tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 1, 2015 1:00am-3:01am EDT
read -- wrote a paper about that. when i teach equal protection and constitutional law i have a pop quiz and i put it on this handout. it is a pedagogic exercise to test whether equal protection jurisprudence is these days, notwithstanding the articulated tears of analysis. asked how many equal protection clauses are there? 1, 2, 3, 4, all of the above or none of the above. i ask, what is the best argument for each answer? then i asked if justice stevens was right. let's go through the exercise. what is the best argument that the answer is one? that is justice stevens'argument.
his argument, as i interpret it, is the court cannot avoid making normative judgments about whether practices demean or humility -- humiliate or reduce people of a status of inferior caste, in violation of the sovereign's duty to govern impartially. in fact, cases have not delineated three or even one or two defined standards. rather they recite that continuing of -- continuum of judgment responses. what is the best argument for 2? that was the best answer before craig given by the supreme court. what were the two spheres of standards? familiar strict scrutiny or fundamental right or
deferential scrutiny when there was no such classification in play. we should remember it was a forced decision in dandridge and rodriguez, articulating 2 tiers that prompted justice marshall against rigid to tier analysis. what is the best argument for three? that is the best answer, given by the supreme court in crank. where is the third standard -- intermediate standard for gender-based classifications. i will go through that particular formulations. in mississippi university for women versus hogan, the court reaffirmed this.
i also used the formulation exceedingly persuasive justification. the best argument for 4? that is the best argument in cleburne. i articulated -- now we will move to the right side of the diagram. 4 is the best answer is of labor in, but that is not the official given by the supreme court. what is the unofficial standard? rational basis scrutiny exemplified by williamson. what is -- what does it consist of? a searching inquiry into sit between ends and means. that is simply deferring williamson file to governmental
objectives as questionably legitimate. best are not legitimate. we see this approach similarly in cases like others in validating allies against children with disabilities. or to protect gays and lesbians against discrimination. of course in windsor, a playing careful consideration to the defense of marriage act and in validating it. the court's opinion in cleburne county justice stevens to concur an elaborate his argument that there is only one equal protection clause. what is the best argument for five? 1995, it is not the answer given
by the supreme court officially. the court held straight scrutiny applied to racial classifications and affirmative action programs. the official fifth standard -- strict scrutiny for race-based classifications have been said in to be strict in theory and frail in fact. justice o'connor's opinion, officially applied strict scrutiny. but she was at pains to dispel the notion that strict in theory and fail in fact. she's a strict scrutiny is not strict in theory but frail in fact. she says the unhappy of persistence of the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups is an is no reality and government is not disqualified from your buns to it. -- in response to it.
she rested since -- ratchets it downwards. she indicated that her words were vindicated. she reiterated that strict scrutiny is not strict in theory and frail in fact. she added, although all of her mental subject to scrutiny not all are invalidated by it. justice o'connor's opinion improved upon chief justice rehnquist, and kennedy, scalia, and thomas to protest that the court abandoned strict scrutiny. when it comes to affirmative action, they won its scrutiny to
be automatically fatal in fact arguably, the court was squeezing at -- squeezing out. fisher, the most recent affirmative action decision, is at pains to make clear that even if strict scrutiny is not fatal in fact, it is not to be feeble in fact. they tried to toughen it up a bit. what is the best argument for six? united states versus virginia. the court held that the exclusion of women violated the equal protection clause. what is the unofficial sixth standard? the same intermediate scrutiny standard to gender-based classification that the court established in crank and affirmed in hogan. justice ginsburg picks up on the phrase exceedingly persuasive
justification from justice o'connor's opinion in open. -- hogan. it may sound slightly stricter than intermediate scrutiny. this prompted justice scalia in dissent that they were playing strict scrutiny. in usd virginia, scalia suspects under the guise of a playing intermediate scrutiny. in a similar vein, they understand it is not the failure of the equal rights amendment. so what is the best argument for all of the above?
there is an argument for each of the above. what is the best argument for none of the above? that amounts to the same as all of the above. what does this pedagogic exercise teaches about equal protection clause and the future of antidiscrimination law? here are some searches. that equal protection jurisprudence is a mess. that justice stevens was right after all there is only one equal protection clause with a continuum of judgmental response like represented on the table instead of three clearly defined standards. perhaps the lesson is that justice marshall was right after all, there is this estimate standards instead of two or three rigid tiers.
i conclude by stating that both -- this exercise, i believe indicates that both justice stevens and marshall were right after all. there is only one equal protection clause with a continuum of judgmental responses or spectrum of standards. and that the court cannot avoid making normative judgments about what practices demean or humiliate or reduce people to the status of an inferior race are cast, whether through developing tiers of scrutiny and framing to apply them automatically to decide cases or through claiming to be discovering and enforcing meaning of the equal protection clause. thank you. [applause]
>> ok. i think my topic is probably the most out of their-- there. in terms of not carrying as much of existing laws. affirmative action is in trouble. it is -- its legitimacy is threatened. there are deep divisions in the court that in your divisions among the citizenry you are increasingly skeptical about race conscious actions. the conventional view is that there are two ways of looking at antidiscrimination law, formal versus substantive equality. the tide has turned politically and culturally, and that the formal equality forces are winning. i think that although this explanation has some force, it
is only partial. the truth is that in the real world and in our own social science and legal understandings , things have changed in ways that matter to how we practice and defend affirmative action. i'm going to try to do this quickly. historically there have in three different rationales for affirmative action. each of which correspond to a larger theory of antidiscrimination law. each of them developed historically in relation to the other. so that the perceived shortcomings of one give birth to a new understanding. what i will argue today is that from the perceived limits of the prior approach, the diversity model, a new kind of understanding and rationale or affirmative action is emerging. to preview the argument, earlier
rationales treat race and sex-based difference as a characteristic of individuals or groups. that is relatively static and exogenous to or -- persons are higher education institutions. the new approach sees difference is something that is partly illusory, partly real, that is constantly created and re-created contextually through institutional processes that actually divide people into different groups and mark some of them as different and out of place to their detriment. there is a lot of social science research, but this new framework and i won't have time to go through it all, but i will just telegraph it later. let me see how quickly i can do this. what should be familiar is the
first, i call in partiality. most people would refer to it as color by list -- colorblindness. i will draw a couple of features that have been overlooked in the literature. obviously, this is the part that is there in the literature, unless the concept of impartiality is understood very broadly, to include reading selection processes of hitting forms of bias inside of favoritism that have severe racial and gender affect affirmative action programs will inevitably be viewed as violating impartiality. by definition they take race or sex into account in a way that slides in the face of a narrow construction of what impartiality means. for this reason, even though liberals historically have conceded that to practice race conscious hiring is a technical violation of title vii.
