does the rule of four have to do with the supreme court and how cases are heard? guest: i think we have a winner. the rule of four is often known as granting a writ. in order for the supreme court to hear case, it takes at least four justices to agree to hear that case. it is also known as the rule of four. host: congratulations, you will win a copy of this constitution. we will get your information off the phone so hold on the line and they will take your information we will make sure this gets sent to you, congratulations. here is natalie from twitter -- guest: we love the iron triangle questions because students lose sleep over this. this is the simple fact -- on the test, the iron triangle will ask you what are the three points? let's make sure we know the three points. congressional committees, and interest group, and the federal bureaucratic agency. it basically space to the interrelationship and how public policy is passed and enforced. it's different than issued network. they talk about iron triangles being too rigid. triangle -- issued networks, don't get too hung up but no those three points. guest: that was a great twitter feed. larson gave me a hard time because in talking about iron triangles, i talked about can of mushrooms and the fda regulation of canned mushrooms and the fact that there are six different styles of canned mushrooms. the fact that the fda has come up with a rule that every ounce of canned mushrooms has to be packed in 37.5 milligrams of acerbic acid. congress is not necessarily coming up with that law by members of congress from the horticultural subcommittee of the department of agriculture are working with the bureaucrats in the fda and probably working with a lobbyist from the ami which is the american mushroom institute in a very friendly atmosphere. they are coming up with specific regulations. it's known as the iron triangle and known as elitism in policymaking. guest: i was going to bring a can of mushrooms this year because a student gave me one as a gift last year. another bureaucratic agency prevented that. at o'hare airport confiscated my can of mushrooms. host: -- guest: another one of our favorite questions. we all know the first amendment. we know freedom of speech and freedom of the press but we sometimes forget those other freedoms also in the first amendment. there's the right to assemble, right to petition. i would say you definitely need to know the difference between free exercise and establishment particularly establishment. establishment clause of the first amendment prevents the united states government and now it goes to the states where you cannot have one state religion. guest: we rarely talk about this amendment, ourst right to assemble in groups. that's the basis of civil society which is the basis of democratic government, the right to join groups, to complain, to talk about issues. host: peer is emily from new york. caller: i would just like to give a shout out to my teacher. my question was -- i was wondering what the difference -- what to midis should know in the house and the senate, the major ones we should be reviewing? guest: the major committee in the houses the house ways and means committee. laws have to start in the house of representatives, the house ways and means committee has a lot of weight when it comes to creating those tax laws. guest: let's not forget the nomenclature of committees. the house ways and means committee is a standing committee. this is permanent and allows for expertise, members in the house served on that committee for up to five or more terms. what happens when a bill passes through the house and the senate and they are different? they use a conference committees and make sure you know the difference between standing committees, the permanent committees, and those conference committees that are brought together to reconcile differences between the house and the senate. guest: another committee that is pertinent to the house is the house rules committee. the senate does not have this. in the house, the rules committee determines the rules for debate and the rules on the floor procedure in the house of representatives. host: any significant senate committee to know? guest: they are permanent but not -- but nothing as sexy as ways and means. the senate committees are important because the senate committees also approve the appointments by the president. judiciary senate committee gets a lot of attention on c-span which is a great example of checks and balances. when the president appoints a federal judge or supreme court judge, the senate judiciary committee has the first shot at that confirmation process. host: here is sydney from georgia. there, my question is statusrdless of income and higher education, [indiscernible] guest: i did not hear that. guest: it's about voting turnouts. one of the key things you should know is that voting is for old people. people who are more experience at voting are much more likely to vote. higher that people with education and higher incomes are also more likely to vote. guest: also african-americans are more likely to vote democrat. in the last election, they turned out at a higher rate than caucasian voters. host: l this isars - guest: this is a question we hope will find its way in this year. we are rhymed for campaign finance questions. it's loaded with terms. pac, a political action committee, has limits. i can only give so much to them and they can only give so much to candidates. now we have this new area known as independent expenditure groups. this allows the fatcats to give unlimited amounts and in some cases undisclosed amounts to groups like 527's or groups like out ofacks which come the citizens united case. anyway we look at it, we are looking at the mother's milk of politics which is money. money still plays a critical role in those campaigns as much as congress has tried to limit and remove the perception of corruption, big money still pours in and make sure you understand the differences between hard money, soft money, and independent expenditures. guest: independent expenditures is a key question. what can you spend that money on is a key question? the easiest way to figure that out is an independent expenditure can be used for an ad to promote a candidate to promote an idea but it cannot be hidden to a candidate to spend on that candidates transportation costs or the cost of that candidates handlers or staffers. it has to be independent. you can promote an idea but it cannot be used for the grassroots, on the ground transportation cost. host: strategy question -- great question, a lot of great teachers out there -- mr. newman and mr. lockwood are studying with their students and we want to affirm all you teachers because this is a difficult test. here is our suggestion on those difficult multiple-choice questions. read the prompt carefully. don't worry about time. look for the words like not or accept. my suggestion to you is before you have a debate between a,b,c ,d, try to imagine what the answer is first. if it says something about selective incorporation at the prompt come you know the answer has to say something about bill of rights in the states. there will no -- there will be no tricks in the question so browse through the options. if you see bill of rights and state, that's the answer. guest: so much of government and political science is about vocabulary and lingo. one of the great ways you can testre -- prepare for the is go through the vocabulary of government and be really familiar with those key vocabulary words. host: we have been giving you sample questions and here's another 1 -- about public of again and the measurement of public opinion. we get a little bit of science here where students should know that to have a really effective opinion poll, than is to be a random sample. that means everyone in the universe of that sample has an equal chance of being asked. host: it's not just about the constitution or strict government, it's everything that is involved. guest: this covers not just the institutions that also those linkage institutions like media, political parties, interest groups, campaigns and elections. it is thorough but is not a political test in that it will test your opinion. no arguments will be made here. to know the broad strokes of american government politics. host: spokane, washington, hello. caller: i wanted to give a shout out to the class of 2014. could you give me a quick summary of a presidential election process? guest: we know the presidential election process is 2.5 years away but it is starting now. the very first step in any campaign process is to develop a personal following, to be mentioned. you want to be able to raise money which is a key part of the process. you have to have people who know who you are and have a personal following. guest: the primaries go state-by-state and are very important. let's not forget about the national conventions. it's a media event every four years where the political parties choose their candidates and frame the agenda, from the messaging. let's not forget about the electoral college. we the people still do not directly select our president. takes 270al college to win the electoral college and puts the regional blocs in play and gives small states a bigger voice than you would think. host: this is sophia from georgia. caller: hi, i want to give a six. out to ms. evans class. will definitely be court cases on the test. don't panic. there are too many to study them all but there are a few we would recommend. andv wade, right to privacy abortion, brown versus board of education, the first court case that incorporates the bill of rights, it was free speech. a casemy favorite is about the civil rights movement and is a case about the commerce clause. this is the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act of 1964. there was a serious question whether that was constitutional. guest: the supreme court case that determined that the civil rights act of 1964 was constitutional said congress under its commerce clause of power can't prohibit secretary should -- can prohibit segregation. host: she wants to explain the cormatsu court case. guest: this would be one of those cases. we have never seen this on the ap government exam. this was about the internment of the japanese during world war ii. the ap government test is not really a history test. don't panic for those of you who did not take ap history. you might be able to use ko ramatsu as an example. guest: when mr. larsen speculates that something may not be on the test, it usually is. longtime viewers know that. [laughter] host: here is another e-mail -- >> this is a great question. over the last 50 years, we have seen that presidents more rely on the advice of their white house staff or the executive office of the president. they do so for a number of reasons. it is easier to hire white house staff or advisors because they don't have to be confirmed by the senate. unlike a cabinet secretary who has to go