made their argument. at the end make up your own mind and be open to the possibility of separating their political from constitutional conclusions. be open to the possibility that you might think searches of the conversations are a bad idea but the fourth amendment prohibits it or they are a good idea but the fourth amendment allows it. that's what i learned from akhil so many years ago in that wonderful class. that's what the two of you learned as students debating each other, caring so much about the meaning of the constitution, recognizing that it has made for people, a fundamental different point of view just as home said. that's what c-span is about. that's why we are so excited about this series and so hrilled to share it with you. >> you can find this online, we'll take you back to the financial services round table spring conference, hearing remarks shortly by deputy attorney general rod rosenstein in a discussion on federal law enforcement priorities. >> important legal challenges facing our

country. please welcome me in welcoming the deputy attorney general of the united states, rod rosenstein. [applause] you're obviously in the news a bit about the russia matters, which i will -- which will not be discussed here today since it's a pending investigation. i wonder if you might take us beyond that the role that you play on behalf of our country in terms of the rule of law, in terms of upholding justice in this country is very broad, very important so perhaps you could talk to us a little bit about the day in the life from your perch at the department of justice and what you do with respect to fighting crime, upholding the rule of law beyond some of the matters you're in the news for most frequently. mr. rosenstein: as you recognize, it's a low-profile job in many respects. there are about 115,000 employees in the department of justice. you wouldn't know that if you only saw what was on the front page of the newspapers or on the cable tv news.

but there's a lot that goes on in the department of justice. the deputy attorney general's job is to help manage those 115,000 employees in the department. there are a couple of large components, bureau of prisons is about 35,000. f.b.i. includes about 35,000. but we have a lot of different operations and as the governor mentioned, the unifying theme of the department of justice is about rule of law, ensuring equal protection, ensuring the rule of law is enforced fairly and equitably around the country. we are best known for criminal enforcement, that's just one part of what we do. attorney general sessions has made it a priority to make sure we are faithful to the rule of law and i think that impacts in many ways your activities as very relevant to some of the issues we're going to discuss today. >> you have worked with the epartment far long time. in your current role, less

so. is there anything about your new role that surprised you, that you underestimated or overestimated? mr. rosenstein: probably the publicity, which i underestimated, the bulk of this work is national security. st of the work is -- i benched is a federal prosecutor. ss part of what i do deputy attorney general is national security, that doesn't occur in courts. that's been my responsibility because our assistant attorney general for the national security division was only just confirmed last week and in his absence, a lot of national security work is performed by the deputy a.g. foreign statute surveillance, warns can only be approved by the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, or assistant attorney general for

national security. i spent a half-hour every day between pill and last week working with our national security experts on foreign intelligence surveillance matters. i'm graftful -- grateful that since john demuth has been sworn in to head the national security division, he's taken over that responsibility. in terms of the work of the deputy, that's what's most different about this job and previous jobs i've healed in the department. >> there are leading companies an banks that can be partners in combating bank secrecy violations, helping counter financing of terrorism, so we're looking at ways to be better partners in that regard. one aspect of that is many banks in the room file sars, millions of sars, and they wonder, are they used? are we filling out these forms without much impact or use or value? how do you see it? >> i think that's an

important question. i recognize that institutions spend a lot of time and money and are subject to a lot of regulation for the filing of these forms. and i think it's important for you to understand how they are being used. and so primary responsibility of course for processing suspicious activity reports lies in the treasury. the justice is in essence a customer, we make use of the information in two ways. first of all, reactively, when we're conducting an investigation and we believe there's reason to believe that there may be relevant evidence in those s.a.r.'s, we have the ability to query that database. that is persons in the department who have approved access, because the information is very closely controlled under treasury guidelines, are able to query that database to see if there's responsive information. and we have proactive initiatives, information you're collecting can be relevant for us to determine where we ought to be focusing our attention. who are the drug couriers? who are the cyber criminals?

