardless of where we stand individually on the substance of this, i would just respectfully suggest that the commission be careful in weighing in on matters where the subject of litigation is at the stage of internal relief. we do not have a final adjudication on this matter. it is something that will percolate throughout the various circuits throughout the country, probably. there will probably be more liberation -- more litigation on the federal level. there might be some state

litigation. i'm not sure how that would begin, but there might be. i think, if we're going to be weighing in on a matter that is the subject of litigation, it might behoove us to wait and see what the conclusion is. chairman castro: i appreciate your point. however, historically, this commission has often weighed in on matters of current litigation. the texas birth certificate cases one of those. ouruld like to think that continued shining of the spotlight will help someone in the resolution. if you look back on the history of the commission, you will find other instances what we have spoken out under both conservative as well as progressive administrations on issues in litigation because of the importance of the issue. that is what i believe would be the case here. any additional comments?

commissioner narasaki: i just wanted to point out, the note here notes that -- commissioner heriot: i just wanted to point out that the note here states that this is just a stay, but i don't want to point out -- but i want to point out this is not significant. they simply stayed the mandate pending a decision whether to accept. if you are going to issue a statement at this point, you're going to have to issue a statement if they decide to grant and another one when they decide the case? why don't you wait until they decide whether or not to accept the case? chairman castro: it is easy for us to sit here again and say this is not legally significant. these are not just legal and constitutional issues, although they are that. those affect the lives of people in the community. this young boy is, for the rest of the school year or as long as it takes to resolve this, not going to be able to use the facilities of his choice.

this affects other children in other states as well. whole issue here is whether this child and other children like him can use the bathroom of their gender identity. this case inin virginia, had been told by the fourth circuit that he could begin to do this. given this emergency temporary restraining order, they cannot. should look beyond merely to procedural and legal issues and realize that each of these decisions touched the lives of our fellow americans and one in particular in this case, our children. to me, it is more than just a temporary legal setback. anything else? i supporter kladney: this statement. it is an interim

think it is important for the commission to continue to be persistent with its positions in these matters, whether it be transgender issues or other issues. voice tohat we lend a this debate. wehink that the fact that may express our disappointment does not mean we are criticizing the judicial process, nor are we denigrating anything in the process. that we arey saying disappointed in the actions in the litigation and expressing

our feelings that way. anybody elsero: before i call the vote? commissioner kirsanow: no. commissioner heriot: no. commissioner kladney: yes. commissioner achtenberg: yes. vice chair timmons-goodson: i'm sorry, i was on mute. abstain. chairman castro: i vote yes. commissioner narasaki: i abstain. chairman castro: two no's, three, two yeses. that passes. next, we move on to a discussion arevote on a letter that we

sending in response to a request by the oklahoma state advisory committee on the school to .rison pipeline there are two letters that hopefully all of you have had the chance to receive and review. i would make a motion that we approve these letters. is there a second for discussion purposes? commissioner narasaki: i second. chairman castro: any discussion? commissioner heriot: i just want to say that i can't support this letter. it is unusual for us to send a letter conveying a state advisory committee's report and endorsing the recommendation, especially in this case where those recommendations run counter to the testimony that we took in the commission's own briefing a few years back when we had a briefing on school discipline. so, i feel that the oklahoma

advisory committee recommendations got it wrong and to thed to send a letter ,epartment of education witnesses back when we did our own briefing on school discipline. i know the commissioner shares -- commissioner kirsch now shares my view. we are very concerned about the department of education initiative on school discipline and the pressure they are under to takes race into consideration in deciding whether students should be disciplined from this behavior in class. that is not doing any student of any race any favor. that briefing, the first i attended as a myth -- a

member of this commission. it was approved by the prior witnesses chosen by the prior commission and as i prepared, i recall that it made studiesence to several that were done by our state advisory committees in the southeast that concluded that there indeed was significant issue about african-american children and african-american latino children being victims of school discipline policies that disproportionately punished them compared to their white classmates. i think much of that briefing failed to take into account those perspectives and since that, number of other state advisory committees across the country have done their independent studies and each and every one of them has concluded disciplinary

policies in our public schools of that impact students of color . weight the overwhelming of evidence this commission and the state advisory committees have gathered over the years is indicative of what oklahoma has pointed out to us most recently. joiningl be .ommissioner harriet's letter but i also note the previous briefing had induced copious evidence with respect to the lowering standards with respect to the issues of disciplines and those are visited harshly upon students of color. when you allow disruptive students to remain in class, the people who will be affected are the students that want to learn and those students will likely

