tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 22, 2015 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
administration. can you imagine a risk ready administration under these circumstances. you implied it in some of your comments. so congress' role would be even more important. iran. now, you don't know what's in this deal, neither do i. but based on what you're sensing, do you think you'd be in a position to support the administration's case for a comprehensive agreement on the nuclear issue with iran? >> absolutely. i agree with you, that we don't know what the details look like and there is evidence that there wasn't as much agreement in the framework as we might have all suspected or maybe there's just evidence that a political conversation has to play out in a certain way in and around tehran and we have to accept the reality of that before we get a signature. but to me this speaks to the principles that we're talking about here, which is finding
alternatives to military action that may, while not being perfect, may be much better than a thoughtless military prevention without a planning process afterwards. that's what i think is amazingly absent from this conversation about this debate. one of my colleagues goes down to the floor of the senate and says, well, taking out iran's nuclear capability militarily would be a two-day endeavor without any conversation about what the follow-on effects of that would be. so the conversation of the framework can't happen in a vacuum. it has to come with a comparative analysis as to what the alternatives are. would i love for the agreement to be longer than ten years? absolutely, but elements of it are. and i do buy the argument that if you're able to give wind to the moderates that there is a better chance than if you rejected this agreement that
ultimately you were able to work with that coalition on other underlying festering issues as well. and as to congressional intervention, i would say the way in which the president decides to conduct these operations matters as to how congress is -- how willing congress is to react. in syria, he said he wasn't going to act without congressional authorization and so a debate was forced in the united states senate foreign relations committee. when it came to the fight against isis, he provided in a very different way. what would have happened if he said i need to act and i am not going to do it until the congress gives me the power to do it. i would argue that we would have come together, that we would have figured out a path forward. the division on this is significant, but not irreconcilable. but we haven't forced to do it because there is no consequence, no practical consequence for our
inaction. it's incumbent upon the president to follow the constitutional balance and alignment of responsibilities as well, and i would argue that he should have come to us for authorization on this war before proceeding. >> one final question. you referenced the marshall plan. how would you respond to the argument that the world or at least the area of the world to which that extraordinary assistance program proceeded, what came after it, was directed, was simply a parallel universe to the one we see today. we occupy japan from 1945 to 1952. there were no americans killed. not one. during the entire period on the japanese mainland. you're talking about a marshal plan for a region of the world that is broken, angry, dysfunctional. how do you reconcile -- in other words, doesn't a marshal plan become to some degree as difficult a prospect as an
open-ended military intervention ? without the political infrastructure, how do you actually do that? >> so -- good question. it's a fair critique, right, and it's a very imperfect, imprecise analogy. i make it more just to sort of wake folks up to how little we are spending on this project today compared to how much money we spent. you know, it's still stunning to think that the average american taxpayers thinks that 28% of their dollar is going to foreign aid when 1% arguably of it is. i think it's just important to remind our country as to how much money we used to spend on this. no, it is fundamentally different but that's why i reference what was happening during the surge. these bags of cash being handed out. i can't tell you that i can sit here and lay out the precise manner in which you develop long-term economic stability that tamps down on the reasons
that people join terrorist organizations. but i know that part of the reason why we did get a modicum of stability there was because we answered people's economic concerns. i would argue that political stability follows economic stability. it's hard to stand up a politically stable government when you have over 50% of young people out of work. and so if you start with economic stability, and with partners, by the way, i'm not suggesting that america be the only one, but nobody else is going to spend billions if we don't commit to spending billions. if you even attempt to put in a place for economic answers to the problems in places like iraq or lebanon or yemen, then political stability at least has a shot. it doesn't without that endeavor. i would just argue that -- people will say that it's crazy, how can you say we're not trying that right now because they look at how much money we spent and say that must have gotten us
something. that's why i talk about the marshal plan because comparatively we are spending a fraction of what we spent on a like, although albeit, very different endeavor decades ago. >> thank you so much. okay. to questions. let me emphasize questions. please identify yourselves before you speak. we have mics. yes, down here in the front row -- or the fourth fifth right here. we'll get to you next. promise. >> my name is alex fenoff. i used to teach at the foreign service institute. i talked about aid. i would like your views on title viii programs which fund international exchange language, our education about the abroad. those funds have been slashed. how do you see bringing them back? >> last fall i took a trip to the balkans and in another forum
i can tell you why i think we should be talking much more about what's happening there. we sort of take for granted the level of stability there, but there are very few great conflicts over the last 100 years that didn't emanate in some way, shape or form from that region and there is some simmering instability that should concern this. i was in serbia, which is a country that russia has a lot of interest in. it's very relevant to us because it's a transit point for energy through and around the region. i happened to be there on the day that vladimir putin was marching his army through the streets of belgrade in an enormous show of force. our ambassador there, our great ambassador there was begging me for $20,000 for an exchange program that he had had cut from his budget. and just the incongruity of putin marching billions of dollars of assets down the streets of belgrade and our ambassador wanting a handful of dollars for an exchange program seemed to suggest how
wrong-footed our priorities had become. but he spoke to how incredibly important this was. as you went around that region you saw all of these graduates from title viii funded exchange programs in positions of power friendly to the united states and our allies. it was a small amount of money that paid off. as i would argue for how we spent money on these projects, how we allocate a new marshal plan, part of it would certainly be on that type of programming. >> okay. let's -- yes, right here. wait for the mic. here it comes. >> yeah. can you elaborate on how your nan nonkinetic approach would deal with isis, given the 1400-year disagreements between the shia and the sunni and at this particular time we know that the sunnis are the backbone of isis. how would you handle that
situation? >> well, i go back to a couple things. first, i'd go back to the notion that we have to be honest about what our objectives are here. and i don't think that we could have a realistic objective that could be settling that dispute. nor do i argue that we could have a realistic objective on our own that would use the terminology defeat isil. i think that our objective has to be degrading them to a point where they are no longer a threat to the united states. that's very different than the objective that you might be foreshadowing, which is to somehow find a way for usaid to
mediate a fight in the region between the two sides. but, i would go back even further. no one can guarantee that this sort of cascading proxy war wouldn't have occurred notwithstanding the iraq war. but you can make a pretty good argument that if it didn't create the mess that we're living with today, then it at least exacerbated it or expedited it. and so clearly the case i'm laying out today would have never allowed us to go into iraq in the first place because we simply didn't understand the political ramifications of that decision. many of them were tightly knit inside iraq, but many of them also have spilled out to other places around the region. and so some of this is -- some of what i'm offering is totally unsatisfactory looking forward. it's just a caution to not do something again like iraq without understanding the hell that it often brings to regions like that. >> okay. how about right over here to the left. yes, thank you. >> hi. my name is sally and i'm from sixth killer consulting.
my question is twofold. the first one is that the press had stated that the senate foreign relations committee met to discuss uamf. i wanted to ask you if you believe that has legs and then the second question is what are you doing to ensure that the 2001 aumf sunset is part of those discussions. thank you. >> well, there's two issues. 2001 aumf, 2003 aumf. i don't think anybody can argue the 2003 aumf should hang around. 2001 is trickier. we can't get rid of our 2001 aumf. it is our authorization to fight al qaeda. it authorizes current activities of the u.s. government so what we can kredably do is sunset it and force us to have a discussion. >> i would like that to be baked into any aumf that we pass, but
i think it's more important to get an aumf that limits the authorization of fighting isis to the terms of that aumf. that's a greater imperative. i am so appreciative of the work that senator cane was done in particular but also senator flake to bring the two parties together around an authorization. i have worries that the limitations in their authorization will not prove to be limitations at all. i believe that we should put a box around the deployment of combat troops to the middle east. i'm worried that their language does not do that. i would be more comfortable with looser language on troop limitations or geographic limitations or language on connected forces if there was a sunset, if we were forced to come back and debate the whole thing in three years. that's not included in that authorization either. so i think it's an important starting point. but to me, it it allows for a little bit too much leeway for the next administration to take
strategic steps that i deeply disagree with in the region and listen, there's been an important debate happening over whether congress should be involved at all in the strategy of warfare or rather if our job is only to name the enemy and then get out of the way. i would argue that there's a long history of congressional intervention on foreign affairs that suggest that we have the power and i'd argue the responsibility to also include some discussion of strategy in our authorizeationuthorizations. -- authorization. >> thank you, senator for being here and provoking us. you just used the term put boxes around the middle east which gets back to what is in our national interest, a term that he used earlier and you hinted at that and why are we so focused on the middle east.