who are the money launderers? and there's information in those reports that we're able to run certain proactive queries or actually have employees who read the s.a.r.'s who are able to access that information. one of my goals in this job is to work with treasury, to work with ofac, and ensure that that information is useful to us so that the effort you're putting in to filing those reports is actually resulting in information that's usable to us. so we're going to continue to work with them under the leadership of ken blanco who joined treasury from justice and has been a consumer so understands how we best use that information. i think we're going to continue over the coming months to try and be more and more effective in the way we collect and process that information. >> are there areas where these companies can better coordinate with treasury or the d.o.j.? are there things you look at

in that process and say, i wish we could improve this or improve that or any suggestions you might have about how member companies could do a better job in that regard? how the government could improve its systems? mr. rosenstein: there are. we encourage feedback, we participate with treasury in the bank feedback, and i know many of you do. it's useful to have that feedback. i've had conversations with people from many institutions who have experience and have a particular sensitivity about this issue and are eager to find ways they can cooperate with us proactively. so we're looking for you as the guardians of the financial system are the line of -- first line of defense. you're in position to identify trends that are indicators that your customers are involved in illegal activity, be it money laundering or tourism, cyber crime. so i think that there are opportunities for us to continue to work cooperatively with you as opposed to just imposing

regulation sort of mindlessly. we ought to be engaged in a back and forth process, where we make sure that you're identifying things that are most useful to us. and most significantly, this is the issue i've talked with some friends in your industry about, they are looking for more feedback from us ability ways that their efforts can be more helpful and proactively identifying potential criminal activity, in particular terrorism, and i think there are opportunities for us to improve on that. >> many of the companies representing here operate globally. you mentioned the office of foreign asset control, ofac, and are interested in how the department of justice interacts with ofac and are there instithes or lessons learned that might be valuable to these companies when they think object -- about ofac-related issues? mr. rosenstein: we interact very closely with ofac and really throughout the

process at the level of determining whether or not it's appropriate to impose sanctions. whether the evidence is legally sufficient. we prvide them with leads when we come across and potential violations. and of course we're responsible for all criminal enforcement. when there are potential criminal violations, treasury comes to us and we work with them, often relying upon treasury as the investigative agency to develop potential criminal cases. it's a close working relationship. >> this may be more for the general counsels in the room but i think c.e.o.'s and others will be interested as well, there's this thing called the -- called cooperation credit, there's a memo, the yates memo that spent out at least in a previous time that the department's view regarding the possibility of getting some credit or accommodation as a result of companies identifying individuals who may be engaged in wrongdoing or responsible for bad behavior. i guess the question is can you give us an updated duer

to on cooperation credit and whether the current administration under your leadership and others still use the yates memo as the guiding document? >> a little sensitive on memos being named after deputies attorney general. i have always felt that way. i felt that way before i took the job. having been in the department for, as the governor mentioned, almost 30 years, one of the challenges if you're a department of justice employee is figuring out what the policies are. and often there are memos that are promulgated and memos upon memos and they tend to accumulate and of course we have significant turnover in the department so it may be that not everybody got the memo. so one of my goals is to make sure we don't try to govern by memo. it's an inefficient way to manage a large organization. we ought to govern by policies and people ought to know where to find the policies. we do have a u.s. attorney's manual a manual for the department of justice, and it is a collection of midwest of the policies that

we expect people to follow. keep in mind, first of all, these are nonbinding in the sense, they're not enforceable in court. these are internal operating guidelines. but the goal is to signal to all our employees what poll swiss want them to follow. so what we refer to as the yates mem which, which replaced the phillip menu which replaced the holder menu, there will not be a rosenstein memo, on that issue at least, because what i intend to do is canned fi these rules in the u.s. attorney's manual. we're reviewing this, what really is an individual accountability policy, it's -- it's an effort by a number of deputies attorney general to articulate our goal that our prosecutors should be focused on trying to identify culpable individuals and not just corporations. it's not sufficient, it may be necessary, but it's not sufficient for enforcement to simply require corporation to write a check. we ought to be focus,

identifying culpable individuals because that's the most effective way to establish a deterrent in the long run. so that's the goal of this individual accountability policy. we are reviewing it, i anticipate that when we codify it fully in our u.s. attorney's manual, it'll flole the same general guidelines as economisting policy, there may be some modest changes, i think that's not to say anybody necessarily got it wrong in the past but it really is -- it ought to be an evolving policy. we should be evaluating how it works. i've heard concerns by some of our attorneys within the department about ambiguities in the policy. i've gotten complaints from some members of the private bar about ambiguities and potentially inconsistent applications of the policy throughout the department and so we're looking at ways that we can streamline it, larfi it and then codify it in the u.s. attorney's manual so it'll be clear to folks what the operating