here i would cite justice brennan's opinion. what is the point that i want to make that has not been made? today, we have basically only to persons of impartiality that are on the horizon of their -- in law land. one is the scalia version that any use of race is by definition tantamount to the old jim crow and indefensible. the second is a compromise approach by justice o'connor and carried forward by the moderate wing that grudgingly approved carefully crafted programs that take race or sex into account but only where there is evidence suggesting the existence of present systemic discrimination. i have an analysis in the paper
about how the constitutional standard of proof of title vii violations actually means state and local governments who practice affirmative action are required to show systemic treatment. that is a pretty narrow construction of the factual basis. why has the court moved in this direction to be so narrow? here is the key point. contrary to what we think of when we hear of term like impartiality, this approach is starkly and today, assumes -- historically and today, assumes there are static differences between racial and ethnic groups, and between males and females that are exogenous. nothing to do with how workplaces operate and how higher educational institutions operate. they are just out there, attributable to nature, or early upbringing.
things that are deeply embedded within individuals that there -- they are almost impervious to change. there is lots of evidence that the court links impartiality to this assumption of exogenous difference. justice scalia's dissent and johnson versus santa clara county, where the court upholds the validity of affirmative action for women that takes sex into account in a very weak way where there were zero women insert -- in physically or county. today you might think scalia is in dissent, big deal. but fast-forward years later and you get a majority of the court accepting the same reasoning, writing off the virtual absence of african americans and other minorities among construction contractors
in richmond. this is a quote. not necessarily reflecting discrimination, but may have reflected past societal discrimination in education and economic opportunities, as well as black-and-white career and entrepreneurial choice here it. blacks may be disparate -- disproportionately attracted to industries other than construction. this is a good example of exogenous difference. blacks are born or raised with a set of different preferences. the key point here is that the increasing judicial turned toward narrow understanding of impartiality is grounded in judicial acceptance of a very controversial set of assumptions about the nature and source of difference. those two things have gone hand-in-hand. lawyers knew from the beginning that this was going to be a problem. the earliest cases raised these
defenses. early on, lawyers and judges and activists crafted a second theory, which i call the perpetuation of past discrimination theories. this is most familiar, the mainstream interpretation of disparate impact. the basic idea is that an institution cannot use practices that serve to carry forward in time and space. discrimination by another closely linked institution. it is a complex theory of causation that the way institutions work can reproduce discrimination over time. steelworkers versus weber is a really good illustration of this. the court upheld a quota of their use of numerical goals that admitted black trainees into a training program ahead of whites and articulated standard
much lower than the proof standard which allows employers to take into account that that historic discrimination in skilled trades has left black scenario literally less skills. they did not have the trade skills. so it was ok for the aluminum company to address the deficit. that all sounds good right? the criticism that emerges is that it stigmatizes minorities by focusing on the deficits. the cumulative disadvantage is that develop over time. instead, we should be focusing on the criteria by which marriage is determined. this gives birth to the most
familiar of all concepts of affirmative action. diversity. i won't have a lot to say about it. i think it is a shining example of diversity reasoning. the basic idea is to make sure institutions rotting traditional norms to incorporate -- brought in traditional norms to incorporate and accommodate experiences of different groups. note that this model like his conservative cousin, assumes exogenous difference. men and women are different. lax and whites are different. we need all of them because we need the viewpoint they represent. having everybody and is going to enhance the institution. it also is picked up by feminists in the 1980's to make arguments for promoting women's inclusion, that were based on
fairly exogenous assumptions about where the commitment to care on behalf of women comes from. it has nothing to do with the workplace. so therefore employers should accommodate it here it all of these models fostered progress initially. certainly diversity days. but there has developed a serious deep -- critique of diversity that is a precursor giving birth to the new understanding of affirmative action. quickly, the critique is that first of all, the acceptance of exogenous differences between groups promote stereotypes. and it obscures differences within the group and also obscures similarities between groups. if we say, women as a group are asked-- x, by definition that statement is fraught with the
risk of discrimination. stereotypes. we are promoting stereotyping and segregation, arguably. the other criticism is that, in describing these groups in terms of average tendencies, and attributing differences to places outside the institution that is being examined, we are letting institutions being examined off the hook. it is easy to say, well the university did not discriminate. they are not responsible for the fact that some may come to the table with qualifications that look less than others. in fact, the perspective from the new point of view is that it we were to dig deeper, we might find all sorts of ways in which in the hallways and classrooms, the way professors relate to students, groups really was each other
universities do create deep racial divisions and sex-based divisions among the student body and that has feedback loops throughout society. in a nutshell, that is the critique. what is the new thing about? the new things these affirmative action as a tool for identifying and interrupting the institutional processes that foster group based difference that harm certain people. there is a lot of bodies in social science that would support this idea. probably the most familiar to most of you would be research on stereotype. which shows the way in which people were actually equally qualified can be put in an environment in which the context will see something within them
that actually makes them from less well than they would in another context. this is been replicated in scores of studies. it applies not just to members of traditionally disadvantaged groups like women on difficult math tests were example. if you tell them nothing, they won't do as well as the men. if you remove the stereotype threat by saying, most of the time women don't do as well as men, but that is not true of this test, this course will equalize. the same with white men playing basketball against black men. etc.. what would it mean to try to disrupt these processes of different creations? i would have to refer to a lot of the social science literature. let me give you a few examples. first of all, the rationale for
affirmative action changes it is now no longer a racial preference given to somebody. either to create a racial spoils system has conservatives think or compensate for past discriminations -- nor is it a way of broadening institutions that everybody's unique point is representative. now the purpose of affirmative action is to allow enough people in to challenge and sensor and rake down the stereotypes -- break down the stereotypes about their group. that is a very different understanding. i can say much more about other cases that would support this, but i won't right now. how would this make a difference? a couple of examples. critical mass. a very amorphous concept. contexts, nobody really knows what it means. the research that was -- would
support such an understanding of affirmative action would give us an answer to that. the answer to how many people have to be admitted, would be enough people to break down the stereotypes. . and inviting people into groups that would occur in institutions. or some group, there will never be enough and that is a big problem. but at least we would start from the vantage point of social science that would give us a definite answer. secondly, we can reframe cases that are very problematic. like the public employment cases where a police department hired a certain number of minority officers. there are really problematic rationales to support that. here the rationale he change away from the notion that somehow just having officers of a certain race will provide a
role model and promote more respect and tweak that officer in the larger community, instead it would be that if you have a month -- enough officers of a particular race, they will change the white officers and begin to see minority officers differently. as a result, they may relate to members of the community differently. the focus is not the community versus minority officers, it is on changing the minds of the whites. one thing i will not have a chance to talk about, is the research on social categorization, which is about the processes through which we please people into groups to begin with. you look at a case like and hopkins -- and hopkins what social categorization emphasizes is that before any of that can
occur, we first have to look at hopkins and go female versus male. that is the process of sorting people into categories. there is research suggesting that this is process of dividing people into groups in a particular context underlay prejudice, stereotyping, stereotype threat, and all of that. there are institutions -- god knows i hate to hold up the marines as a model -- or our institutions that do a good job of creating a large sense of we. so that people may retain a sense that they are black or female or latino, but it is subordinate. therefore, whites and males season differently because they are all marines. -- see them differently because they are all marines. sorry to go over. [applause]
>> i would like to add a couple of comments. i think that would take us back to the beginning. i helped linda by serving on the planning committee for this conference. it feels like ages ago that we started. when i was asked to be on the committee, i actually did not think i was a good for the committee. it is true that i am a scholar of race and racism. and the civil rights act is concerned with race and racism. but for reasons, i never conceptualized the civil rights act as something to celebrate. when i volunteered to speak on this panel, i imagined i would focus my comments on the limits of the law, specifically on the civil rights act as a limited and limiting people legislation. why have i been negative about
this? well, they were responding to the revolutionary demands of revolutionary people in the 19th defense 60 they demanded racial justice. the civil rights act responded to demands. it is reasonable to conclude that the civil rights act was supposed to bring about and produce racial justice they were demanding. if that is what they were supposed to do, then they have failed. while the legislation was designed to address subordination that black folks were forced to endure, black people remained at the bottom of every measure of well-being in this country. i saw at this point in the conference, the statistics would be tried it out already. allow me to remind you just how poorly black people are doing.