what happened to south asia and what happened to latin america africa? the different kinds of -- the different parts of europe? what is -- what are american priorities for you and how do you plan to deal with them? because we're totally obsessed with the middle east and is it or isn't it in our interest. >> well, listen. our interests are multifold. they start with protecting the united states from attack, and that project is not exclusive to the middle east. what we know is that terrorist groups, isis at the top of the list these days are setting up shop in a variety of places all around the globe and we simply again don't have the resources to meet that challenge and i would look to africa as an example and the paltry sums that our state department has to
spend means we can't do spending for the group like al shabaab moves and the american foreign policy would have seen what was happening in somalia and easily predicted the move of that organization in parts of kenya and taken steps ahead of time to try to blunt that momentum. we just didn't have the resources to do that. so again, part of this challenge is plussing up the resources we have available to think outside of the box of the middle east. um, we do have an interest in preventing slaughter and genocide, and so i accept that as part and parcel of america's interests in the world, and i just argue that in proposing an intervention you make damn sure that it's going to make the carnage better rather than worse, and i argued two summers ago that in syria dropping bombs in the middle of a stew of civil and military unrest would have
made the situation for people on the ground worse, not better. so there would begin to be your set of interests, but you are right. we are hyperfocused on the middle east. there are good reasons for that. not so good reasons for that and part of this project is to try to hopefully awaken people's interests and attention to other parts of the world, as well. >> yes. right here in the middle. thank you. >> my name is steven short. senator, would you please speak about the importance of trade with relation to american foreign policy specifically fast 00:48:07 ? track authority? >> so there's no doubt that as hillary clinton coined it, there's an important element of economic state crafts to all of the work in which i'm talking about here.
many of us would just argue about the terms upon which you're engaging in that discussion. so i voted against fasttrack and this is off topic, but i will tell you my opposition to it. i totally understand the rationale that greasing the wheels of the legislation process makes a trade deal easier to pass, but why on earth do we elevate trade for fast track consideration and nothing else that's important? a energy bill increasing american energy independence would also make this country a lot more secure, but we subject that debate to the traditional set of rules and nobody talks about a fast track for energy reform and immigration reform
which you could argue that our demographic advantage is one of our primary strengths in and around the world, but nobody is talking about a fast track for immigration reform. i think it's oughtdd that we set a process for trade and nothing else. i hope that there will be one of these deals, either tpp or ttip that i can support because i believe trade is intertwined with american foreign power and it's just to be on the right terms. >> way in the back. i mean, as far as you can go. >> i hope i'm not the only one interested in the china question. so tomorrow the u.s.china strategic dialogue will begin. what do you expect are the most pressing issues that should be discussed? does congress play a role in it? thank you. >> i mean -- congress arguably has been pretty awol on u.s.china policy. you know, there hasn't been a lot of significant or really relevant discussion in the united states congress about what to do with china moving forward. you know, a lot of us believe that there are places where we can get tougher that, for those that worry that increased
sanctions against currency policy or cyber attacks would erupt a trade war. we suggest that we're already fighting a trade war with china and it's only one country fighting it, but i, again, look internally when i think about how we deal with china. it's hard for us to say that disputes in the east and south china sea should be resolved through diplomatic means when the united states won't sign the treaty of the seas. it's hard for us to make that argument credibly when we're not willing to be at the table. if we expect china to really be a participant in the 2015 climate change negotiations then how do we do that when the majority of the senate and the house argue that climate change isn't happening and 99% of scientists are wrong. so i -- i think that there are tangible things that congress can weigh in on the u.s.-china relationship and obama will say that the trade agreement is a big part of that, but i also think the way in which we conduct ourses and this is a big part of the principles is you need to look inward in order to
look outward. i think we have to do a lot to strengthen our hand when we sit across the table from china. on cybersecurity, it's a big problem. there's no way to defend against what they're doing with stealing secrets and invading people's privacy. they claim we do it, too. we don't, but when we are tapping into the cell phones of foreign leaders without much of a credible explanation, it just robs us of the moral authority to get them to change the way in which they do things. >> i think we have time for a question -- one more question. maybe another? yes, in the back? >> thank you. my name is david and i represent the georgian television station in washington, d.c. you made several statements of nato enlargement and offering member expansion plans to the states and neighboring russia. how do you see russia's
neighborhood in the new foreign policy of the united states? thank you, sir. >> so, you know, again, back to the ideas that we rolled out. none of these are breakthrough ideas and one of them is clearly reinvesting in the international organizations. you know, i think we threaten nato's future legitimacy as we slowly close the door on the open-door policy. there are countries that are willing to join, that are ready to join. i think georgia obviously has some particular and important problems that have to be worked out, but it is absolutely ready to join and when we refuse to enlarge, we start to diminish the importance of the organization to begin with. just a word about ukraine before
we end because it's intertwined on the responses to crises. i am stunned with how it begins and ends with arming the ukrainian military. that is 80% of the oxygen that we expend. i think that's a really important question, and i've come around on it. i opposed it, at first, but i think as long as we're doing it in coordination with the majority of our allies in europe which is nothing that we can presuppose today that it's worthwhile, but the reality is that right now the most important debate playing out is how ukraine structures its debt to the point of $15 billion of relief. america has a lot to say about that in part because it's american companies, american pension funds that have to come to the table, but nowhere in congress is there a realistic conversation about putting the pressure on those companies or investing in real economic assistance that would help
ukraine. we're willing to spend potentially billions of dollars to hand arms to the ukrainians apparently for free, but we're arguing over guaranteeing loans to them in a manner that sort of i compare to arguing with your neighbor about how they're going to pay back the cost of the bucket of water before you deliver it to them to put out the fire. i just think that we should be much more generous with that country, but we're not having that debate, but again, there's an obsession with the military power of the united states to the point of -- in the ukrainian debate almost ignoring all of the other levers and resources that we have at our disposal and i don't argue for reducing america's comparative military advantage. i just think that there are other conversations and other tools that desperately need to be plussed up if we really want to keep ourselves safe and we want to be able to take the right kind of risks in the world
that are really demanded by these new times. >> we've come to the end of the hour and there are many more questions than time would allow which suggest a degree of interest and i think your talk has sparked some interest in a good conversation. please join me in thanking senator murphy for coming and you'll come back at some point? >> i will. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, wiich is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> tonight on the communicators, cochair the congressional privacy caucus on the recent fcc regulation rules and issues with privacy and cyber security. >> you have the basic principle is information visit --whose
information is it? is it automatically in the public domain because i choose to use a mobile app? they go into the cloud and all that. or can i use it and have a reasonable expectation of personal privacy? if you take the latter view, that changes the way you regulate and the way he wrote -- you legislate. if you take the position that i am by, by participating by using the app i am forgoing my right to individual privacy, that is a different issue entirely. >> that is to the communicators on c-span2. >> tomorrow in washington journal, virginia tech shooting
survivor: daughter looks at how the south carolina church shootings have changed the ongoing the control debate. after that indicated called and coulter speaks on immigration policy in u.s.. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> earlier today, south carolina governor immediately held a news conference to call for the confederate flag outside the state capitol building to be taken down. she talks about what the man flag means to different groups and what it means to take it down. we'll show you that reading again tonight here on c-span.