guidelines are. >> we'll have time for questions from the audience, be thinking of those as i ask a few more questions. deputy attorney general, we have people in this room who are very concerned about making sure they fulfill their obligations when it comes to fair lending, equal credit opportunities, service member affairs, rights and obligations and they want to be as compliant as possible and then some. but as you begin to evaluate those laws and the d.o.j.'s approach to those issues, is there any sort of updated view about where your priority mace lie or views around disparate impact versus disparate treatment or any of the other doctrines that have long served those causes of fair lening and equal access to credit and of course supporting the men and women in our military and our veterans? mr. rosenstein texas the department of justice has a number of statutes we enforce that implicate those areas. the equal opportunity act, the fair housing act, servicemens civil relief act, all of which are administered by the civil

rights division with assistance of u.s. attorneys in the feel. as u.s. attorney in maryland i enforced cases in a number of these areas and it is critically important to us that we continue to play that role in ensuring those statutes are fully and fairly implemented around the country. the governor alluded there, there are some am by fwuities as to what the legal standards are and we'll make appropriation decisions in each individual case but it does remain a high priority for us to make sure that we do fairly and fully enforce those laws. >> one big issue if you asked our c.e.o.'s, the top three or four issues on the top of their minds they almost always say cyber security. one aspect of that is deterrence. there's a school of thought that perhaps the folks who are doing this engaging this illegal behavior are nation state actors or organize crime internationally and they're not getting the message as it relates to a consequence for their bad behavior as it relates to

u.s. companies and their intrusion. is there anything more the u.s. can do by way of deterring these activities as opposed to defending against them? >> this has been a high priority for us, the president issue an executive order, i believe last may, on cyber security and the attorney general issued a followup order last week creating a cyber digital task force within the department of justice to focus on the issues. it has to be a comprehensive approach, also being able to hold accountable perpetrators. as the govepbor mentioned, many of our nation states, we're not powerless to respond to nation states but criminal enforcement is not our primary tool in responding to nation state attacks. there's also an increasing volume of organized cyber criminal activity. a creative idea can make a

lot of money quickly and need to move it through the financial system. that's where many of you come in, playing an important role, being able to spot flows of funds. but a new challenge we face of course is cryptocurrency. a lot of these schemes involve bitcoin and other crip toe currency which is do not flow through the traditional financial system. what we're working on now is our cyber crime task force within the department is an effort to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with that, with the reality that increasingly every case we deal with winds up being one way or another cyber case. either it's executed using cyber tools or the proceeds are transferred electronically or the evidence is stored electronically. our cyber task force will look at a range of issues including cyber intuitions and bot nets and ransom ware and many of the challenges you're dealing with on a regular basis. >> you mentioned

cryptocurrency. some commentators referred that them as anonymous currencies and one of the motivations that users or purchasers or sellers of that may have besides speculation and profit is anonymity, perhaps anonymity to mask criminal activity. do you have a ueview or concern about how worried people should be about anonymous currency being used for criminal activity? mr. rosenstein: i think every new technology finds early adopters in people with criminal intent. and cyber currency is no different. of course it's not true that anything is really fully completely anonymous, right? we all know that there are ways to trace criminal activity, generally speaking it's not necessarily just about cyber activity. there'll be other ways that people leave trails. ultimately they're going to want to convert, even if they're dealing in cyber currency, they'll try to convert that, launder it, into physical currency. there are ways to trace

these cases. it requires a lot of sophistication. one of the challenges we have in law enforcement is making sure our employees are fully skilled and aware of the latest developments and that's a continuing challenge for us, to make sure we have the agents and prosecutors who have the skills and expertise and once we twain them, we people to make sure you don't all hire them away if us. because you're all very good at targeting our cyber experts. so that is a continuing challenge. that's one of the thing us hope our task force will look at, is how we ensure that we're maintaining sufficient expertise so that we're prepared to deal with the most cutting edge cyber crime because we know the criminal rs always going to be a step ahead in terms of adopting new technologies. >> there's a cat and mouse feature to cyberdefense and cyber attacks, it evolves by the day and by the hour. are you seeing trends that are note worthy in emerging attempts at cyber crimes or cyber crimes themselves that