black women are four times more likely to die during childbirth. the infant mortality is twice as white babies. black folks have higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease than any other racial group. in this country. black people are sick and die earlier than counterparts. this is true even when one controls for class. i will say that again. this is true even when we control for class. this is not a problem of class or black people being poor. this is a problem of black people being black people. those are measures of health. data reveals the poverty rate for white people was 12% between 2007 and 2011. for black people, it was 26%, more than double. one point 5 million people were
incarcerated in this country today. 350,000 of them are latinos. 500,000 are white, and 550,000 are black. these figures are more disturbing when you conceptualized them in terms of the composition of the u.s. as a whole. latinos make up 16% of the population and 23% incarcerated. white people make up 63 percent of the country but 33% of incarcerated. black people make up 13% of the u.s., but 37% of the people presently incarcerated. then, there are racial disparities. if you look at the faculty webpages for any loss goal in the country, you will see a striking absence of lack and brown faces. if you look at the highest court in the nation, especially if you think a longitudinal view, an absence of black and brown
faces. out of 112 justices who have ever served, 109 have been white. that means 2.6% of justices have been nonwhite. to print 6% is a small number. -- 2.6% is a small number. unarmed men who had been killed by the last six months. i am and negatives know you when it comes to the civil rights act. it we will bring -- if they were supposed to bring about social justice, they did not do it. but they did bring something. it is undeniable that the country looks different than it did 50 years ago. i wrote the -- rode the train today and i did not have to write the colored section. there are no whites only signs in the lobby.
no white and colored water fountains. explicit demonstrations of racism is not as common as 50 years ago. we had the civil rights act as well as a interpretation of the equal protection clause employers can't refuse to hire me just because i am lack. they can decide to hire me because i'm wearing the hearings, that in the 80's and 90's, black and brown girls would call door and i curse. -- door knockers. they can decide to not hire me because i'm wearing cornrows. they can say no cornrows allow. but they cannot decide to not hire me because i'm black. they can decide because i'm speaking spanish and they had an english only policy. they can't decide not hire me
because i'm black. black people are not subject to the same indignities they were subject to 50 years ago, and that matters. that might be a cause for celebration. but the truth is, while black people and other minorities are not subject to the same indignities they are still subject to some indignities. you have just changed. that may not be the ultimate point. the point is this. some of the architects of the civil rights act said the law would be about racial justice by attacking the most it is the demonstrations of racial exclusion. in the face of the fact that attacking the most explicit demonstrations of racial exclusion does not necessarily bring about racial justice if we are still interested in racial justice, we have to figure out what else needs to be attacked. as it turns out the things that need to be attacked are not obvious.
another way of saying that social practices that maintain racial inequality are not as plain and unambiguous as they were in 1964. indeed the practices that maintain inequality are frequently race neutral. i'm not so sure that a statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race can get at that. maybe we need something that prohibits inequality on the basis of race. what are these race neutral practices that maintain inequality? it is the refusal to say in, any quality is a social problem. it is how we as a nation understand class-based residence segregation as unapologetic. it is how we distribute educational and employment opportunities. it is how we define marriage. consider hiring illegal
academia. law professors come from the same 10 schools. these 10 schools have historically and currently, been racially exclusionary. to get to the school you have to take a standardized test. these tests have also been racially exclusionary. jobs and fellowships that are the steppingstones for these jobs have always been racially exclusionary. we have to ask ourselves, how do we fix that?] then we have to ask why our schools and standardized testing and johnson fellowships, why is that the stuff of married anyway -- me anywayrit? why not let experience, why not your history and past that can produce a creative argument that can get somebody here on the court.
we should also keep in mind that race is a slippery and shifting thing. critical studies 101 teaches is not biological, it is social. it is pragmatic. when purposes shift, race shifts. something that might not have been a characteristic of race in 1964 may be something in 2014. putting that i live in harlem is a characteristic of race. in 2064, maybe living in harlan will not be a categorization of race. speaking spanish, i think is a characteristic of race. in 2064, that might not be true. more latinos are not eating spanish and more non-latinos are speaking spanish. wearing these cornrows and
earrings is currently a marker of race in 2014. it may not be a marker of race and 2064 if we let bo derek have it. i can go on and on. any antidiscrimination law that is not lit, dynamic, and responsive to the fact that race and techniques of racial exclusion are fluid and dynamic will necessarily be limited here it --. as the cherry on top of my negativity, i'm not exactly sure how do it and dynamic the law can be. perhaps the tendency of the law is to be static. to take herculean efforts, it would perhaps be to make the law not static. perhaps this efforts to make law not static are going to bear fruit when you had a segment of society with power that is set aside with social.