>> normally i would try to get you already, but i cannot do that with my thumbs up today. hopefully you are ready to go. this has been a very difficult time for our state. we have stared people in the i am what good prayerful people killed in one of the most sacred of places. we were hurt and broken and we needed to heal. we were able to start that process not by issues that divide us, but by holding vigils , by having our neighbors, by honoring those we lost and by following to our knees in prayer. our state is grieving, but we are also coming together. the outpouring of love and support from all corners of
people across the state and country has been amazing. the families who lost loved ones have been unbelievable pillars of strength and grace. their expression of faith and forgiveness took our breath away. they have truly shown the world what south carolina looks like at our best. the mother emmanuel church reopened its doors yesterday. michael and i were there, we took our little ones. we saw what true faith looks like. we saw that true hate can never triumph over true love. my children saw the heart and soul of south carolina, starting to mend. i want to talk a little bit about the heart of our states, iowa to talk about the people of south carolina i am so proud to serve. the country in the world have watched our strength and resilience over the last few days. we are strong people who love god, our families and have great faith.
we believe in a resulting neighbors, we are a state that has held tight toward traditions and continue to grow and change that move us forward. we were recently named the friendly estate in the country and the most patriotic to. american flags fly probably from home to home in south carolina. in just the last few months commencing nation lost our state go through another time of crisis, when we don't want the trail of what our own and the tragic shooting of walter scott. south carolina did not respond with rising of violence like other places have, we responded by talking to each other, by putting each other's shoes does putting ourselves in each other's shoes and fighting common ground in the name of moving our state forward. the result, both republicans and democrats, black and white mccain together and pass the first body camera built in the country. i stand in front of you, and minority female governor, twice
elected by the people of south carolina, the high be stamped my friend tender tim scott, elected by the same people love one just to african-american members of the united states senate. five years ago, it was said in the last 50 years, south carolina is the state that has changed the most, for the better. that was true when i quoted it at my first inauguration in 2011. it is even more true today. we have changed through the times and will continue to do so. but that does not mean we forget our history. history is often filled with emotion, and that's more true in south carolina than a lot of other places. on matters of race, south carolina has a tough history. we all know that. many of us have seen it in our own lives, in the lives of our parents and grandparents. we don't need reminders. in spite of last week's tragedy, we have come a long way since
those days, and have much to be proud of. but there is more we can do. that brings me to the subject of the confederate flag that flies on the statehouse grounds. for many people in our state the flag stands for traditions that are noble. traditions of history, of heritage, and of ancestry. the hate filled murder that massacred our brothers and sisters in charleston has a sick and twisted view of the flag. in no way does he reflect the people in our state who respect and in many ways, revere it. those south carolinians view the flag is a symbol of respect, integrity, and duty. they also see it as a memorial, way to honor ancestors during time of conflict. that is not hate, nor is it racism. at the same time, for many others in south carolina, the flag is a deeply offensive symbol of a brutally oppressive past. as a state, we can survive and
indeed, we can thrive, as we have done, while still being home to both of those viewpoints. we do not need to declare a winner and a loser here. we respect freedom of expression, and for those who wish to show their respect for the flag on their private property, no one will stand in your way. but the statehouse is different. and the events of this past week call upon us to look at this in a different way. 15 years ago, after much contentious debate, south carolina came together in a bipartisan way to move the flag from atop the capital doll. -- dome. today, we are here and a moment of unity in our state, without ill will, to say this time to remove the flag from the capitol grounds. [applause]
governor haley: 150 years after the end of the civil war, the time has come. there will be some in our state who see this as a sad moment. i respect that. but know this, for good and for bad, whether it is on the statehouse grounds or in a museum, the flag will always be a part of the soil of south carolina. but this is a moment in which we can say that that flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state. the murderer now locked up in charleston said he hoped his
actions would start a race war. we have an opportunity to show that not only was he wrong, but that just the opposite is happening. my hope is that by removing a symbol that divides us, we can move forward as a state in harmony, and we can honor the nine blessed souls who are now in heaven. [applause] governor haley: -- governor haley: the general assembly wraps up there year this week, and as governor i have the authority to call them back into session under extraordinary circumstances. i have indicated to the house and the senate that if they do not take measures to ensure this debate takes place this summer i will use that authority for the purpose of the legislature removing the flag from the statehouse grounds.
[applause] governor haley: that will take place in the coming weeks, after the regular session and the veto session have been completed. there will be a time for discussion and debate. but the time for action is coming soon. i want to make two things very clear. first, this is south carolina's statehouse. it is south carolina's historic moment. and this will be south carolina's decision. for those outside of our state the flag may be nothing more than a symbol of the worst of america's past. that is not what it is for many south carolinians. the statehouse belongs to all of us. their voices will be heard, and their role in this debate will be respected. we have made incredible progress in south carolina on racial issues, yes, but on so many others. the 21st century belongs to us because we have chosen to seize what is in front of us, to do what is right, and do it together. i have every faith that this will be no different. it is what we do in south carolina. it is who we are. second, i understand that what i have said here today will generate a lot of interest. what i ask is that the focus
still remain on the nine victims of this horrible tragedy. their families, the mother emanuel family, the ame church family, and south carolina family, we all deserve time to grieve, and to remember, and to heal. we will take it, and i ask that you respect it. we know that bringing down the confederate flag will not bring back the nine kind souls that were taken from us, nor rid us of the hate and bigotry that drove a monster through the doors of mother emanuel that night. some divisions are bigger than a flag. the evil we saw last wednesday comes from a place much deeper, much darker. but we are not going to allow this symbol to divide us any longer. the fact that people are choosing to use it as a sign of hate is something that we cannot stand. the fact that it causes pain to so many is enough to move it from the capitol grounds. it is, after all, a capital that belongs to all of us. july 4 is just around the
corner. soon we will once again celebrate the birth of our nation and of our freedom. it will be fitting that our state capital will soon fly the flags of our country and of our state, and no others. god bless the people of the great state of south carolina. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tomorrow on "washington journal," virginia tech
survivor: good art talks about how -- colin goddard on the south carolina church shootings. and call to disgraces her new book. -- ann coulter discusses her new book. also tomorrow, testimony from catherine archuleta on data security and spending after security was breached at the office of personnel management that could affect the records of millions of federal employees and others that work for companies with government contracts. she was speaking for a senate subcommittee and you can see it live at 10:30 a.m. on c-span3. next, the white house briefing with press secretary josh earnest. he spent most of the briefing talking about the president's use of the n-word during a
podcast interview. this portion is a half hour. secretary earnest: good morning. happy father's day. you want to get us started with questions? jim: josh, i wanted to ask you about the president's podcast. his use of the n-word has created stir in social media which was part of the broader and deeper discussion of racism, but i'm wondering if his use of that was intended to be provocative, and given the reaction does he in any way rate -- regret using it? secretary earnest: he does not have the press -- he does not.
the reason he used the word could not be more evident. the president made clear it is not progress to judge progress on race issues on manners. the fact is we have made undeniable progress over the past several decades and as the president has often said anyone who lives in the country to the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's, and the 1980's, notes the tremendous progress we have made. it is undeniable, but it is also undeniable there is more work to be done, more work we can do, and the fact is everyone in this country should take inspiration from the progress made in the previous generation and use that as a motivation, inspiration trying to make further progress toward a more perfect union.