through the cabinet -- the confirmation process. another key reason is that these are typically former campaign aides. they are very loyal to the president and don't have divided loyalty like a cabinet secretary and remember the term executive privilege -- an advisor to the president can claim executive privilege of congress ever comes around asking questions on like a cabinet secretary. >> another e-mail -- guest: i would not be surprised if we see a chart on the federal budget in the frq's. critical words would be entitlements, discretionary funding, mandatory funding. entitlements are those payments made every year that the congress is obligated to appropriate like social security and medicare. they don't debate this. it's not sunsetted year after year. it's in that budget and it is the majority of the federal budget. discretionary funding is a small percentage. these are the programs that the congress candidate. the mandatory entitlement spending is getting this federal budget in trouble. guest: in addition to that information about entitlements, you should know the word fiscal policy, the idea that budget making is fiscal policymaking and the fact that the budget making process is the same with a of making laws little catch -- the president gets to recommend the budget than congress writes the budget but the president has to sign the budget into law. host: from california -- ♪ caller: i would like to give a how out tomr. norris - does the federal reserve help regulate the economy? guest: thanks for getting up early and asking one of those tough questions. we just talked about fiscal policy now we are talking about monetary policy. that is the federal reserve. it's an independent group is not supposed to be affected by politics. the federal reserve chair is appointed for a term that often exceeds the term of the president, it certainly exceeds the term of the president that appointed him or her. monetary policy is money flow. guest: the federal reserve board is an independent group. they are appointed with fixed terms. we see there are different parts of the bureaucracy, sometimes we call them independent regulatory agencies, that are more independent because when they are picked to be on that board, the commissioners have a fixed term. host: an executive order is a directive given by the president to the bureaucracy to carry out and implement some part of the law. it has the same power of the law. congress usually has to fund it so it's hard for congress to block an executive order. agreement goes into the chief diplomat powers, the idea the president can meet with another head of state and come up with an agreement that is like a treaty. it is typically smaller than a treaty. like an executive order, it does not have to be approved by congress. guest: we have seen executive orders and executive agreements on the increase as our partisan congress has bickered back and set in.d gridlock has president set taken on more power because the executive orders and executive agreements do not need congressional approval. host: from dayton ohio, you are up next. hey, a big shout out to mr. byers. how is judicial activism and judicial restraint connected? guest: we are talking about jurisprudence. how does a judge make up his or her mind when looking at a case. we would like to think about the laws are used to interpret the laws but what happens when that is fuzzy? what happens when the law is not clear? we look at judicial restraint and judicial activism. judicial restraint is when that judge tries to limit him or herself to adjust the light which of the law or what the original intent of the law was. we have judicial activism or judges take another information, it could be other areas of expertise. in the end, the supreme court has what's called judicial review. based on the court case going way back to the early days of our republic, this is the ultimate check the supreme court has over the legal process in the congress and in the white house. they can rule acts of congress were acts of the president on constitution. host: from brookfield, maryland, eva joins us next. caller: hi, i would like to give a shout out to my teacher at sherwood high school. i was wondering if you could explain how congress can change the court's jurisdiction? guest: that's a great question. the constitution gives congress the authority over the courts. they can decide the courts docket. they also have the power to create lower courts underneath the supreme court's. in that way, they control the jurisdiction of the courts which we also know as the dockets. guest: that is something c-span is interested in because the courts could open up the courts to television. host: here is an e-mail -- guest: we know the amendment process in the constitution, the way we change the constitution funny seven times is with a proposed amendment by2/3 of each chamber of congress and those proposals have to be of the states. there is the informal amendment process and that's the way the constitution changes. it can be changed by an act of law. they can be changed by a supreme court decision. it could be chased by tradition. the best example of an informal amendment is political parties. the fact that the constitution does not mention political parties yet this city and this government is run by political parties. that's an informal amendment. concepthis lease to the of assessing power of the three branches britt how powerful is the congress? how powerful is the president? how powerful are the courts? formal power and informal power. host: we want to thank our producer who put this together. she put these free response questions together. opinion outit of there but some of the questions as it relates to campaign finance reform. that would take me 100 minutes. guest: campaign finance is a tricky area. students should know the loopholes. the reality is is that the supreme court has time and again said that campaign money our political speech and that political speech is protected. we can limit them in some ways like we did with the 1974 law with hard money. there is only so much money you can give to a specific candidate. however, there are loopholes. like independent expenditures. guest: when you write about campaign finance, do not forget the constitution and how the supreme court has ruled under it. buckley established that the first amendment protects campaign moneys. don't forget to use the constitution as an example when you are writing those frq's. host: andrea from corona, california. caller: hi, i would like to give a shout out to the third. . summary of the decision-making process and courts starting with putting a case on the docket? guest: your case has to have standing. typically, the supreme court is looking if this is a case there has been damage. we also know to be on the docket -- we talked about the rule of 4 -- at least four justices have to hear that case. guest: less than five percent of the appeals of the petitions are heard by the u.s. supreme court. appellate courts have to deal -- here every appeal but there are thousands of cases petitions to the supreme court and they get to decide. four judges decide which cases they hear. this last year, it was about 80 cases. host: a question from twitter -- guest: i will let mr. larsen & toubro limited guest: this is not really a history test. there are some historical events you want to remember like the chaise rebellion. the articles of confederation created an extremely weak central government for the articles of confederation established strong state sovereignty but there were issues about trade and currency and protection back in the states. se rebellion reminded those who fought the revolution that we might lose what we fought for so they called for a new constitutional convention that was highly controversial with groups like the federalists promoting a stronger sense of government and the anti-federalist holding onto states rights. it was washington versus jefferson but in the end, it was a compromise. they created a stronger central government. same question was asked back in philadelphia in 1787 is asked on capitol hill every day here in washington. guest: how strong should the central government be? sometime students are asked about the declaration of independence and the have to know it is the founding document. it is one of the key ideals, the idea that government gets its power from the governed, the idea that people can abolish their government and the natural rights that government is supposed to protect. host: guest: war powers act is one of those things we see questions on the test frequently. it's the idea that there are checks and balances still with the president warmaking powers. the president as commander-in-chief has the power to send troops into combat but not only does the congress have the power of the purse but if the president does sign and send troops into combat, he is to notify congress and get their approval within 60 days. guest: this speaks to the powers of the president and how they are checked. we know the power of the presidency is increased in our lifetime. how is it checked? the war powers act would be one example in the big example in our lifetime is public opinion. host: romney from illinois is up next. caller: him, i'd like to give a shout out to my teacher. can you explain the citizens united case? guest: everyone is buzzing about campaign finance. they think campaign finance will be on the exam. it is one of the most talked about court cases. it opens up independent expenditures to corporations. corporations had been severely limited in how they can participate in the political process with respect to money. now with citizens united, it appears as if that window has now been thrown wide open and corporations are now allowed to give money but only the independent groups, not directly to the candidates. guest: one of the laws that relates to this is the mccain-feingold campaign-finance reform act. that's from 2002 which tried to bring more limits. it got rid of soft money. it tried to put limits on those issue ads. citizens united had a different idea. host: we will hear from boris next from illinois. caller: hi, i like to give a shout out to ms. stopne from stevenson high school. would you please explain what is an independent regulatory agency? guest: the independent federal regulatory agency -- one is the fcc, the federal medications commission, and the faa, the federal aviation administration. sometimes at the fcc, they have judicial powers where if a tv station violates the law, the fcc can impose a fine. guest: the independent regulatory agencies serve all three branch functions. they can seemingly right law, they can enforce law, and they can actually adjudicate loss of this is a point of great stress and tension today. the bureaucratic agencies function almost like a government within themselves. host: one more question from spokane washington. caller: hi, i want to give a shout out to my teacher mr. biel. how does the