when you have a segment of society with power that sits on the supreme court that does not want the law to change a thing. which makes many laws on the books quite limited. i believe that the civil rights act is quite limited giving social context. but i'm happy that i was able to celebrate it limited successes this weekend. [laughter] with that i will open up for q&a. if you have a question please come down to the microphone. [applause] >> i'm from georgetown law. that was amazing. right on point. i think one thing we can take from your comments, is that maybe we are at a point where we should be really hammering on
extralegal ways to deal with this huge problem. my questions are for suno. i really like comparative work. it is interesting to see what different countries are doing. i think you presented your work in a very descriptive way. thermal -- there wasn't much normative. i'm guessing that normally you like the south african system that he -- better. i think you have interesting materials to do a balanced analysis. some things you might want to think about our the values of federalism, not putting so much power at the federal level having states have a lot of power. also, predictability. when you privilege one value over another, people are on notice about what they can or cannot do. when you place these important values equally you are not
certain about how it will come down. that is an important thing to think about. my question is really about the court's analysis that the south african courts analysis on this ordinance case. i think we can see the harm done on both sides. if we truly believe these values are equal, then we might think about the harms as equal. when you presented the court's rationale, every argument was discrimination is that. bad. i would tell my students, when you do you comparisons, is unpersuasive to argue just that one value is important. is unpersuasive if we think about these values as equally important. i'm wondering how the court compared equally valuable things that we want to forward and why they come to the conclusion that
clamping down on discrimination is better in this scenario than allowing religious freedom? >> i do think it is a limit of the united states, petition. -- constitution. i was suggesting in that particular case, you are right. they came down on the side of the employee. that certainly did not mean to suggest they said always come down on the template. -- employee. that suggested there would be cases where we would come down on the religious employer. if the catholic church the sense they are going to discriminate on basis of sex or sexuality and hiring priests like they would only higher straight guys. in that case, we should, on the side of religious employer.
what is interesting in the hosanna case, the person was not at the position of the minister. and the employee was caught in a catch 22. what i'm suggesting they are two equally important values sometimes one will win and sometimes another. i did not mean to suggest that only non-discrimination cases with. in the united states context it is easy to see why religious autonomy will win. that is what i think is problematic. >> thank you everyone for very engaging presentations. my question is for ruth. i was really surprised when you are talking about due process. i was very surprised by the low -- you said 18%.
that is not normally the way i think about those cases where somebody has the resources to fight about it, they stand a pretty good chance. i was curious as to your views of why that is so low apart from the issue of discrimination against others that you talked about. i think it could be a useful piece of the larger civil gideon movement or education. i think your project could be helpful in that larger sense. the second question i had was you talk about discrimination against moms in these cases. the more i thought about that, my wife runs a clinic. she always represents moms and child. i never hear about that. i was curious if that ever showed up or if mom and dad were together. was there evidence that made a difference in proceedings?
>> those are two great questions. to talk about the success rate we have to realize there are many jurisdictions and only in six of them are there a lot of cases reported on an annual basis. in others, the results are there on on the a lot of usability due process system. you have to be careful on what we conclude. it is hard to know because there is also it's a reason people do not pursue due process. i do think the success rate is shockingly low, and not what people might this -- expect it they read about kids getting
multimillion dollar benefits for whatever. you know how the media exaggerate. the training of the hearing officers is shameful. i have done some training. i have been very distant waited in the lack of professionalism among that group. i think we have a real problem with people have very little training who writes 200 page plus opinions. there is no reasons -- reason to like -- write 200 pages after one week of due process hearings. rampant unprofessionalism in school districts. there is also the stuff there. in terms of fathers, there are not enough present for me to have meaningful statistical outcomes. i have some that when grandmothers were present, it does not get better.
there are a lot of grandmothers,. not just mothers to appear. obviously when parents have attorneys, they do better. but these members -- numbers are aggregate. including the fact that most of these parents are represented by lawyers and. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> i have two questions. for professor batty, i'm wondering if you look at the influence of the human rights framework on the south african institution. this switch from vertical to horizontal relationships between people, that is something i come from. just thinking about how that would affect the way that south african constitution privileges right equally, which i believe is fairly common in human rights
framework. a library of rights that are privileged equally. i think there is literature how you could balance those. if you look at that, and also for professor shultz, you said that expanding the criteria of what values to find an point -- find important is one way we can overcome discrimination, or could be one of the answers to the future of discrimination. i'm wondering what role you think the law can play or should play in that, and i worry it we are thinking about, if we have to convince white people that these things are important or skills of other people with different experiences are equally important. if we are living in a society where people with certain experiences and values have privileged, they have created
the institutions that control everyone's life, how is it that alternative values will ever be able to become part of that? any thoughts? >> i don't talk about human rights in this paper, but i do in other work. outside of the international criminal law actually buy a large human rights are all vertical in nature. states are the moral actors in the human rights universe. i suggest in this other paper that as a result, the way we currently think of human rights discourse is problematic for that reason. it is the case that rights-based regimes are often vertically based. one of the points of this is that that is automatic insofar as to think in a way to constrain individuals.
>> i think it is -- i did not have quite enough time to explain the last theory of affirmative action. i actually would not associated with expanding criteria. that is associated more with the diversity framework. and that critiques of the diversity framework are wedded -- what it is giving birth to. the basic critique of expanding the criteria, the main strategy of diversity advocates is that it may come down to the fact that no matter what criteria you have, no matter how expensive and inclusive they are if people don't have the motive and incentive and goodwill and so forth to try to reach across race, and across sex and bond
together, it doesn't matter what the criteria are. outsiders will be harmed no matter what. the focus of this new approach is not necessarily to ask and the criteria. the ways in which people compete based on those criteria and harm each other and divide each other and experience lack of solidarity. to the question about law -- i would say the law is always involved in institutional life. it is just a question of how it is going to be involved in what incentive it will set up and what the end vision that the law and legal actors have in mind is. i guess what people who are subscribing to the new. -- there are many of them -- believe it is time to go back to the original ideal of the civil
rights act which is basically to create communities in which people experience each other in a more identified way across traditional boundaries. >> with that, we conclude the final panel. you have 30 minutes -- 25 minutes to get your blood sugar back, get some food. we will have the keynote in >> on the next "washington journal," leo gerard discusses current trade policy negotiations and the reaction by unions. then the president of the american health policy institute talks about the need for republican alternatives to the affordable care act if the supreme court rules against the administration. later, our spotlight on magazines features sam baker on
his piece examining indiana's new religious freedom law. "washington journal" is live every morning on c-span. you can join in with your calls and comments. >> this weekend the c-span cities tour has partnered with cox communications to learn about the history and literary life of tulsa, oklahoma. >> he was very much more than that -- he was born in 1912, and we are very proud to have his work back in oklahoma where we think it belongs. it was an advocate for people who were disenfranchised migrant workers from oklahoma, kansas, and texas who have found themselves in california, literally starving. he saw this vast difference between the haves and the
have-nots. he recorded very few songs of his own. we have a listening station that features 46 of his songs in his own voice. it makes the recordings he made so significant and important. ♪ >> watch all of our events saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv. >> indiana governor mike pence has called for a clarification to the states religious freedom law to make clear that the law does not give businesses a license to discriminate. the governor blames the negative reaction to the bill on inaccurate reporting. he calls on the legislature to
have a clarification on his desk by the end of the week. this 35 minute news conference is courtesy of wxin in indianapolis. governor pence: thank you all for coming. it has been a tough week here in the hoosier state. but we are going to move forward. as governor i have the great privilege of serving the greatest people on earth, the people of indiana. let me say first and foremost, i find the religious freedom restoration act last week. i believe religious liberty, as president clinton did, it is our first freedom. it is vital to millions of americans who cherish faith as my family does. it is vital to the framework of our nation.
