certain number of people that we're fighting with. i find it very difficult to believe that pakistan will be able simultaneously to do better at coping with it own extremism while supporting close cousins of the extremists in the war in afghanistan, so i think we risk in -- the risk in pakistan gets worse. and then a point that my colleague mentioned, it's a huge propaganda and moral shot in the arm for, to use a simplified term, jihadists, the second superpower defeated, god is on our side, forward to victory. i don't know where that plays out, but if you think that's a risk you can -- that's not a risk, then i think you should think twice about it. it is possible that we will fail. i would say the margin for the kind of messy success is quite narrow, and it is narrower now than it was a couple of years

ago, and some of that is our own doing. .. not a kind of bumper sticker of dominoes didn't fall in vietnam, so let's go. absent dealing with those questions one has a debate that is a little more like children saying i'm tired, and daddy sang we have 50 miles to go.

that is understandable. it is human. it is not intellectually enriching. so there are risks. the chances of success i think is quite low. there are a lot of reasons for that your we were asked, or i was asked anyway to talk a little bit about what it is we can do about it, and that is of course where years of diplomatic practice come from. i don't care how gloomy it is, my job is to figure out what it is i can do about it, even if that might be hopeless. i don't think it's quite hopeless here. but in considering this i think we need to consider also where we are in the transition period it. for all the gloom and doom with a granular of which by the way i agree, i agree a great deal with what tony had to say about lousy reporting of what's happening, we are only now at the point where we are testing the theory.

we have had considerable military success, thanks kori, in the south where our troops are, but we do not know whether the afghans can take that over. we know that our troops will have to fight some major battles in the east. we know there is a plan for that. we know that there is a plan to do that with repositioning, but we have not seen the results. i could go on, but what i'm really trying to say is, it's like finding your in the course and you're about to take the midterm and deciding to drop the course before you take the midterm. we will, over the course of the next year, take that midterm. and have a better basis to judge the transition strategy. i think, given the level of risk that i see, it is important to use that year as best we can,

and then reach edge whether we really have possibilities here. -- reject whether we have really possibilities here. the question isn't whether we can, there's always a lot we can do, but we swing rather widely between very large expectations and deep depression when the world doesn't change instantaneously. when one looks at what we can do, i would say, i would say by the way this is unlikely, but the most important single thing we can do is to steady down on our intentions. because everywhere -- everywhere takes position to some degree on the united states. those who side with us, those who oppose us, those are fighting us, those are simply neutral or looking for the own survival. and the reality is right now they have no bloody idea what we

intend. this is true of president karzai who was told me so. it is true of his most fervent critics who say they do not understand what we intend after 2014, but they have to survive. the transition policy that is beginning to come into focus, and maybe if we have a strategic partnership will come but the fact remains at this point, our intentions post-2014 are not very clear. our message is rather mixed. what does this mean to the pakistanis? we want the pakistanis to cooperate more with us. pakistan is looking at a geostrategic situation where believe we will leave prematurely on the process we have undertaken will collapse leading to civil war, and that's the strategic in which they have to make choices. afghans are thinking the same. they have many years of practice. what does this do? creates hedging behavior.

you may have to steal more because you're going to have to run. you tighten your ties with your ethnic and tribal colleagues because they're the ones who are going to fight with you, if you're not going to run. but if you do that you don't ever give much of a damn about their corruption and their a patient's behavior. you think there may be a civil war, you start looking at whether you have got your colleagues and where their position and weather station in the country, and that takes precedence over professionalism because you're going to have to fight with them and survive. so there are a whole series of hedging behaviors. if you want condition with the taliban, you know, this is a way to raise the price. if you think negotiations are a rapid alternative to war, you suggest your appetite for war is less than your opponent, and you are simply raising the price,

raising their propensity and simply wait you out. i'm not against negotiations, but understand their parallels. so, if there is a single thing that is overwhelmingly important to our chances of success, it is to find what we're going to do and put in it. i have very little expectation that's going to happen, by the way, but i was asked to state what do we do about this. so i'm going to leave it at the. there are any number of bits and pieces. i've been doing afghanistan for a number of years now, the first one there in 1967. and i can tell you there's nobody who actually understands afghanistan in a comprehensive way, but the verge of those who continue to work on for a long time is we can raise your confusion to a high level of detail. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much.