supreme court choose the cases they hear? guest: we know there is a limit. they limit themselves to about 80 cases per year. the most fundamental way they decide is if there are two lower federal court decisions that contradict each other on the same issue, they then hear the case. host: those are the questions but what is parting advice for those cramming this weekend? guest: study hard and read the notes. this is not a current events test. the more you read the news, watch c-span on the internet and think about how the news applies to the big concepts of political science. those are concepts you can drop into a response question. this is a test for college credit but really, we are excited you are becoming a more engaged citizen. guest: study hard but also get some good rest. study those words. the very success of democracy depends upon. theknowledge and skills of its citizens you are taking a test on tuesday but you will really be serving your country for life as engaged citizen. we applaud all of you. host: is there an online source that can help with studying? guest: we have a website. izenu.org where there is a lot of good stuff. host: thank you very much for being with us. we have done on the next washington journal, a roundtable on the political news of the week. huffington post reporter sabrina siddiqui. tom tarantino from the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. he talks about why members of congress are calling for the resignation of eric should that be -- erickson said ski. you join the conversation on facebook or twitter all stop washington journal, live on c-span. >> the act that was passed in 1933 was a very clear line versions andlative things that thanks to andy deposits that it's up and the services they provided to individuals. there was a very clear distinction. the bankers were on the same side as fdr. the population was on the same side. things became stable for many decades. you contrast that to what happens in the wake of the 2008 crisis and it has been a much more expensive crisis. it was for the general economy and the actual on a level will for what was lost to individuals. relative to the bailouts. dodd frank came along and did nothing remotely like the effective adulation from depositors and traditional banking activity. at the relationships between 1600 pennsylvania avenue and wall street will stop it is part of book tv this weekend on c-span two. our book club selection is, "it calls you back." join other readers to discuss the book apple tv.org. -- book tv.org. can take c-span with you wherever you go with our free radio and for your smart phone or tablet. listen to all three channels. or listen to c-span radio anytime. each of a schedule on our networks, so you can tune in when you want. you can play podcasts of our signature programs. take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free app online for your iphone, entry, blackberry. the funeral for former minnesota congressman jim oversaw was held this weekend all stop he died at 79. the senators from minnesota, amy klobuchar and al franken, offered tributes to the late congressman all stop this is 25 minutes. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i come to the senate floor today to honor the life of a truly remarkable man, a devoted husband, a loving father and grandfather, a dedicated friend and a true public servant. jim oberstar was a man of purpose and grit who never stopped fighting for the people of his district, the people of northeastern minnesota. his resilience was like the resilience of the people that he represented. he was one of those rare people who was just as comfortable in the aurora, minnesota, parade in khakis and tennis shoes as he was at the french embassy. one unique thing about jim oberstar was that he always broke into french at a moment's notice and he would literally speak french at the french embassy and paris, but he might also speak french at the aurora parade even though no one else there spoke french. whether he was biking the masabi trail or fishing on sturgeon lake or hanging out with some of his constituents at tom and jerry's bar in chisolm which is where he grew up, he always loved northern minnesota and the people he represented. jim never lost sight of where he came from or the values that he grew up with. he knew that among other things, his job in washington was to be an advocate, and he approached every day with a fierce but disciplined urgency of purpose. what i love most about him was that in a day of sound bites and quick fixes, he was never afraid to give that long, long explanation of why he voted for something or why he thought something was important to his constituents. as the "star tribune" noted this week, jim was always a popular editorial of guests and meetings with him were -- quote -- "the equivalent of a graduate school seminar." when i think about jim, i first think of someone whose roots are also in northern minnesota, whose grandpa worked in the mines. i think about him, about how he fought hard to keep the mines open when times were tough, back when things were bleak and people were hurting. like my own grandpa, jim's dad was slovenian and he was proud of that, and jim's dad, like my own brand pa, was also an underground miner. they were part of a generation of immigrants that toiled hundreds of feet under ground day after day to mine the iron ore that built this nation and kept the world free in world war ii. it was a hard, hard life. long days and treacherous conditions. their families living in fear of that dreaded whistle that meant another miner had been injured or killed. jim knew that sound well because he lived through it. so when jim got to congress, he fought tirelessly to not only keep the mines open, but to protect the rights of the workers and to improve safety. during his first years in the house, jim pushed for legislation that created the mine safety and health administration. today, thanks to the hard work of congressman jim oberstar, mining conditions have greatly improved. that was bread and butter legislating for jim. straightforward, commonsense policies that made people's lives better. it sounds simple, but we know that in washington today, there are too many people who would rather score political points than get down to the hard work of governing. not jim oberstar. he was a man of conviction. in a business known for rewarding the expedient over the noble, he lived a life of principle. he played the long game and he did it on behalf of the american people. that is a great american. and that is a legacy worth celebrating. we lost jim suddenly this week in the middle of the night, in his sleep. the day before, he had spent the day with his grandkids. he had gone to one of his grandchild's plays. he had been going on long bike rides. and even after he lost his election in 2010, he never let it get him down. he just took all that energy and zest for life and put it into his family and put it into the continuing work he did on transportation and put it into his friends and just everything he loved to do. so we mourn him today, but we also celebrated the incredible gift that jim gave to our country. it is awe inspiring to think about how much time he spent mastering federal transportation policy. 47 years, nearly five decades. 11 as a staff member on the house transportation committee and 36 as an elected representative. during that time, he literally changed the landscape of minnesota and the country. his fingerprints can be found on just about every major federally funded transportation project during the last five decades -- roads, bridges, tunnels, rails, lox and dams, bike paths -- locks and dams. jim loved those bike paths. he was a visionary. he was in front of everyone on that. he would try to get money for bike paths and everyone would laugh at him. who cares about bike t paths? now everyone wants bike paths in their communities. everyone who drives in an airplane or drives our federal highways can thank jim oberstar. every american who bikes their bike trails, who hikes places like the beautiful lake superior trail in northern minnesota or drives on our national highways and bridges should remember him. he was a treasure-trove of facts and figures and advice for every member of congress. he always used to kind of poke fun at the senate because he claimed things kind of went here and didn't get done, and he would always say all that ever happens in the senate is you ratify treaties and confirm judges. one day, close to my own election, i was looking at the newspaper clips and i saw my name next to jim saying that, and i thought oh, no, what has he said? it was in the "international falls paper q i got it out and he said well, all the senate ever does is confirm judges and ratify treaties, but amy's going to try to rescue this bill, she will try to get it done, and i was quite relieved. one of the most memorable stories for me came on his last day in the house when members came and told stories about him, and there was a congressman from pennsylvania who talked about the time that jim visited his district to celebrate the opening of a new bridge. he said that jim stood up with no notes and recited with incredible detail almost every infrastructure project that had ever been built in that district, and along with the name of every congressman that had ever served in the district, with all the right pronunciations, and he even included their middle initials, and he did it with no notes. the congressman was in awe. he walked back to his office and he started looking back through the records and googling things. it was no surprise to anyone that jim was exactly right. that was jim. he loved politics. he thought about government as an honorable profession, and he was so proud of the people that followed in his footsteps, whether what he taught senator franken and myself as we started representing minnesota or one o his favorites, the mayor of duluth, don ness, who he started working with him when he was 23 years old as a young aide. whether it was all the staff members that worked for him for all those years. he was so proud of the people that he taught, the people that he mentored. he was so proud of the members of congress, democrats and republicans that he worked with. he would so often work to get amendments and get little projects for them for their districts, and then he would let them take the credit when they went home. i want to end today with something that jim said in his farewell speech to congress. he was reflecting on why he had originally run for office, and this is what he said. he said -- "the reason why i came is to serve the people, to meet the needs of their respective families and to leave this district, leave this house, leave this nation a better place than i found it. there is no question, mr. president, that jim oberstar left this world better than he found it. through his incredible legacy of public service, he found immortality. in the beautiful children and grandchildren that were and are his family, he has left the world a better place. the youngest one, a little baby that we met today at the funeral, was just recently adopted. and jim's daughter named him jim. he left the world so much. he not only taught us how to win elections, because he knew how to do that, he also taught us how to act and what to do when you lose an election. he has found immortality in the hearts of those who knew him and the lives of countless more who never will. in the majestic grandeur of stately bridges and in the cool shadows of quiet bike paths, in the hardhats hanging in the lockers of hardworking miners that go home safely at the end of the day. that's where you will find jim oberstar. that's where his legacy lives on. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you. i want to thank senator klobuchar for her moving words, her moving tribute to jim oberstar. we both had the honor of speaking today at his funeral. we were both honored by his wife jean and by his family. jim served the eighth district for 36 years as -- as their representative. he served for 11 years before that, senator klobuchar said as a staffer here on the hill. and as she said, he died last week in his sleep. i think amy told me -- senator klobuchar told me that the family said that he wasn't 99%, he was 100%. so this came as a shock to all of us who knew jim, and obviously deeply saddened us all. i announced for the u.s. senate in february of 2007. a few days later, i had my first public event where i took questions from folks, and this is at a coffee shop in st. james, minnesota, in the southwest corner of our state in the first district. the first question i got was from a woman asking if i believe there should be term limits, and from the way she asked it, i knew she thought there should be term limits. i thought great, my very first question and i don't agree with the person who is asking it. so i said no, i don't believe in term limits, and let me tell you why. jim oberstar. jim has been a congressman from the eighth district for 33 years now, and he is chairman of the house transportation committee, and he knows more about transportation than anybody else in the country. and everybody in the coffee shop, including the woman, kind of went yeah, they nodded, yeah, that makes sense. jim was a walking advertisement against term limits. he was the consummate public servant. it was -- it was all because he was a man who sought knowledge. he had a fierce curiosity about the world and an intense need to understand how things work. all that enabled him to accomplish so much. if jim were here today, if he had one more chance to speak to all of us, first he would say how much he loved his family and his friends and the people who worked for him. then he would tell us the history of american infrastructure, starting with the erie canal and how it opened up midwestern agriculture to europe because, he would explain, it was 97% more efficient to ship those goods over water and then the hudson and over to europe than before. and he would tell us how the erie canal made new york harbor, new york city, made it what it is today. and then he would take us through the transcontinental railroad and rural electrification and the interstate highway system and all the way to rural broadband. then he would just go back to the roman aqueducts which were built by slave labor and make an impassioned speech about the history of the labor movement. jim sometimes had a tendency to go too long, but it was because he believed that everyone was as curious about the world as he was, and he was almost always wrong about that. i once had the opportunity to speak before jim at the naming ceremony for the james oberstar riverfront complex, the headquarters for the voyageur national park in northern minnesota. before speaking, i took the opportunity to predict what jim would talk about. i said he would talk about the legislative -- he would tell us the legislative history of voyager national park. he would tell us about all the different streams of funding for the park. he would tell us the history of the french voyageurs, the first white men in minnesota, and that during the first part of the speech jim would speak in startlingly fluent french. everyone laughed, including jim, but that didn't stop jim from telling us the legislative history of the park, all the different funding streams and all about the voyageurs and that part in french. and delighting in every word of it. the first time i ever saw him chair, i went over to the house to see him chair a committee, it was on high-speed rail. he had witnesses from china and japan and france and some other european country, and when it got time for him to do his questioning, i learned that jim had piloted every one of those high-speed rail systems. and of course when he questioned the french witness, he did it in french, and it was a tour deforce, which i believe is french. jim understood the importance of infrastructure to our economy, to economic development, and as amy was saying for recreation. his legacy will be in the ports and locks and dams and highways and bridges and water systems throughout our country, but it will also be in the bike paths in minnesota and around the country. jim was an avid bike rider, and he used to say that he wanted to turn our transportation system, the fuel from hydrocarbons to hydrocarbates. it all came from jim's thirst for knowledge. the pages are here. i would urge you to thirst for knowledge. not just information. some people in this town or in other places, too, just look for enough information to achieve some short-term goal. jim sought knowledge, an understanding of how things work. because of that, he was able to get things done and was respected by all of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. amy and i were both there for the day that colleagues on the house paid tribute to him and with both sides of the aisle equally. we had a retirement tribute for jim in duluth in 2011, and don ness, the mayor of duluth, about whom amy spoke briefly and who was at the service today, told a story at that tribute which says everything about jim as a guy. don was 23 years old. he had been just hired to be jim's campaign manager, and this was his first thing to do with him was the fourth of july parades. now, the fourth of july parades on the iron range are a big deal. there is a lot of them. there were six of these in 24 hours. and this was his big chance to impress his new boss, and he screwed up every bit of it. the first thing he did was he was so obsessed with making arrangements that he forget to make his own -- forgot to make his own hotel reservation on the range. don lived in duluth. so he drove around the range to get a room until 1:30 in the morning and he found one in virginia, minnesota, and so he overslept and had to drive to chisholm and was late so he picked up -- he picked up jim and he decided -- to make up the time, he just drove fast and, of course, he got pulled over. and got a ticket. which made them really late for this parade and they got put at the end behind the horses on a very, very hot, sweatering delay -- sweltering day. so all during the day, donnie makes one screwup after another, he offended local t.f.l. activists, he lost jim for about half an hour. jim knew where he was but he didn't know where jim was. and he left this black car parked directly in the sun during a parade, and it just became -- you know what that means. so then thankfully after the fifth parade there was going to be like a three-hour break, and they were going to drive to somebody's house where they would be able to eat and get this the air conditioning and relax. and so donnie decided to put the signs in the trunk, and as he was doing it, as he was closing it, he saw the keys in the car locked in the car. and it took them 90 minutes to find someone that could open the car and they lost their break. now, he was a 23-year-old kid and he was certain that he was going to be fired. he felt he deserved to be fired. now, jim had been calm with him all day, been nice to him all day but figured jim was stuck with him till the end of the day and at the end of the day, he'd fire him. so he drives jim home to chisholm, it's 9:00 at night now, and he starts -- they get out of the car and he starts to say -- he starts to apologize and says i just blew it today. i know this was my chance, and i've blown it and i'll never be in public service. this guy is now -- what term is he in, amy? third? yeah, third term as mayor of duluth. what did he get? 87% or something like that. and jim stopped him, wouldn't let him finish. stopped him, and he said i'm really proud of you. you've had a tough day. we had a tough day. had you a lot of adversity, a lot of things to overcome and you never lost your head. which was really not true. donnie was panicking the entire time. that's probably why donnie made those mistakes. and then he gave don a big hug, that big jim bear hug that so many people talked about today. so then don carried the bag for jim, and jim, too, up to the front porch, and jim said before don went back to the car, he said i'm proud of you. don't worry about today. i'm proud of you. don went back to the car, and his head was swimming with -- he couldn't believe the kindness, the warmth, and then as he started to back out, he looked back and jim was still on the porch. he gave him this big wave, said happy independence day. minnesota lost a giant, the united states lost a giant today. or this week. we also lost a good guy. he was a great guy, a great man, and a good guy. another marco rubio's aching to senators in new hampshire. and a discussion of same-sex marriage with an attorney who argued against the defense of marriage act. college students get help preparing for the advanced placement government exam. >> a house judiciary committee from comcast and time warner executives. also appearing is antitrust there were also content providers and internet service letters will stop we will show the hearing tomorrow at 1:00 a.m. -- 1:00 p.m. >> everyone is coming to the new york world's there. they are coming from the four corners of the earth and from five corners i know of. they come from maine and across the street all stop from tokyo and rome. down from frisco. from hamburg and nineveh. troop 295 from the bronx and the traveling teachers from kansas. andy wilson's got there at last stop is a symbol of the fair. the great unit sphere. they find a machine that playfully demonstrate the law of averages. by chance, they meet all stop they join up for sightseeing. this weekend on american history people arety of followed as they experience the 1954 new york world's fair. that is on c-span three. for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington direct it to you. it puts you in the room at congressional events. we offer complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. is a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago. watch