>> in charleston, there are leaders calling for the confederate flag to be taken down pat the president has said it belongs in a museum. does the president believe that officials in south carolina should take the flag down, or does he believe it should be up to the people of south carolina to decide? secretary earnest: i do not totally understand the question. >> with the president call on them to take it down, or does he believe that is a debate that should occur and the people of south carolina should decide? secretary earnest: i am not sure there is a distinction to be drawn there. the president talked about this, six or seven years ago, where he shared his view that the confederate flag should be taken down and placed in a museum where it belongs.
>> no debate necessary. secretary earnest: in the mind of the president, yes, it is pretty clear what should happen, the president, obviously, does not have the authority to make that decision. it will be made by south carolina officials. the president is very clear about what his views are and what the appropriate course of action is. press from there, you would say to the governor of south carolina -- >> from there, you would say to the governor of south carolina, take that flagged down? secretary earnest: the president said this seven or eight years ago when he was first elected president. >> does the president and 10 to go to south carolina at any point? -- this is -- does the president intend to go to south carolina at any point? secretary earnest: i do not have any scheduling announcements but as more information gets locked down, we will let you know.
>> a currency question. the former chairman of the federal reserve has reacted with outrage at the decision to replace alexander hamilton with a woman on the $10 bill, suggesting a better suggestion would be replacing andrew jackson on the $20 bill. does the president have a better view and would be administration reconsider? secretary earnest: the treasury department has been clear. the image of alexander hamilton will remain on the 10, but they want to include a woman on the currency. how that will be done, it is a process the treasury department is currently engaged in. the reason the treasury department selected the $10 bill, it is currently under review by the appropriate authorities for upgraded redesign for security purposes.
so, it is the appropriate time to be considering changes like this. that is why they are having discussions in the context of the $10 bill. the tcu. -- good to see you. matt: back on charleston, the president has lamented the politics blocking gun legislation and some have interpreted that -- some have interpreted that as giving up. is there a chance the president might try to revisit that before the end of his term? secretary earnest: that conclusion is wrong and i think it is evident from the body language, not just when he spoke thursday but over the remarks he spoke -- in the remarks over
the course of his trip to the west coast that this is something he is passionate about for good reason. what the president is realistic about is that congress has to be heard on this. the view right now, and i think this is a straightforward political analysis, it is unlikely congress is going to act in the way the president believes would be in the best interest of the country on this issue. it is the president's. the only way this will change is when the american people make clear, not just what their position is on this issue, but that a position on the issue is a priority and they would like to see their members of congress take action. all of the polling data indicates the american people support commonsense steps that
would make it much harder for criminals, those with mental health issues, that there are commonsense steps we can take to make it harder for those individuals to get their hands on a weapon. and we can do that without undermining the fundamental second amendment rights of law-abiding americans. this should be a common sense endeavor. because of politics and passion felt by a minority of individuals across the country those steps have not been enacted by the congress. the president was pretty blunt about this analysis in the remarks he delivered in the rose garden a couple of years ago after the last attempt to enact legislation along these lines failed in the senate. the president's disappointment about that continues and continues to be evident.
but it certainly is not an indication and should not be misread as the president somehow losing passion for this issue. matt: the investigation concluded the israeli groups committed serious violations of international and humanitarian law that may have amounted to [indiscernible] what is the administration's response to that report especially given it impugns the actions of one of its closest allies in the region? secretary earnest: we are continuing to review the report released over the weekend, i believe. we indicated last year in the midst of the conflict that we support israel's right to self-defense.
at the same time, we expressed deep concern about the civilians in gaza that were in harm's way. we urged all parties to do everything they could to protect innocent civilians essentially caught in the crossfire of this conflict. that was an important thing to do, particularly given the high civilian death toll in gaza. but we are also aware israel has undertaken an investigation of incidents from the conflict. we await further outcomes from the israeli government on this particular matter. john? john: back to the wtf interview, did the president intend to say what he did? obviously, it was not a mistake. did he go into the interview intending to use that word? secretary earnest: no. as is as evident from the conversation, it was a free-flowing conversation. it was wide-ranging. it was no decision made on the part of anybody at the white house that we are going to capitalize on this audio interview from somebody's garage in california, that this would be an opportune time for him to get this particular point off
his chest. i think the point he is making is entirely consistent with the way he has made this point in settings where he is delivering from prepared remarks but also in the context of answering other questions. john: i don't think we have heard him use that word in public before, even before he was president have we? or has he? secretary earnest: i don't think so. that word is mentioned in his book several times, but i don't know that i've heard him use the word before. john: he was pretty forceful in the room talking about the issue of guns. is there any indication -- when he made the remarks, did he have any indication the shootings in
charleston would have been prevented by any proposals he has made on gun control? josh: we are in the early hours -- secretary earnest: we are in the early hours of what was an ongoing investigation and continues to this hour as well. the point the president is making is we all know there are commonsense steps that can be taken that don't undermined critically important second amendment rights but would make our country safer, would make our kids safer, and make it harder for criminals and those with mental problems to get their hands on a weapon. there is no piece of legislation that congress can pass any president can sign into law that will eliminate every incident of gun violence in this country. but if there is legislation that congress can pass that would even slightly reduce the number of incidents of gun violence in this country, then why on earth would they not sign it? why would they not pass it so the president can sign it? john: you seem to be giving the impression this was a result of
congress' inability to act. in the heat of the moment. secretary earnest: i think that is true. there are incidents of gun violence that will be prevented if congress were to act. they have not. it is too early to say what impact congressional legislation would have had on this incident. john: one more question on the interview. what was the president's reaction to see his own words bleeped out on networks? this is a word most networks simply will not air because it is so offensive. what does the president think when he hears his own words bleeped out? secretary earnest: i did not talk to him about that issue. it does strike me as the top of editorial decision you have to make and not one i would weigh in on from here at least. michelle? michelle: why did the president choose to use that word in this context?
secretary earnest: again, the president did not set out -- michelle: but he made the choice during the interview. that has come out in the discussion and analysis you do i would assume after every interview. this one caused a stir. it is such a charged word. to use it right now in this setting, he had to have known this was going to get a reaction. secretary earnest: i don't think he was surprised. i do think it has prompted careful consideration of what exactly he said. as i said to john, this is consistent with an argument he has made in the past. and it is an argument people are now being exposed to today. michelle: you said you did have a discussion, just not about the particular point john makes. secretary earnest: not the editing, but the censoring. michelle: the discussion you did
have on why he chose to use that word. at that moment, did he say why he decided to go there? that was not the nature of the discussion i had with him. i think the fact of the matter is if you take a look at the context of this exchange he had with the interviewer, the president is making an argument that is familiar to many of you who have carefully covered the president's discussion of these issues over the last year or so. this is quite similar to the argument the president made at the edmund pettus bridge in selma, alabama. he talked about how the progress made on racial issues in this country since that fateful day 50 years ago, a little over 50 years ago now, is remarkable and undeniable. we owe a debt of gratitude to people like john lewis for the enormous sacrifices they have made.
we should take a lot of satisfaction and pride and even inspiration from the fact that because of their dedication and incredible courage, we have made progress in this country. the first thing john lewis would tell you and the thing the president observed in his remarks in his speech was that john lewis did not do it alone. he felt he had a strong support of the community in selma, alabama, and americans of a variety of religions and races who came to stand with him and march with him. because of that unified commitment to a principle of justice and equality and fairness, we have made important progress. we should draw on the inspiration and success of those previous efforts to make additional progress in this country.