and this legislation was designed to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in the hoosier state. i believe hoosiers are entitled to the same protections that are in place for our federal courts in the last 20 years and are the law in other states. clearly there has been confusion, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of the law. we've been working around the clock, talking to people around the state of indiana. women joined the people around indiana's hospitality and we have been listening. the religious freedom
restoration act was about was about religious liberty. not about discrimination. as i said last week, had this long been about legalizing discrimination, i would have vetoed it. it does not give anyone a license to discriminate. it does not give anyone the right to deny services. it is simply a balancing test given by our courts and jurisdictions across the united states. i do not believe for a minute it was intended for discrimination.
we have a perception problem we intend to correct that. after much reflection and consultation, i have come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to have new legislation this week. that makes it clear this business -- this law does not give his this is the right to deny -- this law does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone. i want to see legislation added to the religious freedom act that makes it clear this law does not give his misses the right to deny -- businesses the right to deny service to anyone. we want to make it clear that
hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it is our way of life. it is the reason people come here from around the world and come again and again. hoosiers are the kindest, most generous people in the world. let me say that i believe this is a clarification, it is also a fix. it is a fix of a bill that through mischaracterization and confusion has come to be greatly misunderstood. and i'm determined to address this this week. to move forward as a state. i know we well. indiana has come under the harsh glare of criticism from around the country. and some of us get paid to be under the harsh glare of criticism, so we do not complain
about it and let the things that have been set about our state have been at times deeply offensive to me. i will continue to use every effort to defend good at the decent people of indiana. i think it is important that we take this action this week. i've spoken to legislative leaders all the way through the last hour and we will be working to make that happen. i will be happy to take questions. [inaudible] governor pence: this law is not give anyone the right to deny services to gay and lesbian couples.
i could've handled that better this weekend. going into the interview this weekend, i was just are determined to set the record straight on with this long really is. -- on what this law really is. i'm very pleased that the reporting about the religious freedom restoration act has significantly improved over the last several days. i think there is a growing public understanding that indiana has passed a law that mirrors the federal law that president clinton signs, and that mirrors the laws and statutes of the other states. but i want to be clear on that point. thank you for the opportunity. >> [inaudible] governor pence: absolutely not. religious liberty is vitally
important in our nation. to ensure that hoosiers have the same level of scrutiny that they believe our religious liberty has intruded upon in the state courts, that we arty have in our federal court to my was simply the right thing to do. it is that important. i was pleased to sign it, and i stand by the law. >> [inaudible] governor pence: jim, i never supported that. i want to be clear. it is not on my agenda. i think it is a completely separate question. we're talking about the religious freedom restoration act. it is about restoring the highest level of scrutiny, when matters intrude upon liberty.
that is where i want to stay focused. >> [inaudible] governor pence: that is still under consideration. >> [inaudible] governor pence: was i expecting this kind of backlash? heavens, no. to be candid with you, when i first heard about the legislation, when i heard it was already federal law for more
than 20 years, when i heard that it was the law through statute and court decisions, in the wake of last year's support case -- supreme court case i thought it was an appropriate addition to our statute. it moved through our legislative process with good debate but not a lot of controversy. so when this arrested last week, even though i made my position clear weeks ago that i would sign the bill without much discussion, i was taken aback. i have to tell you, though gross mischaracterizations about this bill early on, and some of the relentless -- reckless reporting the media what this was all about was deeply disappointing
to me and millions of hoosiers. we are making progress on that. we are turning back. i am grateful for expressions of support from around the country, particularly those in the media for reporting what this is all about. >> [inaudible] governor pence: the smear here is that it created a license to discriminate or a license to deny services. that is completely false.
and baseless. the professor who i quoted this morning in my op-ed said this is not a licensed to discriminate. i think the proper legislative remedy is to focus on the perception that has been created by the mischaracterization, and to make it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone. >> [inaudible] governor pence: i would leave it
-- the public reaction? i think it is explained by the fact that this was grossly mischaracterized by some frankly sloppy reporting the first couple of days. i really do believe that. look, if i read some of the stuff about this bill, i would have the same concern that millions of hoosiers have had and people across the country of had. it just isn't so. when president clinton signed this bill in 1993, the american civil liberties union said than that the religious freedom restoration act was the most important legislation considered by congress since the first amendment was approved. ok? when state senator barack obama voted for this bill in illinois, it was with broad bipartisan
support. one of the great pieces of legislative history of the religious freedom restoration act is it has been bringing people together. consensus. this has been broadly supported on a bipartisan basis. i would suggest to you that what explains the concerns that have been expressed across our state and our nation is the mischaracterization. we need to focus specifically on this perception that this creates some license to discriminate. that is what i am calling on the legislature to do. >> [inaudible]
governor pence: i think that the language is still being worked out. when i want to make sure is that it is clear to hoosiers and to the people that i serve, and frankly clear to anyone who would come to visit our state. there is in this legislation no license to discriminate, no right to deny services. i think we can develop that language. >> [inaudible] governor pence: this law does not give anyone a license to discriminate.
this law does not give anyone the right to deny services. the language that i'm talking about adding i believe we be consistent with what the general assembly intended. >> [inaudible] governor pence: i am calling on the general assembly to send me a bill that focuses on the issue here. that focuses on -- frankly the smear that has been leveled against this law and the people of indiana. but somehow, through our legislative process, we enacted legislation that created a license to discriminate. that is so offensive to me as a
hoosier. i know it is offensive to people across the state of indiana, that we have to correct that arrest because -- correct that because it is not true. first it has to do with the perception of our state and our businesses. >> [inaudible] governor pence: we need to make it very clear. irrespective of where those ordinances are in community are not, that this law does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone. >> [inaudible]
governor pence: the intent of the law, when president clinton signed it, when i signed it, was to give the courts in our state the highest level of scrutiny in cases where they feel their religious liberty is being infringed upon by government action. >> how does the state of indiana [inaudible] governor pence: it has a good name. this law has been smeared. we are going to mark our 200th
anniversary next year. the name and reputation of the people of indiana is strong and secure. the repetition of this law and the intention of our legislature have been called into question. we need to deal with it, we need to deal with it this week, and we will. we will fix this and we will move forward. that is what hoosiers do. >> [inaudible] governor pence: no comments. >> what exactly do you want to see?