us in hd and like us on facebook. >> on friday, marco rubio was in newcastle, new hampshire. he addressed the republican committee's annual dinner. possibletemplating a presidential bid. senator rubio was introduced by former new hampshire governor johnson a new. this is over 45 minutes. >> thank you very much. i know you had to stand up to get these circulation going. but sit back and relax. if you look at your programs, the next thing on the program is the introduction of our keynote speaker, but for those of you who don't know, i am not kelly ayotte. [laughter] i actually feel like a utility infielder. every time there is a problem, i get a call, and tonight i have been asked to come in and do a little bit of substitution because kelly is on a plane that got rerouted or or what ever and she is going to be extremely late. and we wanted to get you guys home in time to see the rest of the football draft tonight. [laughter] one of the things that kelly told me on the phone was she wanted to stress how much she loves working with our keynote speaker tonight, senator rubio. she said, i can say what ever i want in a positive sense, and even more than that in her opinion. kelly is not here, but she wants you to know that she thinks this is one of the key persons in the u.s. senate. [applause] now fox news has stuck a microphone up here and it is jabbing me in the side, so i had to move it over. [laughter] i have another apology to make. i am here to tell you that wonderful, extremely talented, very warm and effective executive counselor from the district is sorry he couldn't make it, but he has a communion rehearsal tonight. he wanted me to extend his apologies, and when i tell him what a huge crowd there is tonight, he is going to be just a it upset. but the important thing is family, and christopher sununu is taking care of family tonight. [applause] i know she had to leave, but i have to tell you, as someone who came back a few years ago, like a damn fool to be state chairman, i have to tell you jennifer warn is doing a great job. even though she is not here, i want to acknowledge the great work she is doing. [applause] and regina -- oh, there you are -- you are doing a fantastic job. i do not know how you found all of these people and got them to come tonight, but congratulations on putting together a great event. [applause] i can tell you my criterion for a great event is seeing people here i haven't seen before, and there are quite a few here, so congratulations. that is fantastic. tonight we are here to do a couple of things. certainly one of the most important things we can do is just talk to each other. i am a great believer and communication amongst ourselves to begin with so that we can get good at communicating and then start talking to the folks who aren't here about how important this election that is coming up is to fix what is wrong with the state house and the legislature in new hampshire, to take care of the needs, getting a republican senator to replace jeanne shaheen, and most important -- [cheers and applause] getting it all put together so into a half years we can replace what is in the white house with someone who knows something about running the country. [applause] tonight, we are here to celebrate the legacy that we have received from three great men. george washington, the father of our country, abraham lincoln, who in those terrible times when the country was being torn apart came in at pull the country back together. and ronald reagan, who came in at a time when this country was looking at 21% interest. we had a president almost as bad as the president we have now in office -- [applause] and a nation that was really down. and ronald reagan came in and reminded us what it was all about. and in short order, that president restored our faith in ourselves and in our country and got this entry rolling again -- country rolling again to a point where the soviets took one look, put their hands up, and closed up shop. ronald reagan made all that difference. [applause] i dwelled a little on president reagan, because having spoken to marco rubio a number of times, i can tell you that first of all, he is a ronald reagan republican. [applause] and secondly, when you really talk to him, you find out he truly was inspired by that great president, ronald reagan. we are republicans for a number of reasons. we are republicans because we believe in the individual. the privacy of the individual over the overreach of the state. we are republicans because we believe in smaller government. we are new hampshire republicans because we have enjoyed the full benefits of truly smaller government for generations in the states. and we are republicans because we understand that in order for us to be enjoying what we have now, it is because of free enterprise and capitalism and freedom and a constitution that makes the difference, and we understand what made this nation great, and at this point in time, we understand the jeopardy this nation has. that is why i am thrilled to be doing this introduction. marco rubio believes in smaller government. marco rubio understands it is people and individuals like you and i that solve problems, not your regrets and state or federal government. marco rubio understands that growth creates jobs and he understands the greatest threat to growth is excess in taxes and excess in regulations. marco understands the strength that comes to a nation or a state when they balance their budgets. and he certainly understands that a strong national defense, a strong national security system, and a strong commitment to our international obligations is what this country's responsibility is all about. and i think he also understands, as he watches what is happening in washington, that we are not getting any of that right now. marco rubio and kelly were both elected in 2010. they both have young children. they both are committed to their family structure and recognize that that family structure is the heart and soul of what makes this country strong. marco has been the point man in many of the battles against obamacare. he understands this overreach by government not only is bad for now, but sets a horrible precedent for the future, is eating away our resources, and creating complications of growth of government that are disastrous for all of us. he voted against the debt ceiling increase. he voted against internet taxes. marco rubio is one of those young senators making a huge difference, and the only thing negative i can say about him is that it really ticks me off to be introducing someone that looks 60 years younger than i am. ladies and gentlemen, marco rubio. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you governor for that very kind introduction. thank you for that. and just for the record, at the end of this month, i will turn 43. [laughter] but i feel 44. and i'm sorry kelly is not here with us today. i know she wanted to be. she could not get here on time. she is a phenomenal united states senator. i want to share with you about kelly ayotte and myself. because we came in together. the first story -- i will never forget, we went to the orientation program. they show you how to file a bill, how to find your office. [laughter] we looked around the room and sitting across the room, there is so and so, and my gosh, she ran for president. we looked at ourselves and said, how did we get here? about six months later we are in good the same room looking around and we ask each other, how did they get here? [laughter] [applause] and also, another time we were there talking, and she turned to me and said, do you realize if we served here for 30 years we would still be the youngest people in the senate? [laughter] but anyway, thank you for having me. i am really grateful to be part of this. thank you so much for having me and inviting me. you have put together a great evidence. in the short time i have been year, the last hour or so, i have heard people who criticize the republican party, who say the republican party is not a big tent, we do not reach out to people different from us, they should, here tonight and see how ridiculous that was. i saw someone here tonight with a new york yankees cap on. [laughter] never say we are not big tent, but notice he is sitting in the corner. [laughter] anyway, thank you. thank you for this invitation. thank you for hosting. it is an honor to be here with you. scott brown, my colleague -- he and i worked a number of years together in the senate. [applause] i practically everybody in this room who has put themselves up to run for office, which is apparently a majority of you here tonight -- [laughter] that is great. i wish you all the best. i am glad to be here to talk about the issues confronting our country. they say, why are you in new hampshire? two reasons. one, we have good friends here. thank you for the invitation. and the people standing in the back of this room. i think we have reached a point in this country where we need to discuss the pressing issues of our time. my parents got on an airplane in the city of havana and came to deal the country in the world where people like them had a chance to improve their lives. they came to the united states of america. in this country, my parents never became rich. they never owned more than one home at a time, never owned a yacht. quite frankly, were never able to save enough to put us through college and had to borrow money to do that. but my parents lived the american dream. they lifted to its fullest. the american dream is not about how much money you make or how many things you own. that may be part of your dream, but that is not the american dream. the american dream is about things that are much deeper and more fundamental. the american dream is about raising your family in a safe and secure environment. about the opportunity to pursue your life, to pursue happiness, to use your talents and your gifts to live life the way you want to live. that is not a uniquely american dream. people all over the world aspire to that. but in this country it happens so much to so many people, that dream that people all over the world have is named after us. it is called the american dream and it separates us from the rest of the world. that so many people warned not to privilege, not to money, have been able to achieve that in this nation. and that dream is still alive. there are people in this room living at the. there are people in this room who is children are living it. there are people working at this event tonight -- and i want to thank the wait staff and all of these fantastic -- [applause] who are working hard to secure that dream. but i don't think we can forget the fact that today there are millions in this country who are starting to feel that that dream is outside of their reach. they feel that way because maybe they are 24 years old and they did everything asked of them. they went to college, they got an education. and now they can't find a job that they