may be different than three years ago or five years ago? mr. rosenstein: i mentioned ransom ware and bot nets, those are things that five or 10 years ago people would not have heard of. there are increasing challenges. cyber intrusions, that's one of your biggest challenges at financial institutions you rep station, your integrity with your must hers depends on your ability to protect their information. so you all recognize this, that your institutions are constant targets of attack by criminals and by nation state actors that are seeking to extract personal information from your institutions, seeking ways to infiltrate your networks, steal your intellectual capital and steal your physical capital and so those are emerging challenges that require strong defenses. that's something i think we're getting better at. but we do need to work together. it requires a quptive effort. this is something that more

than any other area requires coordination between the private sector and the government. we need your i.t. department to report promptly to us, to the f.b.i. in particular, when you're targeted by cyber crimes so we can number one help you defend against hit but number two, spread the word to other potential victims and then of course number three, try to identify and either prosecutor -- prosecute or potentially retaliate against perpetrator. it's important to us that we work cooperatively with you. i encourage you all to do that. i think recent experience suggests the government is petty good about this, protecting confidences and working cooperatively with private sector victims. >> great. let's see if we have questions from the. again, please don't ask about current investigations. mr. rosenstein: you can ask. >> other matters, the deputy attorney general is willing to take questions on other matters.

>> an issue ripped from the headline the president -- oned that he would increase the buynary frequent soif a firearm. is that something that requires congress to get involved or through the bureau of firearms, tobacco, alcohol, can that be something the department of justice looks at? mr. rosenstein: probably. the a.t.f. is looking at that and reviewing our options. the president sent us an order last week to get that done. and so we are working on it. and as you suggest, you can always do things legislatively, the question is, can a.t.f. within its existing legal authority, by regulation, prohibit bump stocks and there is an ongoing review you may be familiar withen on that issue. i'm not in a position to comment on what the end result is going to be but i can tell you it's an extremely high pryity for

the department of justice, that and other issues, we're working on a numb of issues related to firearms. bump stock sass high priority for us. >> deputy attorney general, i had a question related to cyber security. in terms of the pursuit of perpetrators of cyber crimes, the department has traditionally gone after perpetrators in kind of a whack-a-mole type strategy. i didn't know if there had been some thought about applying rico to some of the folks that registered domains. one of the things that we've been, that we've been seeing is that you have certain domains that are where all the bad guys kind of reside. i didn't know if you had been thinking about applying rico in that regard. >> in general, yes. we apply rico when we have a lawful basis for it. if you have a particular case in mind, i'd invite you to reach out to the f.b.i. or u.s. attorney's office

and share those thoughts with us, but generally speaking, yes, we want to use whatever tools are available to us and rico, racketeering and -- the rico statute allows us to sweep up a large pattern of activity by an organization in one case and we used it pretty extensively in maryland not only in fraud cases but also in violent crime and drug cases. and so that could be a valuable tool. the challenge in cyber cases is identifying perpetrators and getting them into custody, especially if they're outside the united states. sometimes in countries with which we do not have extradition treaty. but we've had some success if you've been following recently. we've had some success in successfully gaining custody of cyber criminals. sometimes by catching them in third countries that do cooperate with us. sometimes by pursuing extradition and so we're

certainly prepared to use statutory and procedural tools that are available to us to make sure we hold them accountable. >> other questions? shy group here today. here we go. >> speaking of cyber security, another issue that's been increasingly in the headlines is the data security breaches and the impact that has on individuals. you know, one of the things that i know is out there, folks talking about, is whether or not social security nurble -- social security numbers are still relevant in 018 for companies or the government to be able to identify someone's identity? do you think the government is reaching a place where they agree it's time to move on from social security numbers? mr. rosenstein: move on to what? we look to you, the private sector comes up creative

ways to identify people. there are now institutions using physical identifiers, fingerprints or facial recognition technology. and you know, the government doesn't take a position on that. it's really up to the private sector to determine what sort of identifiers you're going to use. but it is as you recognize critically important to use multiple levels of security. i know how frustrating it can be for customers if you go to get gas and have to punch in your zip code or other kinds of information. but those are important checks, take a little extra time, but they do prevent a lot of fraud. so the short answer to your question is, i don't have any position from the government's perspective on the use of sos numbers but we do recognize that the more identifiers we use they can more unique information you require your customers to provide, the more secure you are. just a couple of years ago we didn't use a chip and pin system in the u.s. obviously i think that