be from the same racial and ethical group. i am not surprised by finding the disparate impact. he will not find any policy or guideline that does not have that kind of impact. that does not necessarily mean that that is an unjustified standard policy guideline test, whatever it may be, or that lessonse impact -- the of the last few months with respect to the news reports of places like st. paul, minnesota thatr minneapolis shows when school guidelines are lowered, suspensions and other disciplinary actions are based on racially mandated outcomes and the folks that get hurt our minority students that tried to

learn and disruptive behavior increases significantly. i will be voting no on this. nobody here is talking about lowering standards. this is about making sure existing disciplinary standards are enforced fairly. me.se >> the department of education schools toging these lighten up on discipline as their method of dealing with this problem. the department of education is correct that african-american students are disciplined more often than white students are. they usually do not mention, which is also true, is that white students are disciplined

more often than asian-american students are. the reason behind this are a lot racism.plex than simply i do not believe the schools across the country are anti-white and perot asian -- pro-asian. ofyou look at rates of out wedlock births, it is not surprising that there would be differences with asian-american families most likely to have fathers in the household. it is not surprising that you would get less misbehavior. to say that schools should lighten up, which is exactly what the department of education has been doing. when you have children that are in households where there is only one parent, we sympathize with one parent households. it is a lot harder to rear a

child. teachers can pitch in and help teach students. >> i would also like to speak. >> i would just second west -- what commissioner harriet just get. almost every year i teach in -- in inner-city schools. what significant transpires when standards are lowered. we have evidence that has been induced that when standards are lowered in practical effect, the the students that disruptive

students act out it becomes a dangerous environment. -- discipline imposed one of the reasons you have a disparate impact is because you have disparate behavior with certain students. there is no doubt whatsoever that there is a higher rate of misbehavior among black students in inner-city schools. that is a fact. when you have high rates of misbehavior i would hope you have higher rates of disparate action to protect staff, students, and especially students that wish to learn. i feel starry -- sorry for students who go to school on a daily basis with the intent to learn and they sit there with students -- this is not your father's classroom. you talk about school to prison

pipeline and there are students in these classes who are very disruptive and i put that mildly. it is a dangerous environment quite often. back when i was learning things were a little bit different. i cannot imagine sitting in these classes and try to learn geometry.r my the point is that we have evidence as to the disruptive effects. goodness -- as a fellow old man, i am glad these are not our fathers classrooms because of folks like you and me of our skin color and ethnic background would not be allowed to go to some of these schools. that is why we have brown versus board of education. >> mr. nara sake and that commissioner action berg --

achtenberg. then i will call the question. >> i am a little surprised i because when the state advisory committee chair presented the report, there was no such discussion raised by the questioning their findings in any way and it is troubling that now we have the discussion because we did know that even -- that we would fall through on one of the request, which was to send findings to the department of education and department of justice. one thing i think it would be helpful to have these discussions with the chair is presenting so that commissioners who challenge their findings have an opportunity to engage

them and it is only fair to the state advisory committee members that they get a chance to respond. i also want to note that the issuedion's report was in 2011 and since then there has been a study on implicit bias in the case of these kinds of situations. also, i doubt it will be interesting to find whether the case is that it is the same race, teacher disciplining the same race student given the recent report that shows minority teachers have been very hard to recruit and retain and of minorityearth -- teachers at the time even though it is been shown that that helped minority students. note is thing i want to

one thing i found interesting in advisoryt of the state -- is the response they got about the significant number of kids with disabilities who will end up in this track. i think there has been a failure to pay sufficient attention to what kind of role that is playing in terms of these issues. and it's going to be one of the suggestions i make for a briefing next year. >> commissioner achtenberg? commissioner achtenberg: i want to associate myself with the comments just made by saki inioner nari particular with regard to students with disabilities. i also want to say that i believe the oklahoma fact amply supported their very muscular

conclusions with a factual predicate. and i think on that basis, i support the transmission of this fact report as specified. let me also say that there are many approaches to school discipline, that the department of education is promoting because they actually work and because they tend to represent harm to the student who are in need of the discipline as well as the other students in the classroom and i

would point out that those disciplinary practices including restorative justice practices are having very salutary impact on this issue. and i want to commend the state advisory committee for taking note of that and the department of education. othereen said by commissioners lowering the standards. -- actually that's not what's going on at all here. it turns out that there are other disciplinary practices that yield better outcomes. and i was delighted to see those referred to. and i'm hoping that in future briefings, we can examine some

of those things and promote them to the extent that they have a more salutary impact on these practices. so, i think we should be transmitting this report, and i'm going to vote yes on this statement. >> commissioner gladnney and i'm going to vote on the commission. >> i want to amplify on what commissioner achtenberg stated regarding the acclimation of discipline. i don't think that anybody is saying that you should not discipline people who do wrong. i think it's the type of discipline and how you discipline. and i think my colleagues who have voiced objection to this should realize that that's exactly what's been going on when they relate to change in the country. that is for instance, in many of our school districts, now there