study for and they owe a bunch of money. maybe they worked their entire lives in the job -- and the job they used to have has been automated and they are working part-time or half what the use to make. maybe they are single mothers, struggling to raise their children, abandoned by the father of those children. she has to get up in the morning, make breakfast, drop them off at school, work for nine hours, rush to pick them up before day care closes. make dinner. but then did the dead. she is exhausted. just to do it again tomorrow all over again. all over the country, there are people starting to believe the american dream is slipping outside of their reach. here is the extraordinary irony. the extraordinary irony is the man in the white house, his party, actively campaigned six years ago that they would work for these people. that they were about helping people like this. by the way, i got a good chuckle. the other day i read the democrats' new agenda, our focus now is to help the people trying to make it. what has been your focus for the last six years? and yet, for the last six years for the folks i just described you, things have not gotten better. they have gotten worse. they have gotten progressively worse. significantly worse. and the reason? because they have tried to do something that has never worked anywhere it has ever been tried. never in the history of man has any nation been able to tax, spend, and regulate its way to prosperity. and it will not work here now. we have reached a crossroads in the nation where we are being asked to determine, what is going to happen to the american dream? and will it still be a vibrant part of our country in this new century? the democratic party will save you, in their words, they will say we are standing and fighting for the american dream. but if you look at their policies, it tells you something different. what their policies are saying to us is, this is the new normal. what we are facing is the new normal. go-ahead and get your last -- out. [laughter] [applause] they were trying to figure how to get the water up on the podium. it was bad enough my teleprompter didn't make it. [laughter] and what is the deal with this fox news thing here? this claim that they are fighting for the american dream -- the policies are saying to the american people, look, this is the new normal. and what we need now is a big powerful government to make it easier for us to accept this new normal, to alleviate the pain, to make us comfortable in the new normal. they will never admit this. and their ideas are stale. there are ideas never worked in the 20th century, much less the 21st. they want someone to take them to the past. for an america that is never coming back. the 20th century is gone. we live in the 21st century. a time of extraordinary challenges, that also extraordinary opportunity. and that is where our party must step in. the democratic party is a party that believes -- they believe the 21st century will be a post-american era. we believe the 21st century will be another american century. because everything it will take to succeed in the 21st-century happened to be the things that americans are the best at. competition, innovation, investment, creativity, entrepreneurship. that is what the tray for century will be about. there is no nation and no people on the earth that do that better than america. [applause] i am going to put this near the elephant and hope he doesn't drink it. [laughter] it will happen on its own. the road we are on right now is a road that will rob us of the american dream. now it is for our party to take the opportunity we have been given, to go to the americans that are hurting, the americans you are starting to doubt whether the fundamentals of the american dream are still alive, to go with them and say -- here is a way forward, here is a way to take us to this new american century. for us, it begins with a simple purpose, a simple idea. we believe that america must always be the country of equal opportunity. it does not matter where you start and life. how poor your parents were. we believe every human being has a god-given right to pursue happiness, to achieve everything they were created to achieve, to put their talents to good use, to dream any dream they want, and work hard to achieve it. we believe this should be a nation where you should be able to go as far as your talent and your work will take you. at the core of equal opportunity is a very simple concept. the value of work. the concept has been lost. work is not a burden. work is a good thing. it is good for our country and it is good for people. it is not just a way to pay your bills. it gives purpose to your life. it allows you to put your talents to good use. and everything we do and government must be about incentivizing and creating work. our safety net programs must be about work. the ultimate cure -- [applause] i was recently asked by a journalist, a very nice person actually -- i did not mean it that way, guys. come on. i was recently asked by a journalist, so, what is your solution to unemployment, senator rubio? i said my solution to unemployment is employment. [laughter] it is also the solution to poverty. the reason why our safety net programs are failing is they alleviate the pain of poverty, but they do not cure it. they do not extract people from poverty. the way to extract people from poverty is to give them the opportunities, the skills, whatever it need be to give them the skills so they can work for their family and achieve their american dream. our safety net programs must be about incentivizing work. our tax code must be about incentivizing work. our tax code today is about redistributing income. about picking winners and losers. [applause] today we are standing in a fantastic facility. thank you for having us. i promise you like every private sector enterprise in america, this facility exists because someone invested money. that is how jobs and work are created. when someone with access to money uses that money to start a business or grow an existing one. we must make america the single best place in the world to do that. right now it is losing its ground. there was a time not so long ago where there were only a handful of developed economies where you would dare to invest money. today there are dozens of developed economies that compete with us on a daily basis. we need a tax code that says, the more you invest, the less you pay in taxes. so, they can invest in capital improvements in their businesses to expand them. we need to make america the single best place in the world to do that. the other thing is innovation. you will create jobs. you can do something that no one else does -- you could create millions of new jobs. we can make america the best place in the world to do that. the single greatest impediment to innovation is a regulatory code. let me tell you why. you can have a great idea. you can decide you will open up this great idea out of the spare bedroom of your home. and it may be a violation of the zoning code, but that is what you're going to do. [laughter] but if you have to comply with a mountain of regulations, you can do that. a big company can do that. big companies may not like government, but they can afford it. they can hire lobbyists. they can hire lawyers. if you are starting a business out of a spare bedroom in your home, you can't do that. there are thousands of companies that were never born because they could not comply with the regulations they were buried underneath. i am here to tell you that at the state and federal government level, big companies and established industries often use regulation to suffocate competition. they don't want other companies competing with them, so they use their influence to get regulations written that make it impossible for anyone to ever challenge them. and that is why regulations are destroying innovation in america. that is why will we are still the most innovative nation on earth, every single year we have lost some of our vendors. there is one more thing i want to point out. in the 21st century millions of our best paying jobs will depend on access to markets abroad. and that is why foreign policy comes in. it is not that we desire to tell people what to do and their country. all the world benefits and so do we economically when people are living in stable countries that can afford to buy the stuff we build. that is why we cannot allow any hegemonic power to arise in any region of the world that we have to ask permission from before we do business with some country. that is why we cannot allow any country like china is trying to do, to land at the ocean belongs to them. we cannot allow that to happen. not just for foreign policy purposes, but economic purposes. we will benefit from peace on earth. and the best way to ensure peace? through strength. [applause] if you want to defeat the likelihood that your military will have to go to war, make it a military that will never lose any more. [applause] and the 21st century work will be about skills. when my parents came here, they had no skills. they had the equivalent of fourth grade, maybe six grade for my mother. that they lived in a country where despite not having advanced education, you could make it to the middle class. that is increasingly difficult. you know that. it is increasingly difficult to find a middle income job without advanced education. and we in this country have a higher education system that is not of this century, but the last. why are we not graduating kids from high school certified as welders and electricians and bmw mechanics? [applause] why do we have a one-size-fits-all higher education system where unless you are a 19 the-year-old high school graduate who can go to school full-time, it's really difficult to get the skills you need? why are we making it difficult for the mother i talked about, someone i actually know, who as a receptionist at a medical clinic? her boss was heard to stay until 7:00, because she can't. after school care closes at 6:00. the only way she can make enough money is to study to become a paralegal or an ultrasound technician. why do we not have an education that allows her to acquire the skills she needs so she can go from making $30,000 a year to making $80,000 a year? so she can have the american dream and so can our children? but education is a monopoly, controlled through a handful of institutions the recertification process. meanwhile there is no competition, no innovation. the price keeps going up, and so do student loans. and by the way, the number of college graduates who are graduating with degrees that do not lead to jobs is astronomical and unacceptable. and the current administration wants to double down on that outdated system of the past. we cannot continue to do that. the second danger to the american dream is the cost of living. there are two aspects i want to focus on. we had a health insurance problem in america and we have it worse than today. we had 