governor pence: i want to make it clear in the law that the religious freedom restoration act does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone. i have said before to people and i want to stipulate the coverage on this has gone better and more fair. but early on there was some really reckless and irresponsible reporting about this. i would just submit to you that it is important that we address the principal allegation here. with legislation in this law that makes it clear that it does like you businesses the right to deny service to anyone. >> [inaudible]
governor pence: i wasn't talking about you. frankly can i say this, i don't want to let the indiana press off the hook here. i think the indiana press has had this right from early on. some of the national reporting has been ridiculous. i would encourage you to do a quick google search. you will find all of it. >> [inaudible] governor pence: i have been on the phone. talking to business leaders, i have been reaching out to the
leaders of associations and corporations around the country, setting the record straight about what this actually does, and what our intention is in passing it, and our intention to correct the perception that has taken hold. >> [inaudible] governor pence: i think the more relevant event with the hobby lobby case by the supreme court. it was a case in point of the value of the religious freedom restoration act. it really is. obamacare was passed into law. it included mandates on health care coverage for businesses and hobby lobby and the university of notre dame, among
others filed federal lawsuits to challenge obama care the religious freedom restoration act. the supreme court in the majority opinion last year upheld the right of private business owners, under the religious freedom restoration act. citing the act. here is the background. in 1993, the federal law was signed by president clinton. in 1997, the supreme court of the united states ruled that the act did not apply to states that did not have their own statute. and that is why you have 19 states that have adopted statute. 11 other states that have adopted it in their case law. indiana never did. and so in the wake of the hobby lobby decision, to ensure that
hoosiers in our state courts have the same level of scrutiny when their religious liberty they believe, is infringed upon, the general assembly room to this legislation. that was the precipitating event. >> [inaudible] governor pence: people are entitled to their opinions. but this law does not create a license to discriminate and it does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone. i think it would be helpful if the general assembly were to get legislation to my desk that made that clear, and made that clear in the statute.
>> court cases where the government is not a party? the purpose of the religious freedom restoration act is to give people in this country the opportunity to go into our courts, state and federal for more than 20 years where they believed that government action has imposed and impinged upon their religious liberty. that is the foundation of this idea. this is about -- this is about restraining government overreach. i want to say again,
the reason why this is such a broad and bipartisan measure over much of the last two decades is because every american cherishes religious liberty. we all understand the importance of the freedom of conscience. it is enshrined in our constitution. that is what this is about. i understand the perception of this has gone far afield of what this is. we have been doing our best to correct that perception. we will continue to do that. i am extremely grateful for voices around the country that stood by in vienna. -- indiana. as governor, i believe it would be the right thing to do to move legislation to make it clear
this law does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone. >> [inaudible] governor pence: those conversations are ongoing. i remain very hopeful that if we focus on the principle misperception, that we will garner support and restore confidence and will be able to move forward. >> [inaudible] governor pence: a number of the 30 states that have this standard in their court are in the same position as indiana and the federal government.
let me say with great respect, i think that is a separate issue. it is not my position. i am not advocating for it. i understand some people are. that is a separate question that ought to be considered separate of this idea of religious liberty. we will give our courts in indiana the ability to discern with the highest level of scrutiny were people believe government action has intruded on the religious liberties. >> [inaudible] governor pence: why is it
contained? >> [inaudible] governor pence: you would have to speak to the indiana general assembly and those who crafted legislation. i believe it would be appropriate to make clear this law does not give is this is a right to deny service to anyone. -- give businesses a right to deny service to anyone. >> [inaudible] governor pence: i do not support discrimination against gays, lesbians or anyone else. i don't support discrimination against days, lesbians or anyone else. i abhor discrimination. i want to say this -- no one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love, or who they love --
who they believeat they believe. this issue of discrimination has 10 throughout my life. i was the youth democrat party coordinator in my hometown. not exactly a community organizer, but we worked door-to-door. the reverend dr. martin luther king jr. was one of the heroes of my day and is one of my heroes today. john lewis astley on the floor if i would cochair, or cohosts the annual pilgrimage to some. it was one of the greatest honors i had during my 12 years to congress.
we felt so strongly that not only did my wife go with me, but my three teenage kids. this was the 45th anniversary of bloody sunday. the night before we sat in dr. king esther church and talked to people who had been there and we were deeply moved by troll the courage and faith of people -- by the courage and faith of the people there. i was walking across the bridge with john lewis. that has been what is most egregious to me about the debate. i am very typical in indiana. hoosiers are a loving, kind, generous, decent and tolerant people. we are known all over the world for that. i am one of them. the suggestion that because we
passed a law to strengthen the foundation of religious liberty that we had in some way created a license to discriminate. deeply offensive to me and deeply offensive to millions of hoosiers. >> [inaudible] governor pence: the difference in what? >> [inaudible] governor pence: i don't want to talk about private conversations
but i think we all understand that this is a perception problem. we need to deal with it. it is the right thing to do. so everyone around the country knows indiana is a welcoming lace to everyone. -- welcoming place to everyone. we have to correct that perception. the debate of how we got here -- we are where we are. as ceo of the state of indiana i am determined to figure it out and move or. -- forward. >> [inaudible]
governor pence: this law does not give a license to discriminate or deny services. >> [inaudible] governor pence: i do not support discrimination against anyone. the question that you pose -- we are dealing here in a free society with a careful balancing of interests. the facts and circumstances of each case determine the outcome.
what this legislation does, what it did when president clinton signed into law in 1993. what it served in some 30 states where it has been the law, was provide a framework for determining whether or not government action puts a substantial burden on a person's religious liberty. it is counterbalanced whether there is a controlling interest. the first question is, does the government action place a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. the next question is, is there a compelling state interests. what courts have found without exception, over the last 20 years, the state has a
compelling interest in combating discrimination. the last one. >> [inaudible] governor pence: the conversations have been ongoing. they have been candid. we have been listening and sharing the facts. and our determination to step forward and per five -- provide the type of correction that will allay concerns and correct misperception. for my part, i do not believe for one minute it was the attention -- attempt of the general assembly the right to discriminate or deny services by legislation. i have made it clear to those whose -- is mrs. that will take
such action as is necessary. -- businesses that we will take action as is necessary. thank you all very much. >> john is the chair of the indiana democratic party. being with us. john: glad to be on. >> you had a chance to hear what governor pence said early today, what is your reaction? john: the first rule here is do no harm. he went and did not answer the important question whether indiana hoosiers need protection. he said that was not on his agenda. since he signed that bill we have had great economic harm. major employers universities,
ncaa and now nascar have expressed their grave concern about the new law and i don't think the governor has answered the question. >> he was asked about whether a florist could deny business to a gay and lesbian couple and he said no. john: what the lot does is where the question is. he answered the question in a certain way. he pointed out that i abhor discrimination. we will take his word on that. he is not the governor of mike pence, he is the governor of indiana. he has to make sure all people are protected. unless you are willing to fix the law, you are not fixing it at all. there are a lot of things that could be done.