i want to begin the discussion by highlighting where ambassador neumann just left off. i went to kabul a few weeks back. it was the week after the koran burning and the shootings at the ministry of into. cobbles on a lockdown. a lot of my engagements were canceled. the upside was that freed me up to meet more afghans. and to a person every afghans i met said exactly ambassador neumann just said, that there's uncertainty. afghans want to know what we're going to do. the problem, a number of them highlighted was if we don't know how many u.s. forces are you going to be the come if we don't know what development projects are going to continue, if we don't know how much money is going to be available, how can we plan? the afghan people are the ones who will be responsible for holding off the taliban, or dealing with them somehow. the afghans are the ones who

will be responsible for running the government, and for holding up very economy. if they don't know what the commitment of the international committee and the united states in particular is taking count on, that faces a sense of uncertainty that leads to widespread feelings of one of billy. a number of people told me this, that the powerless and even a number of powerful people within afghanistan feel themselves vulnerable. that leads to hedging behavior. those economically, we know a lot of money is leaving afghanistan every day. being expatriated by people who think that it is probably a safer investment elsewhere. that there are a number of powerful people, a lot of the warlords may not have the large followings that the use to but there still a lot of people who are collecting small arms and trying to build the relationship that they think they might need, just in case there might be a civil war. the problem with hedging behavior is that it can very

quickly become a self-fulfilling opposite. how do we avoid that what some people say if we say although more clearly about what our intentions are between 2014, that we are essentially showing our playbook to the taliban and that will help them plan better. i'd like your opinion as to whether that's the more important consideration or whether it's more important to help the afghans plan their own playbook. >> i'll take a shot at the. because i think we've actually already told the taliban the main element of our playbook, which is when we are leading. and that has made the execution of our strategy extraordinarily more difficult. and has caused everybody to start hedging years in advance of when they might otherwise have done so. so i don't see a big downside to that, but i did see two big opportunities, and the first is as ambassador neumann mentioned,

that the agreement with the afghan government about what we're going to do, where we're going to be, and what kind of activities we're going to be engaged in over a longer period of time. that will help stabilize the situation, not just internal to afghanistan but also with the pakistanis. the second big thing is twisting arms at nato chicago summit to make sure that afghans have a reasonable prospect of a kind of international assistance will be made available to them, about the continuing commitment of the countries that are currently fighting in afghanistan, to help them see it through. that, too, would really stabilize it, and i very much hope that the obama administration would take advantage of those two big opportunities. and it seems to me that they a are. >> i think we all know the numbers that are in the budget submission. they are not going to change. this is not a year for the congress is going to suddenly spend more money than the president has requested.

we made a massive cutback already in aid. we did it last year. it's going to be cut again. the state department has not formally issue the figure in the account, but those of the speaking when the going to chicago, it will go into chicago having already decided we are not going to spend anything like the money that was called for in the original transition planning. and going to allies for more pledges, we have some very good data on whether allies meet pledges. they are historical and they are very clear. but those are civil aid programs. the problem is a massive expenditure in afghanistan has come from military spending, not aid. the total state department spending on the afghan war was 6% of the department of defense spending, over a ten-year

period. the state department percentage is dropping, relative to defense, even with the cuts. and this is the last year, fiscal 13, we can have a major impact on transition. as i pointed out earlier we have already virtually cut the amount of money we plan to spend next year on the afghan national security force in half in the budget request. attended plan that went from seven to 9 billion for the afghan national security force is, remember, that money goes into the afghan economy, it actually probably put more money into the economy than the u.s.a. budget by a factor of two to three. we are going to go to 4.4 billion as the future planning figure, and were a year ago where plan to spend about 80% of that money. we're not talking 25%.

now, going into chicago and getting more pledges is going to be like the bonn conference. and if you look at the world bank report, which is the only thing we have, there is no u.s. economic transition plan for afghanistan. the world bank report talks about the masses in fact and what's to happen with or without chicago. and you can see that validated in the report from the u.s. and special inspector general for afghan reconstruction, and the issues are raised in the department of defense report. some of these facts, as ron points out, our who picks the facts. we have three reports on this war that matter. and i would suggest it's about time we start reading them. because we only have one fiscal year to really handle this transition, and we have already made most of the decisions.