that is the argument the president was seeking to make. michelle: by using that word would you say he had a goal in making the decision to say the "n" word at that moment? for him to say it during the interview, was it the garage setting? >> [laughter] michelle: he chose not to say it in the briefing room during an emotional address. secretary earnest: entirely different context when he is speaking to the nation on live television in the aftermath of a horrific incident of violence in the briefing room is very different from a taped audio interview in a garage. i think we can all acknowledge that is the case. it is a different kind of discussion the president was seeking to have at that point. michelle: would you say he had a goal choosing to use that word at the moment? secretary earnest: what i would observe is the argument the president has made in the context of this specific
interview is consistent with an argument he has made in a variety of other settings, both when he has been asked questions and is delivering prepared remarks. i would acknowledge it is understandably notable that the president chose to use this word. but the argument the president is making is one that is familiar to those who have been listening. michelle: a provocative choice yeah? he had to have known as he makes the decision to say the word and the word comes out of his mouth he had to have known he was deliberately saying something provocative. secretary earnest: it is not just a matter of it not being polite to say that word in public. yes, i think that is self-evident from the president's remark. j.p.?
j.p.: the e.u. voted to extend sanctions against russia. is the united states going along with that? do you have any comments? secretary earnest: this is something the president discussed with the allies or partners in germany earlier this month. this was an opportunity for the president to have detailed conversations with president hollande and chancellor merkel in particular about how important it is for the international community to remain unified in the face of the destabilizing actions of president putin. this is the next step as the international community continues to act together in the face of the violation of the territorial integrity of ukraine. i think it is an indication of
the international community's resolve to making sure president putin respects basic international norms. major? major: the foreign minister said it is more important to get a good deal than to adhere to a deadline of june 30. is that something the administration agrees with? secretary earnest: the way we have described it is the president will not sign onto a bad deal. to the extent the prime minister or foreign minister is indicating a good deal is paramount, i think from that respect, the administration would agree. i think it is possible -- major: other than between now and the 30th to get one? secretary earnest: month now -- major: we have not had a chance to bring this up publicly.
secretary of state kerry said it is not important any longer to achieve a deal with iran that it needs to disclose fully its previous attempts militarily to obtain a nuclear weapon. from this podium you and others have said that was important and it would have to make clear what it attempted to do and the world would have to understand the efforts it undertook to pursue one. that appears to be off the table, a significant concession. secretary earnest: what we have been saying all along is we would insist iran address the significant concerns the international community has had with the potential military dimensions of their nuclear program. but also to make sure moving forward every path iran has to a nuclear weapon has been cut off. that will require iran to
cooperate. major: is there more room for iran to admit less than it would prefer? secretary earnest: we have been clear about what our expectations are. been clear about what our expectations are. that was discussed in the political agreement reached in april. we will expect -- in fact, we will is that iran address those concerns. most importantly, however, that they verify their compliance with the agreement that shuts down every pathway they have to a nuclear agreement. >> the wall street journal indicated today that there are a group of e-mails that you played a far more policymaking role than previously admitted by the administration.
that appears to be a contradiction from what the administration described originally. would you like human that? >> no. i think it has been consistent. the washington journal did not cover any e-mails that somehow suggested marketplaces established by states would somehow mean the citizens of that state would be ineligible for tax credits. e-mails released actively in the house, who also voted consistently to repeal the health care act. >> i am try to ask you to address what they are you to
represent, which is a more active and engaged role when a person who was previously described to us as largely tangential in the development of the law. >> when the president -- ellen >> will people come to these e-mails and come to a different conclusion? >> i don't know why anyone would come through 20,000 e-mails that mr. gruber sent in the last 20 years. it doesn't undermine the way that his role has been previously described by the administration, as far as i know the way that i described and the way the resident has described it. again, there may be some republicans in congress who think that releasing these e-mails gives them some kind of political advantage of one sort or another. but i am not really sure what that is.
>> he takes words very carefully. he crafts them himself. philosophically, did he believe he needed to say something in a more evocative way? did he feel he needed to use something that would grab the countries attention in a more provocative way? and so, then does he believe that the use of this word has at certain moments, an arresting, provocative value? >> i think the president was answering a question in a pretty informal setting. i wouldn't knowledge that the president -- the way the president designed his argument in the scenario was provocative.
i don't think that are -- that there is anybody here is surprised that this is getting more attention. i'm referring to an argument that the president has made on many occasions. it's not an argument that everybody likes, but an argument that the president feels strongly about. this idea that we can draw on the inspiration of those who have make so much -- so much progress -- >> the president has no regrets, does not feel any contrition about using this particular word? i wonder if you thought it was necessary to get the country passes attention. josh: he is eager for people to have a good sense of the argument they're trying to make the we have gone to great lengths so you understand the argument the president was trying to make. >> she echoed the president and
said, what will change this? it begs the question, what is the white house passes plan to knowledge that lawmakers are probably not going to anytime soon. it also says, the lawmakers are not going to address it. again, what is the plan, what is the white house passes plan to adjust public opinion on this issue? josh: this is an issue the president will continue talking about. you will recall a year and a half ago now, the administration did announce a couple dozen executive actions the president
and the administration could take two, in a commonsense way try to address gun violence and confront those in a way that does not at all undermine the importance of law-abiding americans. it is possible for us to do more but it will require -- and when i say us, i mean congress principally. there are some common sense things congress can do. periodically, if there are additional ideas, we will put those forward. based on the fact that over the last two years or so, the administration has moved forward on more than two dozen initiatives should -- to try to get to the root causes of gun violence, i think is an indication of the president's determination to make drug rests the issue. important way we could make progress, will require congressional action.
that is something that will only occur once the american public makes clear that action is a priority. >> any sort of new proposals? besides the one you just stated? josh: some common sense once have been put on the table. we know we have the strong support of americans across the country. the president observed some of the proposals have strong support from the majority of gun owners. it is ultimately up to congress to decide to act. >> earlier today so the california governor nikki haley called for the can that are up flag outside of the state b taken down. we will show you that briefing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span.
>> tonight, cochair the congressional privacy caucus on the fcc regulation rules in the issue of august in cyber security or it like you got the basic and civil -- whose information is it? is it automatically in the public domain because i choose to use a mobile app and we know that the way these things work they go into the outer and all that? or can i use it and still have a reasonable expectation of arsenal privacy? -- expectation of personal privacy? the latter view changes the way you regulate and the way you legislate.if you take the position that i am, by act of being a part of, by participating, by using the app, i am forgoing my individual right to see that --
right to privacy, that is another issue entirely. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span 2. >> tomorrow, virginia tech shooting survivor: gothard -- collkiin gothard looks at how indiana enters the discussion and debate. "washington journal" live tuesday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> earlier today, sarah kate ellis, the president of glad issued remarks involving the rights of lesbian gay and bisexual individuals.