>> can republicans do just that? john: they have said they want the bill clarified. as we speak, they are in their private caucus meeting. democrats had a number of amendments three weeks ago. indiana democrats into the house and the senate had amendments. they were resoundingly defeated on our votes and were ignored. so now after the governor asked her terrible performance, not asking questions repeatedly, our democratic leaders came up with a plan yesterday, while republicans were talking about this. democrats said repeal the law or fix it is a way that applies to all hoosiers.
that includes including these people in the civil rights section. we haven't seen any -- >> we are talking with john zody. why is a lot different from the other state? john: it is different. he shamelessly dropped barack obama's name and bill clinton's name to soften the blow of this crisis. the law that then senator obama voted for was different because illinois has different protection. the law that bill clinton signed into law 20 years ago, we are in a much different place culturally. and the indiana law is broader. when something is broader, there are more questions. one of the major questions for
this lot was even the places that have protections or social -- sexual orientation. for example, enter into a vignette has ordinances protection of homosexuals as a tech to class. it throws and the question whether that ordinance would be observed under this law. a lot of the concern comes for that ambiguity that people do not seem to be clarified. >> you issued a statement earlier saying it created an economic and social mess across indiana. >> you we're looking at a hundreds of millions of dollars impact. we have the check on convention -- gen con convention. angie's list has foregone a $40
million expansion. the disciples of christ are moving their convention. theoretically we are already up to $100 million. all of these employers have come out with 90 ceos. indiana is a great place to live, work and raise a family. in most ways except when we are talking about not protecting everyone who lives here. we are four days away of hosting the final four. we have folks like that in your state and we have people analyzing the law telling the governor of indiana they are concerned about it and it hurts their efforts to recruit and maintain a diverse community diverse workforce and diverse groups. that is something the governor should have looked at and should
have heeded. >> john zody is joining us from indianapolis. in keeping with us. >> on the next "washington journal," leo gerard discusses trade policy negotiations. then kevin troy is here to talk about the need for republican alternatives to the affordable care act if the supreme court rules against the administration. later the spotlight on magazines features sam baker on his knees examining indiana's new religious freedom law. the washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m..
compelling argument on white we need to take action now, his leadership has been amazing and i have a clear path forward and we will move ahead to develop those plans and those rules that will underpin his success. mike: you of one of the hot seats in the administration, the clean power plan. tell us about those who love it and hated. senator mccarthy: -- secretary mccarthy: we know that we have to move toward a low carbon future and so the challenge is a do it in an effective way. most people recognize that we should be doing it. there are folks who will always argue about whether we should do it or how we design it but frankly i am hearing more about
how we design it then how we should do it. mike: you look at some of the comments that come to you and the encounters you had, this can get personal. what do you do to turn down the heat? secretary mccarthy: i have been in government for 35 years so if i have not figured out how to separate personal rum business i would not be where i am. i will not let it become personal at this point. there is no question that i believe that we have a moral responsibility. i know that i have to follow the laws that i have and i have to apply the data as i see it and use science as my guide. i will keep my head down and treat this as it should be, a normal is this ruled that epa does under the clean air act. i feel very comfortable that i will have to defend it and i will be able to under the law and under the science. we will have a great opportunity to deliver on the president's
legacy. mike: why is this such a hot issue? secretary mccarthy: i hate to tell you but it is not as hot outside of washington dc as it is in washington dc. we have to look at what the issues are the people care about across the united states. mike: in virginia and kentucky it is pretty hot. secretary mccarthy: it can be but there are people in kentucky working very hard with us figuring out the action we need to take. there is a lot more surety among the general public. a lot more concern that we are already seeing the impact associated climate. i don't think any of the individuals we are working with one to see those impacts get larger because we have failed to address the issues. in a way that is not only going to be ambitious but, it really has to turn the challenge into an opportunity. one of the reasons there is great hope, is because the
technology of the future is now the technology of the people investing in today. i have been around long enough to know when you bring up a problem with no solution, people don't like the problem to be articulated and defined. we have solutions now that will help the economy and bring jobs. i have every confidence we will be able to move the ball forward and that that omentum will continue. it will be part of the economic fabric that keeps us competitive. mike: what is the most cutting edge? secretary mccarthy: i don't know if it is the most cutting edge that implies it is not around yet, that solar has done amazing. there is nobody who anticipated that it would make the kind of progress that it has made. under this administration we have seen solar move tenfold and
we have seen the wind move threefold. what we are seeing now is there is more job growth in the solar sector. it is remarkable. there are other cutting edge examples of new technology. i think the challenge is that to recognize we are moving away from incremental to wanting to send a long-term market signal that that is where investment should go. we are seeing the investment in the power sector move toward renewables but we have to keep momentum and send a longer-term signal which is what the presidential intent is and what the epa will deliver. mike: a question from my political colleague senator mcconnell's budget amendment was to keep the epa from holding highway funds from states that do not comply. does the epa have legal authority? secretary mccarthy: we actually don't have legal authority to
withhold highway funds. he is getting confused between a state implantation plan under the national ambient air quality standards and the section of the clean air act which the plan is operating under. it is a state and the mentation plan that is very different and does not hold those same consequences. we step -- we set the standards the states implement. mike: what is your plan b? secretary mccarthy: at this point in time or after we find out? mike: this point in time. secretary mccarthy: there are many things going on but there are some legal challenges now which are not particularly of significance. when we finalize it we expect it will be legally challenged and
could likely go to the supreme court. that's why i what make sure we do it the way we're supposed to and do it the way it will be legal. i don't think there will be opportunities for folks to have a significant challenge because we have been doing the clean air act for a long time. we have been having good success and the supreme court address the issue of carbon pollution three times. we want to make sure we get a fourth win under our belt. i think the challenge with the carbon pollution rules is that it has become a political controversy within washington. that sometimes stops us short of the substantive issues.