70% of americans who had health insurance from their employer who were generally pleased with it. what the administration did was set up something that disrupted health insurance for everyone. as a result, people have lost their jobs. people have lost hours at their jobs. people have lost access to their doctors. people have lost access to their facilities. they were taken from the insurance plan that they liked and thrown onto a new plan with a higher deductible and a higher payment. there are companies that refuse to hire people because they do not know what it will mean for them. this is the reality for obamacare and the different between obamacare now and three years ago is it is not something that people are reading about in the newspaper. it is happening to them. i predict it will happen in the state. [applause] the other is the cost of education, of higher education. it is unbelievable how much loan debt our students are now getting when they leave school. when i went to the u.s. senate, i owed over $100,000 in student loans. i was able to pay that off with a book that some of you have. it is available in paperback. [applause] that was a real struggle for us. early in my marriage, my loan payments were the single vaguest expenditure of my personal budget. more than my mortgage, more than anything else. there are people in america who have loans like that, but they cannot find a job. so, they will be forced into bankruptcy or be unable to buy a home and start their lives. so, we have to address it. before any student takes out a loan, the school they're going to should be required to tell them, this is how much money people make with this degree from our school. so you will know whether it is worth taking out $30,000, so you can make an informed decision about borrowing $30,000 for a job that pays $20,000. the market for philosophers is very tight. [laughter] the cost of living is critical as well. the truth is, our wages have not kept pace with the cost of living in america. the solution to that is not more government. it is robust economic growth that creates not just new jobs, but better paying jobs. 40% of the new jobs created under the obama presidency a less than $16 an hour. you cannot build a middle class like that. we need higher paying jobs to empower people with the skills they need so they can savor a retirement send the children to college and retire with dignity and security. here is the last point. that is the importance of our values. let me tell you why. you can't have a strong country without strong people. and you can't have strong people without strong values. the values of hard work and is a blend and self-control and respect for others. it doesn't matter how many diplomas you have on the wall. without values, you cannot succeed. and no one is born with those values. no one. every person in this room that has those values has those values because they were taught. they were taught either parents in word and in deed. you saw the way they live their lives. the father who got up at 4:30 a.m. every morning to go to work. those values are learned and they are taught within the family. that is why family is the single most important position in all of society. [applause] but when family breaks down, there is a wealth of catastrophe. i don't care if you come from the left or from the right. no one can deny and no one does deny that the single greatest cause of poverty in america is the breakdown of the american family. [applause] so, you may ask, what can we do about it? i think there are three things we can do about it. here are three things we can do. first, leaders in both parties need to talk about this reality. we spend a lot of time reminding people that smoking causes cancer and obesity causes diabetes. we should also spend some time reminding people that family breakdown causes poverty. [applause] the second is, we should not have any law or policy that undermines family life, and we do. our tax code punishes family life. in many instances, it punishes marriage. do you realize if you are on medicaid and you get married to the father or mother of your children, you could lose your medicaid coverage? we should not have any policies to discourage marriage or family formulation. and we need to empower parenting in america. that means having a tax code that establishes families, but allowing parents to have the right to send their children to the school of their choice. [applause] giving parents the right to speak out about their children's education at a meeting without being arrested. [cheers and applause] by the way, i want you to think about this for a moment. this is fundamentally true. the only parents in america that do not have school choice, the only people in america who cannot choose where their children go to school are poor parents. go back to the example i gave you a few moments ago. that single mother. if she had the opportunity to send her children to any school she chose, maybe she could find a school where aftercare was open until 7:00? maybe she could find a school that provided a better learning environment? maybe a school that reinforced the values she wants to instill in her children? instead of being forced to send them to a failing school because the government tells her she has to. we have gained advocates for school choice -- even in the democratic party. but school choice and empowering parents is critical to restoring family life in america. i just want to close -- i guess saying something that i find to be obvious. but the fundamental question before all of you in the elections in the state, the elections of the future, the elections in florida, is not simply what party will be in charge. that is important. but that is not the central question. the central question we are being asked is the question every generation of americans has been asked. every generation before has been asked to you what america to be a special country or an ordinary one? every generation before us was asked that question and every single one of them chose something special. we are reminded of the generation that answered firmly -- we do not just one america to be special. we want to world to be free. and we are honored by having you here tonight. [applause] this generation had to answer that question. the challenges they faced was extraordinary. their parents did not want their children to go to war anymore then we would want them to go to war. they did not want to go to war a more than we would. now we are being asked to answer the same question and i would venture to tell you the challenge that we have is not nearly as difficult as the one they had to answer. and that is to maintain america as special and unique, one that is unlike any in human history. often when i say that to people about how special america is, every now and then someone will roll their eyes and say, that thing about america being exceptional, that is something we tell each other to make ourselves feel good. that is not really true. at america is a rich and powerful country. there have been others before and there will be others since. i guess that is the right to believe that. you see, neither one of my parents had the opportunity to do what i was able to do. my father worked for 70 years. i have a nine-year-old son. it is hard for me to imagine him working. that was what he did. my mother was raised in a rural setting by a father who had been disabled by polio when you was a young child. they were born into a country they loved, but into a society where your future was determined by your past. whatever your parents did for a living, that was probably what you were going to do. it is hard for us, you and i, warned in this country where we have known anything else to imagine that and it's easy to take for granted what we have here. i was raised by people who knew how special it was. by people who made it the purpose of their lives to ensure all of the things that had become possible for them would be possible for us. my parents did not just what is to have dreams. they demanded it. they insisted upon it. they let us know from a very young age that we had a privilege that few people who have ever lived have ever had. and that is a privilege unknown to any other nation in human history. that became the purpose of their lives. every time i speak at events like this and i see a bartender standing behind a rollaway bar, i am reminded of my father. because that is what he did for a living. so one day his children could be sitting at one of these tables or even standing at a podium like this. [applause] it gave purpose to their lives. it gave meaning to their days. near the end of my campaign, it was also near the end of my father's life. he passed away in september of the same year i was elected. he had become sick with cancer and was near the end of his life one primary day came around. i did not have a highly competitive primary. the individual i was running against had become an independent. he eventually became a democrat. [laughter] former governor crist by the way announced a few days ago that he would be traveling to cuba, so he may have one more party change in him. anyway, i did not have a competitive primary. my dad was very sick at this point. he was basically bedridden. but he knew i was going to win and he was proud of me. but he really couldn't get around anymore. on the night of the election, during the day, i went by my parents', and my nephew answered the door. he had a big smile. i said, what are you smiling about? why father had not been out of bed for months. he said, come in, and see for yourself. i saw my dad fully dressed in his wheelchair. he was ready to go. for the first time in months, he was dressed and ready to go to his son's victory party. he wanted to be there because he was proud of his son, but it was so much more than that. nights like that was affirmation that he mattered. that is life had meaning and purpose. there were days he did not feel like going to work. my dad worked until he was 70. i know there were nights when he did not feel like going to work. i know there were times when he was discouraged. i remember when my family moved to las vegas. he could not find a job in miami beach. someone who had been a bartender for years had to start over as a bar boy working for 19-year-old bartenders. life was not always easy. but they kept moving forward. i know when they were my age or younger, they had dreams. they wanted to do things. but those dreams became impossible for them and the very purpose of their life became that that day would never come for us, that whatever we wanted to be, we could achieve. but i think that nights and nights like that were an affirmation that they mattered. that their lives have purpose. that they had something they were leaving behind that had true meaning. that their sacrifice was not in vain. that is a testament to my father and it is a testament to your parents, but it is also a testament to america. i recognize fully that there are not but a handful of nations where that story would even be possible. and in the end, what we are called to do while i serve and public offices to preserve that. i think being the kind of country is worth fighting for. i think being that kind of country is something we can unite our people around. i think we have a country that is crying out to be unified behind an agenda for the future. and to me that agenda is very clear. we want to remain special. [applause] we want to leave our children a country where the son of a bartender can be anything that he wants to be. this is the kind of country we want to fight for. this is the kind of country we want to leave behind. our country needs a political movement that makes it the central cause of their existence. that is where we come in as republicans. the other side says they believe in the american dream, and i don't doubt that they do, but the true american dream is not what government can do for us, but what we can do for ourselves and for our nation together. [applause] and that is our mission to embrace the opportunities of the 21st century. so we can leave our children the single greatest nation in all of mankind. thank you for having me. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] next a discussion about same-sex marriage and then minnesota starters speaking about the late congressman jim oberstar. and a roundtable on the news of the week with matt lewis, contributor for the daily caller and sabrina siddiqui. tarantino talks about why congress is calling for the --in asian of aaronson 60 the resignation of shinseki. >> china has become the factory to the world. it sends products around the planet that makes our lifestyles possible. we could not have the quality of life we enjoy if we did not have low-cost goods and labor in china and elsewhere in southeast asia. and yet the standard of living remains 1/6 of the united states in terms of per capita income. that is a source of frustration because people realize we work hard, we are participating in the economy, and we play by the rules and we are not enjoying the quality of life they have in the west. what is interesting is that for most of chinese history, people had no idea what life was like outside. chinese people now can sit on a computer in the middle of nowhere and have an accurate understanding of what it is like to live in washington, d.c. so that heightens this conflict. the conflict on between the individual and the chinese government. >> roberta kaplan is the attorney who argued against the defense of marriage act last year. she discussed her experiences during an event in cleveland. her client in the doma case was edith windsor who sued the federal government for failing to recognize her marriage to another woman. ms. kaplan also talks about ongoing court cases around the country involving same-sex marriage. this is just under an hour. [bell rings] >> good afternoon. my name is jonathan leiken. i'm the president of the cleveland metropolitan bar association. i am pleased to introduce robbie kaplan. yesterday, may 1, was law day. we celebrate law day every year to reflect on the importance of law in our society and what better place to have this conversation than the citadel of free speech, the city club of cleveland? and what better topic to illustrate the importance of law in our society than the fight for equal rights for the lgbt community? i just want to give a little bit of context to today's conversation. it has been almost a year since the u.s. supreme court for a landmark decision striking down the defense of marriage act and bringing robbie kaplan to national attention. still, there is a constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. a lawsuit filed this week on behalf of six ohio couples claims that that amendment violates the equal rejection and due process clauses of the u.s. constitution and this law day, the law is far from settled. the issue of marriage aside, it is currently legal in ohio to be fired from your job, lose your apartment, be denied service at a movie theater, restaurant, or hotel because of your sexual or gender identity. ohio is just one of many states are facing these issues. robbie kaplan, who hails from cleveland, from shaker heights, has become a hero to many in the fight for lgbt equality. her representation of edith windsor last year and recently robbie filed a motion in the u.s. sixth circuit court of appeals to -- allow couples married in a state which recognizes same-sex marriage to put on the death certificates of their spouse in states that do not recognize those marriages. it may seem like a minor point to many, but this had significant implications when it it comes to inheritance and other rights that deeply affect domestic life. she is a native of cleveland. she graduated from harvard and columbia and let me turn it over to steve to introduce robbie. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, john. thank you to the bar and the city club for again hosting a wonderful law day programming. roberta kaplan -- i will start by calling you roberta. >> please just start that way. >> a native of shaker rights, ohio, where she attended harvard college and columbia law school. after that she clerked in federal court and the highest court in the state of new york for the chief judge, a renowned jurist. then she went to practice, where she is now a partner. and a big-time new york litigator. she has a commercial practice, which would be the envy of any litigator in any city and the world, representing such clients as fitch and jpmorgan chase. she also has another factor. she also has one of the most enviable an important civil rights practices in the world right now. in 2006, that was a lobby for 12 same-sex couples in the state of new york who were seeking to have the right to marry under state law, a case where she was unsuccessful. before a court she had actually clerked for. >> for the judge. [laughter] >> and then, as john said, the last two years come as she represented edith windsor. and in that case, represented ms. windsor in the case that cause the supreme court to strike down the defense of marriage act, an act that the supreme court, and i am proud to say the justice department before that, found indefensible in our constitutional system. but long before that, robbie kaplan was quite literally the girl next door. i grew up a block or so away from robbie. we graduated high school together. hundreds of times at 7:00 in the morning, we rode in the cramped backseat of a honda civic hatchback. and i was a big guy. her brother, peter, who is here, and my little brother were best friends. they had, i think we can agree, a more interesting high school experience than we did? >> a lot of fun probably, too. >> her parents lived down the street. her father played golf with my father for many, many years. as a personal point of pride for me and our community to welcome back not only a great litigator, but a great leader to our city -- robbie kaplan. [applause] chief justice ginsburg just today was quoted in "the wall street journal" talking about the windsor case. something she said the struck me. she said ms. windsor was such a "well-chosen plaintiff." tell me about this. did you choose her or did she choose you? >> the lucky thing is she chose me. i did not choose edie. edie windsor is now 84. she grew up in philadelphia during the depression. her father lost his family business and their home during the depression. during college -- she realized she was a lesbian. but because of the time then, as she put it, she could not imagine being queer. she married a guy by the name of saul windsor. that is how she gets the name. who was her brother's best friend. and fought with her brother in world war ii. the marriage, needless to say, did not last very long. after only a few months, edie said you deserve to be loved the way you deserve to be loved, and i need something else. she effectively came out to him then. she moved to new york like so many people, including myself, in order to be gay. i can go on and on about her life, and i'm sure i will today, but fast-forward and she met a woman, thea spyer. they were together for 44 years. they were married in canada. that is actually my fault. i lost the new york case. so they had to go to canada. i think i paid her back for it though. [laughter] upon her death, even though she realize she was going to have this problem, she did not fully appreciate the extent of it. she had to pay an enormous estate tax because of the so-called defense of marriage act. i do not think it was defending any marriages. the reason she had to pay that state tax was the law for the marriages of gay people were not marriages. if you are a straight person, you do not have to pay a tax on your spouse dies. but if you were in a gay married couple, you did. it was not your spouse. it was like she was a stranger to her. the bill was huge. she was not happy about it. one of the things that makes her an ideal client was she was "indignant" to pay this bill. you do not get a lot of clients who use words like indignant. >> sometimes when you send them your bill. >> [laughter] and you had not even seen one of my bills. she went looking for a lawyer. fortunately for me, she called some of the gay rights groups, but they turned her down. she was still indignant and she was looking around and we had mutual friends and she called me. i did not know edie, but i knew thia. i walked over to her apartment. she was four blocks away. i took one look at her, and it took about three seconds for me to take on the case. >> i understand that not everybody in the community, the legal community, the advocacy community, agreed with justice ginsburg and yourself that this would be the right case. >> lawyers never agree on anything. [laughter] there is nothing new about that. [laughter] there is nothing new about that. i was not a party he

Related Keywords

Minnesota , United States , China , California , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Rome , Lazio , Italy , Havana , Ciudad De La Habana , Cuba , Brookfield , Ohio , New York , Canada , Japan , Tokyo , Hamburg , Germany , New Hampshire , Afghanistan , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Cleveland , Florida , Illinois , Georgia , Be Court , Nord Pas De Calais , France , Maine , Iraq , Erie Canal , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia , Miami Beach , Slovenia , George Washington , Villa Clara , York Harbor , Kansas , Capitol Hill , Paris , Rhôalpes , Slovenian , Americans , America , Chinese , Soviets , French , Japanese , American , Andy Wilson , Jim Oberstar , Marco Rubio , Thea Spyer , James Oberstar , Roe V Wade , Scott Brown , Sabrina Siddiqui , Edith Windsor , Edie Windsor , Ronald Reagan , Larsen Toubro , Roberta Kaplan , Amy Klobuchar , Dodd Frank , Abraham Lincoln , Saul Windsor , Dan Larson , Tom Tarantino , Las Vegas , Jeanne Shaheen , Al Franken , Robbie Kaplan , Christopher Sununu , Kelly Ayotte ,