held at the national press club, this is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am keith hill. i am a former press club vice president and a member of the newsmaker committee. i will be today's moderator with glad president and ceo, circuit ellis. after the speaker's presentation, we will take remaining -- take questions for the remaining time. once a members of the press have asked of their questions, we will invite non-press club members to ask the questions here and please keep your questions brief and to the point inspeeches please, so we can get in as many russians as time allows. anyone with questions should identify themselves and stay to
the agency and organization they represent. i would like to bring up an event. on july 8, coach jerry -- coach barry traut will speak at a luncheon. turn off all cell phones to vibrate. the u.s. supreme court will soon decide oberg are failed riches -- a burger felt versus hodges, which will require ohio to recognize same-sex marriage lawfully entered into in another state. what will happen to the movement after was handed down. today's guest will discuss ramifications for our against the plaintiffs. sir kate ellis has been president and ceo of glad, the nations lesbian, gay, bisexual trendstransgender media advocacy
organization since january 2014. before taking the position, she was an award-winning executive and communications strategist whom it programming the spotlight to the diversity of the lgbt community. the floor is yours. ms. ellis: thank you very much. thanks for having me today. so there is one way a can come down. wine is it will be yes. that will be a great celebration . but we will be back on monday or the following day. number two, the way the ruling can come down is that the states that do not have marriage equality will have to recognize marriage equality from other states. that is a half win you can look
at that way. the third way as we get it now -- a no altogether. which means we will be having to do a lot of work in the future. any way in which they come in, there's still a lot of work we have left to do. at glad we just commissioned a poll of over 2000 americans and asked them how they really feel about the lgbt community. it is an understanding of what the culture is out there for the community. we asked them on a five-point scale and then we asked about everyday situations such as bringing kids is that powerful for a play date, i can anything exciting. well we've found is that one out of three americans is still
uncomfortable with the lgbt community. when you look closer. any look at the south, they go even higher. 10 to 20 percentage points. when you look at the community those levels increase up to 40% -- when you look at the transgender community those levels increase up to 40% so 90% of americans are very uncomfortable with the transgender community. from there, we have a bus tour in the south. why we do that is because we want to accelerate acceptance of the lgbt community. no matter the way scotus rules we have to create a culture in which americans can live. so we traveled from states, 10 cities in seven days and we met with community leaders. we premiered to many documentaries and we met with church and faith leaders and had very vibrant conversations on how to help accelerate acceptance. additionally, we've been working
closely with visibility. those are two points that i'm making out of this entire study. when you look globally we have real challenges globally and acceptance is moving forward in america, discrimination is being exported globally. we are working closely with advocates on the ground across the world to accelerate acceptance. i think that's about it. keith did a wonderful job of introducing me. i am sarah kls. i have been at glad for a year and a half. i come from the for-profit side and we do media advocacy, so it is about raising the stories of everyday americans, but also people who are well known who are supportive of the lgbt community because we know and
understand, to build acceptance in this country that you need to know somebody because it opens your heart and mind and changes public opinion. we work hard to change public opinion in this country. without icann take -- in this country. with that, i can take questions. keith: i'll take the moderators prerogative and ask a couple questions before you open it up. first a couple controversies in the last several years. in 2011, glad supported at&t in the eventually canceled merger with t-mobile when it was reported that glad had received $50,000 from at&t. second in 2013, glaad gave
former president bill clinton was noted as an advocate for change. my question is have either of those controversies effected how you broadcast your message in any way? ms. ellis: fortunately, none of them happen under my watch. that being said, when you deal with corporate america, do you want -- do you want best me to start over or smart fortunately none happen under my watch. i am the leader they are now and i feel at this stage that bill clinton gave, he talked about coming onto his journey of acceptance for the lgbt community. i was a powerful platform for -- it was a powerful platform for him to talk about that. moving forward, glaad is the
advocate or and we have been known as a watchdog. there's always a lot of controversy around glaad because we do call people on things when they're not going well. i have to say the media and i've had a really good relationship now. glaad was formed out of protest in front of "the new york post" almost 30 years ago this october when the post was reporting on aids and calling it the gay man's disease. we have always had an advocacy arm eyes. -- we have always had an advocacy and advocacy armed us. keith: on the journey of self-discovery what about situations wary of recognized individuals who may have talked against gay marriage at one point but are now coming around.
how do you address the so-called dichotomy or that kind of flip-flopping? ms. ellis: i think it is a journey. and we talked about a recently and they're bringing their congregations along with them to the place of acceptance. we have to give room for people to discover, to understand, to educate, to meet people who are lgbt and go on this road of discovery and acceptance. it takes time and we've seen that in the lgbt community and we talk about that openly that it is a journey to acceptance. keith: i would like to shift gears a little bit. a week or so ago most american
airlines and wells fargo took some had for their lgbt rainbow. -- took some hits for their lgbt rainbow. american airlines has a rainbow flag. how do you approach her how do you help the corporate community and advocating for lgbt acceptance. before the ruling comes out or up until the ruling has come out, how has glaad gone about trying to change the corporate mindset and get them to accept the community? >> you know, the thing we know is being diverse and inclusive is very good for business. once the business case scenarios for made, most of corporate america gone on board in supporting the lgbt community because they
understood not only does it affect their bottom line, they retrain great talent and recruit great talent. with corporate america, and they got the memo on the business case came out that it would help their business and they've been very pro-lgbt and they realize taking some of the heads -- some of the kids -- some of the hits, the bigger social impact is really important in the business impact is really important. keith at this point i will open : the floor for questions. >> you mentioned what happens as it got work to do. if you get a ruling that is a half loaf or a ruling that makes it more difficult, how will you
go about doing that work? ms. ellis: first, i mentioned how there is still discomfort with the lgbt community. that is focused on raising the stories, meeting lgbt people through the media because we find a lot of people who don't accept or not pro-lgbt don't know anybody who is lgbt. they will raise the story of these couples being hurt by not having a positive ruling we would talk about attacks that were put on them with the human side, that is our job to raise awareness on what the human toll would be for not having a positive ruling.
>> do you have a game plan repaired? do you have something that you will immediately rollout depending on what the court does? ms. ellis we have all three : scenarios covered in terms of how we will proceed. we are not a policy organization. our plan is a media plan and how it would raise those stories and make sure that there is enough awareness if there is a negative ruling, how that hurts american families today. >> you talked about how there is lingering problems for lgbt people. i am wondering what is the mechanism by which we get people to be more accepting any issues to be more exposed and how you envision getting people they are. >> i think a lot of it is by meeting lgbt people appear to do it through movies. movies are one of america's biggest cultural exports.