are policemen at schools. and instead of dealing with the student straight up to the vice principal's office i don't know if commissioner kirsanow who is not as old as i am but we used to go to the vice principal's office and the vice principal used to deal with problems in different ways. a lot of times students are arrested and taken to juvenile hall. i think that's probably appropriate for very violent types of situations. but it's not appropriate for most. and i think there are other forms of discipline. not being a social scientist i cannot comment on that. and i think that our commission should look into it. but the staff did look into it. i find it interesting that my colleagues that oppose this letter don't feel that oklahoma who is closest to the situation

in oklahoma is inaccurate in terms of the conclusions it came to. i think my colleagues who oppose this letter are talking in some broad kind of sense across the country and wish to impose that view nationally. i think that the oklahoma is closer to the issue like local government and has a better grip of what's going on. i've also in the past proposed the jail to school pipeline concept paper. and perhaps we should reconsider that at some later date. i do support sending this letter as i do think that perhaps we should start sending our sack reports to each and every department that are of concern in the future. thank you. commissioner castro: thank you commissioner. >> i've still got something to say.

in response to the notion that outing -- doubting that african-american americans are harder on african-american students than other teachers, that's documented in the empirical literature quite clearly. on the point that gosh, why didn't we bring this up earlier? the point there is that, well, they were presenting the report to us for the first time and there was never a statement that we were going to endorse their recommendations. ladney isommissioner c right that we should routinely send sack reports to the right agency. but it's quite another thing for the commission to be endorsing the recommendation of one of the sack reports. as to commissioner kladney's point that somehow opposing this is attempting to impose a national viewpoint, that's just

the opposite of my view. what's happening now is that the department of education is imposing their viewpoint on school districts around the country. no oklahoma, state advisory committee is not an expert on disciplinary matters but school system contains lots of experts on disciplinary matters. i'm a teacher but i teach law students an law students tend to be very welcome behaved. i don't hold myself out as about expert on how students should be disciplined. but i very much take the position that schools and not the department of education and inside the beltway persons should be deciding how to take care of cases and that for the department of education under the guise of laws that forbid race discrimination for them to go in and start dictating disciplinary policies to schools, i think is extremely wrong headed. commissioner castro: i think we've fully discussed.

so i'm going to call the vote. commissioner kirsanow how do you vote? >> no. >> heriot? >> i am predictable, no. >> commissioner kladney? >> yes. >> achtenberg? commissioner actenberg: yes. chairman castro: commissioner, are you on? madame vice chair, how you do vote? madame vice chair: yes. chairman castro: and i vote yes. it passes with one, two, three, four, five yeses and two nos. the last statement that we have before we move on to the rest of our agenda is a statement concerning the recent decision on the north carolina voter i.d. law. you all should have received a copy of that draft that was circulated a few days ago. i, for purposes of discussion,

will make a motion that we approve. is there a second? >> second. chairman castro: was that the vice chair? i'm sorry commissioner achtenberg. any questions, comments? >> commissioner heriot? commissioner heriot: i object to the tone of this statement as well. it refers to all voter i.d. laws here thinlyng , veiled efforts to deny racial minorities access to the ballot box. that's a pretty strange thing to say about legislation that's supported by a majority of americans. it's also true that voter fraud is real whether it's expensive. -- extensive. i'm not in a position to judge. but state legislatures whether we're talking about a state like rhode island where the strong support came from the democratic party where we're talking about states like indiana where very strong support came from the

republican party. there has been a lot of support in state legislatures for these bills. as a method of dealing with certain kinds of voter fraud i think in particular there's plenty of evidence that felons who are not entitled to vote sometimes mistakenly but sometimes knowing that they're doing something wrong are voting anyway. when they do that, it's easy for someone to say, well, i didn't realize, i didn't know or even gosh, it wasn't me who was voting. it's impossible to cut off all the possible arguments, but when you're talk about a felon voting and then finding out that felon has voted one way to at least cut off part of the argument is to say well, it must have been you who voted because the person had to show an i.d. and

therefore that creates a very strong presumption that it is indeed the person who was registered who voted that vote. now, some of these voter i.d. laws like the indiana one has been upheld. in north carolina one of the cases reciting here the judge deciding here essentially says, look, the state attorney general didn't respond with facts. in other cases some works have -- some courts have been found that state legislatures has failed to provide enough safeguards to ensure that people who are entitled to vote can vote. i'm not criticizing any of these decisions. what i am criticizing is the notion that we have characterized it in this document as a thinly disguised effort to deny racial minorities to vote. and i think that's an incorrect statement and needlessly that