prevents a large amount of fraud. i think it does require continuing strategizing by the private sector about how to best protect our customers and protect against loss. any other questions? if not -- >> if not, let's conclude by, this is a -- an individual who spent multiple decades serving our country, as the vice president said with incredible independence, integrity and character. an outstanding individual. we're glad he would take time to be with us this afternoon. thank you for your service. let's thank him for that. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> some housekeeping items --

>> today, the house returning at 4:45 p.m. eastern time for work on several bills, including one on sickle cell disease research and another that would allow indian tribes to develop their own alerts for missing children. tomorrow, debate on two bills, one on operational risk capital requirements and a second measure looking at ways to prohibit online sex trafficking. you can follow the house live right here on c-span in about 15 minutes when members return. it will be a short week in death se after the late last week reverend billy graham, who will be lying in honor in the u.s. capitol starting wednesday and there will be remarks from house speaker ryan and senate majority leader mcconnell. our live coverage will begin wednesday here on c-span. >> i thought the internet was borderless. >> that's interesting. it can be borderless.

what we've seen is, and the thing i think we need to focus on right now is, it turns out that this medium that was going to give voice to the voiceless, and in many cases did, and power to the powerless, can also be used by dictators, by terrorist, by dark political money, to undermine democracy and we have got to address that problem. >> from the state of the net conference held in washington, d.c., we'll discuss the impact of technology on democracy and voting. watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. tonight on c-span's "landmark cases," we'll look at the supreme court case, mcculloch v. maryland, a case that solidified the government's ability to take actions not specifically listed in law.

we'll talk to sara peterson, nd -- to farah peterson, and mark killenbeck. watch tonight on c-span, c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. for background on each case, order a copy of the landmark cases companion book. t's available at c-span.org/landmark cases. and there's a link on our website to the interactive constitution. >> tomorrow the chair of the federal reserve, jerome powell, will deliver the semiannual monetary policy report to the house financial services committee. we'll have that live tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. and right after that, former federal reserve chair janet yellen and ben bernanke will discuss the u.s. economy and ms. yellen's career since

leaving the post recently. live from the bookings -- brookings institution, 2:00 p.m. eastern, also on c-span3. ahead of the -- >> joining us on set here in washington, d.c., stefan mittens, a member of acsme council 31 and president of acsme local 3821. good morning. make the case you heard our guest talk about on the phone about union fees. why should someone pay for it if they don't want to do so necessarily? the broader issue becomes this. the union provides a vehicle f guest: theor union provides a way to have a collective voice. one of the more surprising things i found was how the union really advocates for the community at large. as a child protection my job investigator in chicago, i go into some of the most impoverished areas in chicago.

i get to see the living standards of folks and what they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. the union provides the vehicle for me to come back through a labor management system, where i get to sit down with members of management and discuss what it is i see. and give recommendations with servicean better deliver, better streamline our approach. how we can better access resources and get them to places that are needed. the union bargains for society. host: what about these feeds becoming a political because of union activity? have been under the gun of the governor who has made this political.

one of his first orders was to shop the fair -- was to stop the fair share fees. board,e governor came on they have advocated for society. it cametical aspect of in when the politician came in. guest: unions support candidates which support unions, which support the right of the unions to speak collectively. nothing political about members of society calling 911 and expecting their call to be answered. there is nothing political about that. what is political is when you try to stifle my voice to be able to advocate for those in the community. if you want to ask stephen

questions, call in on the lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. thoughts,eet us your @cspanwj. part of the brief filed by mr. advocacyds mandatory groups that individuals are forced to subsidize will have political influence far exceeding citizens' actual support for these groups and their agendas. we need to lay out the battlefield. no one that comes into state government is forced to join a union.