we are doing a lot of work with movie studios to have them be more closely because they don't -- to have them be more inclusive because they don't get a good rating on being inclusive and high productions judeo movies. another is telling stories of everyday people we now and you have done extraordinary things are live ordinary lives in the face of adversity. this way, people get to know people who are lgbt. with caitlin jenner coming out recently, before caitlyn came out, we got a percent of -- we knew that 8% of americans knew people who are. now we are in the market seen how did that move the needle is such a high-profile and coming out as transgender. getting people like that who can do positive portrayals is really important to moving acceptance forward. [inaudible] >> i don't
-- >> i don't have the number yet. it is in the field right now. >> inevitably when you have court cases come down, it could be the case at the case that the top-down decision as opposed to a ground up. what do you do about that and avoid the perception that a court or smaller body is pushing an idea on a larger populace that may or may not have that. >> that's a great question. 39 states having marriage equality is over majority obviously. so that doesn't seem very top-down. it seems bottom-up when you look at the landscape and how we've been fighting for marriage equality for over a decade. it's been gradual and slow building to this moment now. it has been very much a bottom-up strategy in order -- if you look
at the statistics, 60% of americans are pro-marriage equality for the lgbt community. that is a supermajority at this point. it's definitely a bottom-up. >> >> certainly nationwide. stay to say, would you say it is a bottom-up on those not on board? ms. ellis: when you go state to state, each state could be its own country practically in america. we often sometimes they -- sometimes say that. the people of america have spoken and are ready for this with over 60% saying that they are for marriage equality. i think the states are ready. we have our work cut out for us as
glaad and accelerating acceptance for southern in the middle country might be a little bit slower to move in that direction. overall, we are in a good place. [no audio] >> but the states that have resisted doing now. what not basically legalize it because people would have to do is go out of state and then come back and they would still have the benefits of marriage. >> yes. you also have to think about in theory, correct. there are people who can't leave their state whether they are sick, whether they don't have the means do. it could get into a socioeconomic issue at that point as well and it is not fair to those people who live in those states. in theory, yes. but in practice i think it is very important way of marriage equality in this day. we will be pushing for that if we get the second ruling we
talked about. >> i know that glaad has scored the media honest portrayal of gay characters in film and television. in 2015, is that the trail of -- is the or trail of gay characters by the media industry a plus, minus or wash? >> it all depends which media you are talking about. on the network front, networks do a very good job of media portrayal and incorporating lgbt people in the storylines into the diverse viewpoint of the lgbt community. when we get to the community one show right now, the bold and the beautiful is exported more than it is viewed in the united states. the only recurring trends role. we have to pick up the representation. when i look
-- so we have to pick up the trans representation. when you look at the studios i mentioned, studios don't do a very good job. there are low numbers of purport trails and they are still the joke. the arabic demise, killed, all those things. i think the news media as a pretty good job. they do good interviews and there's some media institute or news segments that can even do better. overall, newsday is fairly good. >> what two or three things could the news -- film industry do to improve their record -- what two or three things could glaad to get the film industry to turn around? what other things can glaad do to get the film
industry to change its mindset? >> i would love for them to take a page from corporate america who understands diversity and inclusion is better for business. the film industry would see it is better their business as well. one of the things we are doing right now is not only do we measure them every year so we have a baseline to have the conversation, but the other thing is compiling the past two years of representation of people in film to show how negative it is. and they will be out a few were talking about versus hitting number report every year. we are talking about places that they could incorporate more are lgbt carrots yours in their movie. it takes longer to see the effects and they are going to look at the content providers. >> you think the reason the industry do
you think the reason is possible blowback from the general public? if they are showing movies of the south. i know years ago there were movies in which african american movies and tv shows did not appear. we put you put atransgender person the movie because if it are shown in the south is going to be shown in very few theaters. do you think that is part of the mindset ?mindset? >> their -- mindset ?multimillion dollars
multimillion dollars and want to get one you can't really fix about that much. you can add it in their formulaic in the way they've done it year-over-year and they try and work the formula. to step outside the formula is very scary because there's millions of dollars on the line. and see success will get us where we need to go. i think that they most likely get caught up in their own cycle of formula and make money. these are expensive to shoot and edit the knowledge that. i think it is important for them to start to look at different ways to be inclusive because i think it will add to their bottom line, not detract. >> recently
i think that they most likely just get caught up in their own cycle of formula and big money. these are expensive to shoot and expensive to edit and dollar that. i think it is very important for them to start to look at different ways to be in the same, because i think it will add to their bottom line, not detract keith: recently ireland became the first country in the world to accept gay marriage. is there anything that glaad can be learned from? ms. ellis: what is interesting about ireland is that it was by popular vote. i don't believe that a minority' s right should be voted on by a
majority. being that said, it went very well. we worked on that at glaad. we work with the media tend to get the questions right and the media right and get as much media around big events as possible. yeah, we should take a page from their book geared i don't think voting on is the page to take. but a very catholic country has beaten america to the punchier. it is why i am cautiously optimistic that we will get a positive ruling from this up in court. we just saw in mexico last week in we are seeing a lot of really positive, affirming lgbt movement globally as we are seeing as much resistance about it i don't want to downplay that at all. it is still criminally many countries to be lgbt.
>> on some issues like abortion is strongly bright, yet they move to the left. you talk about faith communities. how do you take these traditionally right or left positions and get to where you want to get without saying we will move the entire left on all of your issues or entirely right. >> i don't think it is a -- ms. ellis: i don't think it is a left/right issue. it is an issue of love and family and that is one thing where ireland took what we do really well, which is when we first started on the marriage equality road, we talked about rights and protection and when they realize those were resonating, emotions resonate with people. we talk about love and family and appealing to what we all have in our nature to protect her family, love our family.
ireland took that an up-to-date -- and upped it even a notch. in some campaigns were sheer brilliance where they had a grandson: his grandmother and coming out to her and her responding in the positive. it is really about love, not left right. it gets mired when it's really about family, making the country even better because when you have love, when you have strong families, a country thrives. gave: let's say you see a case for a southern baptist preacher says he doesn't want to perform same-sex marriage. in your idea could he or should he be sued or say this is not the way -- is there a grey area in that? how does that work? >> freedom of religion is -- ms. ellis: >> freedom of
religion is critical to this country. where it gets shady and gray is when it gets out of the church are out of place of worship and gets into businesses denying services for businesses. that gets into a very gray area. one day of the wedding cake you do not deserve somebody could be the next a life or death. i think it is really important. right now there's over 80 anti-lgbt religious freedom bills pending. but we want to be careful about is those are denying people services every day and that is business. when you talk about churches within the confines of your church, you have a religion. >> >> let's focus on the transgender community for a minutes. first of all i had a discussion
, with someone yesterday because she didn't know the difference between transvestite and transgender. could you clarify that for us? i gave her what i thought my definition of both of those were. ms. ellis: i'm so glad people are asking. that is what has been profound about caitlin coming out. it is so important to have these conversations. someone who is transgender is someone that, by definition, -- they feel differently if feel differently inside than their body shows. they want to align their body with how they feel in their heart and mind and that is why -- and that is what transgender is. it has been a very impactful couple years in the media for the transgender community and wasting a lot of visibility for
a lot of that. i want to also warn what we have seen this year is eight murders of transgender women. while we see a lot more of his ability, we also see an uptick. as reported, so many people are ms. gendered or are not out. -- so many people are misgenere dered and are not out. eight is what we know at this year which is more than one a month. we are really focusing on accelerating acceptance for this trans community. [indiscernible] ms. ellis: yeah, so there's a lot of nomenclature. transvestite is someone who
dresses in women's clothes but doesn't necessarily identify as a woman full-time. keith: we have mentioned caitlin jenner several times. before caitlin jenner, there was renee richards who was a professional tennis player. before we gave richard there was christine and. talking about the early 1950s. i have two questions. first, how specifically can you talk about it with this case to help the community if the first option holds true. the first option which you mentioned earlier, same-sex marriage period. how would that help the transgender community to see a direct assistance, indirect, both, neither?
ms. ellis: any time wasting marriage equality come to a stay to a state, we've seen acceptance rate of the lgbt community go higher. what we know is that if the , positive affirming ruling comes then, acceptance will be accelerated coming in for the lgbt community. keith my second question i would : like to focus on an article that was published in my companies human resources report written by genevieve douglass. the title of the article is the caitlyn jenner spotlight, helping transition in the work place. two things struck me in this article. first, genevieve quoted that there are an estimated 700,000 transgender adults in
the u.s. workforce. 700,000. the second thing that struck me was she quoted a consultant and advocate who said quote, when you transition, you don't transition in a vacuum. everyone in your life transitions with you whether you like it or not. my question is, does there need to be -- there's a critical mass need to be reached before the transgender community gets to the same level of acceptance as trained to, lesbian and bisexual. you tell two friends -- acceptance as gay, lesbian and bisexual? in other words, i am talking about the old commercial where
you tell two friends and they tell two friends and so forth. is there a number at which a turning point could occur in the community begins to be accepted, do you think the numbers need to increase before that would happen? ms. ellis: well, i always get a little nervous around numbers just because especially when you are self-reported in the community, when we were in the southern bus tour this last week i had a gun woman come up to me -- i had a young woman, to me who is trans who said i didn't know what i was until two years ago. she didn't see it. she knew what she felt inside and she wasn't aware of what transgender even met. -- even meant. even building visibility about what it is increases the people who were living in pain right
now were potentially suicide candidates understand who they are, except who they are and -- accept who they are and see they can live in this world happily. i worry about the numbers quite frankly. i think as we see people transition, as we hear their stories to learn about their lives and family, we become more open and more accepting to them and it creates a happier better world for these people. i think we are on that road and let me know over in cox is a -- and lover cox is a great example of that. we worked for a number of years and was on the cover of "time" magazine last year as the transgender tipping point. with caitlin coming out, a very high profile person, the interview with diane sawyer was
viewed by more than 20 million households in the united states. for the first time in millions and millions of households on that night, they met someone who was transgender. that is a miraculous thing for acceptance. keith: do you see any change in the numbers sent caitlyn jenner was on the cover of "vanity fair"? >> we don't have automatic reporting for that. we don't have automatic reporting for that, but my professional gas is we will see more people who say they know someone who is transgender now and more people identifying because they will know who they are. they have been struggling quietly in the recesses of the country and now they will actually have something to that
name and feelings against who they are. keith: you talked about a bus tour you have done throughout the south. could you talk more about the bus tour and people you've met with any negative impressions or negative experience during the bus tour? ms. ellis it was a phenomenal : bus to her. we did six cities -- six states excuse me, 10 cities in seven days. we started in nashville and we did the first ever country music concert at affirming lgbt but tight herndon who is in out -- with ty herndon who is a country artist. we sold out. we had over 30 press outlets.