on the clean water rule, it is the fact that water is personal. water is important to every community. that is why we are doing it. to protect drinking water supplies that people rely on and resources we rely on. we have to do it in a way that we have strong consultation with the states. to recognize there will be folks out of the gate in some don't even want the clarity we are looking for. but the general public do. we will deliver this one in a really solid way which takes cognitive to the concerns that have been raised and made the changes that we need. we can do both and we will. mike: going back to your time in massachusetts, do you know what it is time to be in the ports and sometimes it might feel like you are the secretary-general? secretary mccarthy: he has his
problems and i have mine. mike: what is it like to have constant litigation be a huge part of your job. secretary mccarthy: it is challenging when you go to remortgage your house. they think i am a serial soemth ing-or-other. the epa is under scrutiny no matter what we do. if we put a science assessment out it has to be triple peer-reviewed and we do the job that we need to do. it keeps you on your toes and has allowed us to become more cutting edge. it just means we have to bex prepared for the inevitable lawsuit. we get better with time. mike: in two minutes i will bring in my colleague, but first my keystone question. the canadian ambassador wrote to
secretary kerry accusing the epa of significant distortions and omissions in reaching your latest conclusions that low prices would increase to increased oilsands. what is your response? >> i have great respect for the city ambassador but he should just relook at the comment letter. as much as he may have thought it was a conclusion it is simply the normal way that the epa response. looking at the change in oil prices and what that means and to make the factual observation that this class does more than others. people just have to look at it. we didn't conclude anything because we are not the concluded. mike: would the keystone pipeline be a disaster for the climate? secretary mccarthy: no i don't
think anyone issue is a disaster to the climate nor is there any one solution. everything has to be looked at in a way that continues to advance our interests of moving toward a low carbon can take and see. mike: we thank all of you for sticking with us. in the meantime my colleague erica has a question for the administrator. >> the epa climate rules for power plants are a large part of what the u.s. is going through climate negotiations with. mike touched on this before but i would like to circle back on whether or not you are talking about what to do if the appeals court holds up your power plant will before you issue a rule. is there some other thing you can take? admin. mccarthy: we certainly
don't expect that to happen. i don't need a plan b if i am solid in my plan a. we know how to do regulation under the clean air act. i know what happened in the 1990 amendments. i know what we're supposed to do. we will deliver on that. the good news is everything the president is looking at in terms of a u.s. commitment, he has the authority to do. epa has the obligation to do this as the supreme court has told us. we just need to make sure we are following the law. we should be set. we know already there is a change an the international discussion. we can take advantage of that. people know domestically we are moving forward and we have done a great joint agreement with china. if the two biggest polluters can get together and the two biggest
economies, we will be ok moving into paris. we should have momentum. erica: secretary fox mentioned that you sent over these heavy-duty trucks, can you tell us a little bit about what to expect there? admin. mccarthy: first we already did one heavy-duty rule. that will be the same like you see on light duty vehicles, looking to see the same kind of innovation and progression and technology we are looking for. i think most of us think light-duty vehicles are the big ticket item but if you look now heavy-duty vehicles are huge emitters of greenhouse gases. providing efficiency will not only drive significant reduction, but it is also going to be tremendous for commercial benefits. it will lower the cost of consumer goods. i cannot give you any of the
details, but i am looking forward to this having an expedited review. it will be a terrific rule and we are working strongly with the industry in all aspects. the last thing i would mention is we did pretty good in the light duty vehicle. people might see that the second year into the requirements that extend to 2025, we are ahead of the curve. the companies are doing better than we anticipated, even though they thought it was an aggressive target. if we can have the same collaboration and payoff with consumers, and the same success we will do great. mike: what is something that i mike allen, resident of arlington, virginia can do to reduce my carbon footprint? admin. mccarthy: you can buy one of the 30 mile per gallon vehicles on the road that have tripled since we started taking these. we have three times as many on
the road today. mike: what is one vehicle? admin. mccarthy: ford focus -- i shouldn't say it is one of my favorites. it is one. that was almost a big mistake. good thing i avoided that. [laughter] there is a lot of them. and a lot of new ones. the interesting thing is you can also buy your suv. the suv's are the fastest in terms of reducing their emissions. they're the fastest in terms of getting better miles per gallon than any model. the way we decide it is you can look at any vehicle, and have the performance you want and continue to drive the fleet average down. i am excited about that. people are worried about whether we are buying suv's again. they're all getting more efficient.
you can look at energy efficiency opportunities. one of the things we're looking at with the clean water role, there are a wide variety of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. energy efficiency programs are fabulous. most states have them. they are game changers. mike: what is an example of something that i can do? admin. mccarthy: a quick example, a lot of the states are supporting by providing rebates when you buy energy efficient appliances. those can be efficiently designed and targeted at what has the energy star label. if you buy one of those you are saving money over a short period of time. you save every year and can get a rebate in many states. in some there are opportunities for reimbursements. or maybe a tax incentive for renewables.
mike: what have you changed or given up in your life to conserve energy? admin. mccarthy: i cannot think i have given up anything. part of the key to conservation isn't not putting your sweater on what is figuring out how to reduce your energy cost us. we have gone way beyond that so i have not had to sacrifice. i have leds everywhere. they are better. i was talking to secretary mavis from the navy. he was telling me how much money the navy saved by truck going to led lights on the carrier. because when you want to change a lightbulb it isn't an easy thing and he explained that last years instead of months. so i haven't sacrificed a thing but i have taken advantage of a lot. mike: my brother scott designs led diodes. have you heard of them? admin. mccarthy: no.
mike: you can tell me later. -- admin. mccarthy: no. you can tell me later. mike: they are available at home depot. [laughter] what is your advice for how to succeed? admin. mccarthy: i would give the same advice that i would starting out. make sure that you work hard. you understand the pace is fast. you have enter ability to make decisions to the extent that you can. you take a risk in terms of wanting the next job to be one that you are not sure you can manage well, but will expand your horizons. mike: as you come up, what is a mistake you see people making? admin. mccarthy: that is a good question. one of the things i like to focus on, i like getting things done. i like getting things over the finish line.
i think people underestimate that at every level of government, the higher you get the more there are hurdles and the more it is difficult. begin to take over and get in the way of the intent that you're looking for. and you need to have a, you need to be dogged as much as possible so that you don't let those bureaucratic hurdles get in the way of real progress. nor let perfection get in the way of real progress. mike: not everybody gets as many emails as my colleague danielle lipman in the front row but everyone in the this room gets too many emails. what do you do to manage the incoming? admin. mccarthy: >> one of the good things is shift your position. then your email gets changed. [laughter] admin. mccarthy: but unfortunately, i still track my old email as well. but, you have to have a team of people working on it with you. but, i do the best i can to limit my response to emails to