-- causing people to believe that someone is out to get them in ways that is simply not true. i don't think it's the commission's job to create that kind of distrust when it doesn't exist. >> our country's history is replete with instances of majorities of state legislatures passing laws that have historically violated our constitution and personal individual rights -- whether it's considering certain people property, whether it keeps certain people from marrying who they love whether it's keeping schools segregated we have toppled those laws. and some of these to this day continue to try to put up barriers and discriminate whether it's some of the law we saw past that we stood up to and states that were anti-immigrant laws and today these issues of transgender and now these voting rights blockades. so just because the state

legislature unanimously supports something that doesn't pass the litmus test of it being constitutional. commissioner narasaki? commissioner narasaki: i wanted to note for the record unfortunately because i have vast expertise on this issue it's killing me because there are so many factual issues that i have with what has been said so far but i have to recues myself from this discussion. commissioner castro: any other comments or questions before i call for a vote. commissioner achtenberg and then commissioner kladney and commissioner heriot. so achtenberg, kladney and the vice chair. commissioner achtenberg, goes. commissioner achtenberg: i wanted to say that the actual vote record speaks for itself and i concur in the

characterizations that are represented in the statement and i believe them to be accurate and consistent with the findings of the commission. so i wanted to make that statement. commissioner castro: thank you. commissioner kladney? commissioner kladney: i didn't request to speak. i am sorry, i thought it was you. chairman castro: was it commissioner kirsanow? >> yes. very briefly first, the commission did have hearings on voter fraud about 11 years ago, maybe it was 10 years ago. and there's considerable evidence of voter fraud. not only that congress has had hearings and contrary to popular

people there's voter fraud and i testified in one of those hearings and i've got copious evidence of that as a number of statisticians. voter i.d. laws have been upheld numerous times by federal courts. they are not simply devices to somehow deprive individuals on the base of race or ethnicity on the right to vote. there are legitimate methods of protecting the franchise for all. third, this is contrary to the commission's own findings in previous voter i.d. hearings that we've had. it's all i have to say. commissioner castro: commissioner harriet -- heriot and the vice chair i'm going to call for question. commissioner heriot: you ended your statement with a statement i can agree with. you said that just because a bill is unanimously passed that doesn't make it constitutional. and that of course, is quite

correct. but the problem here is that the statement doesn't simply say that the statutes are unconstitutional. it says they're thinly veiled minorityo deny racial access to the ballot box. i would submit that particularly in the case that getting votes in the democratic party which tends to get more minority votes than the republican party, it seems very unlikely that the motivation in that situation is to deny minorities the vote. now, courts aren't saying in each of these cases that the legislation is a thinly veiled effort to deny racial minorities access to the ballot box. there are 50 different stories, from 50 different states and they have to be proven to the court in 50 different ways.

but in general what we have are courts that are saying, look, it's a fundamental right to vote. there are people who aren't able to comply with the requirements of this statute. and we believe turned circumstances of the particular case that -- that the burden to those legitimate voters outweighs the benefits in whatever prevention of voter fraud there might be. note that supreme court justices like john paul stevens who is from chicago like you and knows a lot about chicago history have agreed. voter fraud is a problem. we want to divide statutes that will protect legitimate voters the best we can while dealing with voter fraud, the best we can. a stat sheet may be unconstitutional or a court may be wrong about it being unconstitutional.

i cannot speak to each one of these statutes and i can't speak to the motivation of every single legislator. but what i can say is when you've got a unanimous legislator with legislators on both parties voting in favor of this, it's a real stretch that somewhere in the minds of the legislators must be the device -- desire to deny racial minorities the vote. i think it is disrespectful to put it that way. >> as a democrat i can say unfortunately democrats are not immune to bigotry and bias. the fact that they voted for something doesn't necessarily immunize it. madam vice chair, your comments and then i'll call for a question and vote. could you speak up madam vice chair? madam vice chair: i think the issue that i believe that the

governor has from north carolina has sought -- with regards to this decision. if we're going to get it out we're going to go through it quickly. i don't think the supreme court has ruled on the stake however. >> can someone repeat what she said? commissioner narasaki: i think what she was alluding to was that the state of north carolina has filed for a stay pending an appeal from the supreme. -- to the supreme court. so she's saying we need to get the statement out because it's a shifting legal -- commissioner castro: right. that was in the newspaper a couple of days ago. i'm going to call the question for a vote. commissioner kirsanow, how do you vote? >> no. commissioner heriot, how you do vote? commissioner heriot: i don't know. >> commissioner nirasaki?