if i decide to join a union but don't want to get involved in the political aspect the union engages in, i do not volunteer to give that portion. anyone that does not want to be involved in the union's political activities does not have to. the union still advocates for those people. we advocate for everyone. what would it do for cohesiveness if someone paying fees and some do not and still receive it regardless? guest: that can have the impact to where some may look at that -eye, so todiced

speak. the sanctity of the contract is more important than individual squabbles. valid contract, when we are dealing with theunity issues, both of overriding principles we work from, the employer or something impedes the contract, that is what we go after. host: do you know mr. janus personally? guest: i do not. host: ralphs, he is up first. it good morning. this whole argument is silly. i work in the private sector. i understand this is public. we haverivate sector, the union security agreements. the argument is silly i was not forced to take my job.

i vote on my contract, whether or not to have a union. the case, allin he wants is a free ride. he was not forced to take that job. pick fors the wrong the supreme court. back workerto roll rights. that is what this is about. having a collective voice on the job. i have to agree. we understand who is behind this. corporate ceos, my governor is leading the pack, if you will. they have been public about the funding the unions. they want to take away the behts of working people to able to come together and have a meaningful voice. from ohio, tom.

caller: this is a sad day in america. years started working 50 39%for the unions, they had of the employees in the country and we had high living standarsds. time to sign a contract and giving employees a right to negotiate a contract, they want to get rid of it. if you want lower social security and lower retirements, hopefully we don't see the supreme court do this. is, 19% is -- the union

now. if he does not like paying union dues, there are 81% that are nonunion. he doesn't want one of those because they do not pay nothing. host: thank you. guest: he states a good premise. public service workers bring a very stable workforce, a wealth of experience and expertise. i have been on my job 23 years. i am still in the middle of the pack in regards to seniority. this their and make profession. a lot of people may come to their jobs, but they come to engage in their profession. we are all professionals. when you talk about best practices or best standards, those are things we have come up with.

we have set the tone in regards to how society is dealt with and how the government delivers. host: what are fees like? local has individual the autonomy to set the fees. there is a minimal standard set by international and it is broken down by that standpoint. from local to local, it varies. it is not a percentage of your paycheck. it is a flat rate. host: how much of waste do you have two say how those fees are used? guest: when a fee increase comes down from international, we have discussions in regards -- do we want to pass this on to members or do we want to eat that?

we take it to the membership and let the membership have a vote. if you are a union member, (202) 748-8003. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. wilson, north carolina, go ahead. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, you are on. i was a union member out of new jersey. i moved to north carolina. i am retired. i enjoyed my union retirement. i got all my benefits. i am enjoying what i paid into it. i have a relative who did not want union and now -- i think my

union, my brothers. 560 out of union city, new jersey. i am enjoying it. this affects them in retirement as well? are a different topic, but it does come into play. a union member and working for the state has afforded me the opportunity to put my children through college, the opportunities to take a family trip. the opportunity to develop and save a pension funds, so i can have retirement. the unions advocate for those things. second to none. this is worked for and earned. is 1.6 billionp

working. retired members, 3400 local unions across the states. chevy chase, maryland, independent line. joe, go ahead. the guest says their activities are not political, but when you went through your activities, they are all political. for better next, why, z. both sides of the aisle say they are advocating for better x, y, z. mean you can say what you want is not political because you think it is good and you think political and the other side is bad. it is laughable to assume, to state these unions are political. they are very liberal.

they support democrats 80% to 90% of the time. would be the guest offended if he were forced to republican or conservative cause. he will say -- you can take out the lobbying, but money is fungible. if somebody said everybody has to be a member of the nra because gun safety is not do,tical, but what we will you just don't have to pay the lobbying part. all you have to do is support the gun safety and child programs and people would object like crazy. i am not suggesting nothing the union does does not have a political component.

component the unit does -- the union does engage in has a way of impacting everyone. colleagues,e of my who does what i do, protects attacked was brutally by a parent we were trying to protect a child from. her name was pam knight. succumbed to her injuries and passed away. the union, a day after her attack, the unions advocated to theirthen and support policies in regards to workers. the unions went to the lobbies -- went to lobby congress to make better ways and to strengthen laws and to protect state employees.

our political activity does more than give us a raise or better benefits. it protects us in society. the president of local 2081, we talked about justice gorsuch, the idea he is probably going to support mr. janus' side of the argument. guest: i can't speak to what he might do. are the unions concerned about that? yes, they are. unionhow does the response? guest: we have been working the plan. we