it was the first of its kind and it was accepted very well. no protests. we went on to alabama where we met with community activist's then we went to meet with lgbt military families to find out how life is now after the repeal of don't ask don't tell and how we can help through media bring those stories to light and shine a light on any issues they were so having. and then we were premiered to many documentaries. one of south carolina, charleston and then columbia and then in georgia a , mini documentary on georgia. they are doing exactly what her job is a glaad, which is taking trials and triumphs of people who live extraordinary lives. we met with a lot of leaders in now -- we met with a lot of faith leaders.
that was very interesting to me. they really are at a point of acceptance trying to figure out how to bring the congregation along been the most successful people have done a year or two journey with the congregation, having conversations about who are we, what do we stand for and how we are inclusive and diverse as a community. i found that really fascinating. the other thing i found fascinating in the smaller towns, a lot of the activists or the people on the frontlines who are living their everyday lives out and proud aren't organized. a lot of organizing happened in smaller towns across the south which already you could see the lightbulb go off for community activists were they realized they were talking to each other and there's more power in numbers. it was a fascinating trip. >> we
-- keith we talked about ireland : earlier. let's go to the other side of the globe. do you have any statistics on the lgbt community and how they are treated are the views of the lgbt community in asia? ms. ellis: one of the challenges we have globally and i touched on this little earlier is that our opponents in the state have taken their methods, their anti-trans -- there and tie of the bt have been exporting it. so we are seeing the the criminalization across the globe of the lgbt community. not only that, in a little less than 10 countries, you could be punished for being lgbt. there's a real crisis abroad. i don't have the specifics but i can absolutely get those for you. overall what we want to be
mindful of is we have a challenge that is global now that we need to recognize. we started recognizing it as glaad. we've been working with activists on the ground globally for years but we started to get involved last year around the olympics and making sure the stories of russian lgbt people were being told when all the cameras were on sochi. we have been active in ireland. we are working with nigeria now and we have quite a few projects on the horizon. we can't keep up with the advocates on the ground globally who are asking for assistance and help to help train them to understand how to work with the media, build the relationship with the media. it is a very active space right now with a lot of needs. keith are you going to donate : specific related to the 2016 olympics in brazil next year?
ms. ellis: well, we are always looking. we are always analyzing who needs our help, how we can help and when the national spotlight is on a country, we will always be there and active in talking about the issues we have globally for sure. >> a policy question -- [indiscernible] with the affordable care act, do you think transitioning should be included in and of audible health-care package? ms. ellis well, i think it has been proven : that it is something that should be medically covered. i think there is documentation on that. you know, when somebody it is causing stress, it is not
good for anybody. having that kind of coverage is critical. >> -- keith do you have any specific : partnerships here in the united states or are you doing a blanket of presentation regarding the lgbt community? ms. ellis: could you clarify that? keith: i'm not going to mentioning names but but a specific company in the united states, are you working with them in trying to get them to generate more acceptance with the lgbt employees they have within the company or are you doing -- is your presentation a general one that will effect or attach most
-- or touch most of the companies here in the united states? ms. ellis: you know one thing we found out when we did our accelerating acceptance pull is what we definitely need to pay attention to in the future more so than we have in the past are our allies and a lot of corporate america can be our allies and within the companies have a number of allies. so it is about engaging allies and bringing them along to support us and help us along. glaad as a whole is about accelerating acceptance for the algae bt community. so anyway we can do that whether corporate framework for a private framework, we are always trying to do that. like we said earlier corporations understand it is good for their bottom line, good for talent retaining and gaining new talent. it is in their best interest and
they understand that now. i find they are very clued in to the lgbt community and how powerful acceptance can be. keith: are there any specific policies you would like to see corporate america adopt regarding the lgbt community. somebody mentioned health care. pensions, wages, whole range of issues for corporate america could benefit their lgbt community. are there any specific policies you would like to see put in place to help the lgbt community in the united states? ms. ellis yeah, it is really : important when it comes to a transgender community to think
about health care. it's also important to think about what transition is in many services they can provide to make that easier to do it while they are still at work. i also think one thing we didn't , touch upon while on policy is policy beyond marriage equality in this country. you could still get fired and 29 -- you could still be fired for being lgbt. you could be evicted from your home and denied services. we have a lot of work to do on policy friend. marriage equality is just that. it is a benchmark, not a finish line. we know you cannot legislate acceptance of that is why we are so focused on accelerating acceptance because those policies alone, whether they're in a corporate environment or at the country state level, federal or state level, the best policy and protection is acceptance
because that is when you have a consensus of acceptance, you have a safer environment and a safer country whether it be a work environment warehousing environment or community. case: is there anything congress could do to benefit the lgbt community you or would you rather focus on individual programs to help th lgbt community? you mention not having a vote on the issue. do you think there is anything legislatively that can be done specifically on the federal level to help the lgbt community? ms. ellis: so i was mentioning earlier there is about 80 anti-lgbt bills pending. there's another
20 that are anti-trans. they are called bathroom bills and basically it is legislating what bathroom a trans person can or can't go in. we have to progress as a society, as a community to allow our transgender brothers and sisters to feel safe and accepted and not be put in situations where they are scared and unsafe. those bathroom bills are creating those environments. those are big ones we are having conversations about right now in trying to build awareness around. keith: focusing on the legislative branch of government, let's say the supreme court decide same-sex marriage has to be recognized.
suppose the congress comes back and says okay, we are going to try a bill to negate the supreme court's decision. what happens then? ms. ellis: we hope that doesn't happen. if that doesn't happen, we will fight like hell. we have been for over 50 years fighting for this had a lot of people say this happened overnight. it didn't happen overnight. people have been fighting for for decades upon decades. so we will continue pushing forward because we know when you have an inclusive community, when you have a community that supports families, do you have a better family. even if congress goes up against it, we will make sure we organize around that and make sure we stop it. keith have you been talking to : any presidential candidates regarding basher sent them
-- presidential candidates regarding or sent them papers regarding the lgbt community? ms. ellis: we are a political nonpartisan. so the shortest answer is no. keith: seeing there are no more questions, i would like to thank sarah kate ellis for her how does excellent presentation. like to think crystal light and -- i would like to thank crystal light and the press corps library. i would also like to thank the arias. with that, this proceeding is closed.