>> ambassador newmann, there's one source, a commitment to national committee. another source has to deal with governance and politics within afghanistan, the capability of government and so. >> we're talking past each other just a little bit. the original question was whether making the playbook clear would be an advantage. corti said it would. kori talked about how dismal the playbook is. and with the usual deference that i had for my colleague, i agree the playbook is not real good. and, frankly, i think our choice of numbers is really a bit too low for the strategy, our ways and means are not as well imbalance as i would like to see them. but with that said, the afghan and regional expectation that we

are just going that there is nothing is so large that, in fact, even what we are going to do if it is understood and publicized does have value within the political situation, which we were talking about which was your initial starting point, what people expect us to do. the broad expectation is we are all gone in 2014. so if you start talking about dollar numbers and maintaining an afghan army, you would have a big argument about whether the army is sufficient. you can also have an argument about how much of our dollars flow into the afghan economy. an awful lot of that, some has, a lot of gone into equipping, a lot of has gone into the economy has been construction and facilities which we would not have been continued anyway. but the size of the army. i still come out, it is

important to have greater clarity about what we're doing, whether or not that policy is totally adequate in a transition, but the second point i would make is it's kind of an operational, but signed a strategic partnership agreement will have a one day -- chicago, whether one or two day half-life. people forget documents very quickly. so if we really want to use the greater clarity that may come out of this, and i think you may see some more pledges on the afghan army out of chicago, then you will have to treat them as politicians treat their own speech, you give it over and over again and you don't expect that you can give it once six months later and wonder why have no constituents. so even if we get a degree of clarity, whether adequate or not, there will be an

operational question which may look sort of this is the policy issue but if you do badly he lives, if you don't do it you lose the effect of your document. on governance, sorry to take so long to wind up to your question here, we are now in a position where we have enormous suspicion between us and president karzai, and many around him. and some of that suspicion is because we don't like the way they do things. a great deal of that suspicion has also been caused by us by our completeness handling of him and by the misperception of our motives. and, you know, i guess i look harder on our stupidities down on theirs. the fact is we are not dealing with the situation a great deal of distrust, and we have a situation where we don't have clarity about whether we will stay. this means our leverage for

domestic and governance change is very low. i wish it were better, but it's not. so when we think about what we can do, i wouldn't be too grandiose. i think our ability to restructure the basic form of the afghan government is almost nil. there are too many, you do that once before you hand over sovereignty. once you hand it over, you don't have the ability to make that size change anymore. even if you screwed it up the first time. there are issues, good ones, should one bring elections forward to late 2013 or early 2014. while we'll have more security and country, that is a very big political deal with parliament. and would push more into the provinces. there's an argument for doing it. those things are worth looking at but i think one has to recognize that the amount of

influence we have is for marginal change in governance over the next year or two. >> i'd like to take three questions from the audience but when i call on you please with a microphone to arrive, and identify yourself, and please keep your question very brief. we don't have very much time left and we would like to maximize the amount of time for a group discussion. the gentleman here. >> i'm harlan, and i've two brief questions. before kori drew some of my fire i thought it was instructed know he had mentioned nato. so my first question is, what you think the impact of afghanistan is going to be on nato, given that european publics are even more disposed against the war than a majority of americans? and second about pakistan. what do we do, i think one of the many nuts of the problem is that going back to president musharraf and his both chief of staff and president, gianni, the

pakistan's always disagree with our strategy in afghanistan. they've argued from the very beginning consistently it was not going to work so why should they take strategy that they would think would fail. that's been their view collectively for the last five or six years. what do we do to turn that around, or is there nothing we can do and the matter what we think pakistan is just going to get worse until it gets better? >> thank you very much. question number two. >> thank you. my name is debbie smith, i run an ngo and we're build a school for kids with disabilities in afghanistan and kabul. my question is for kori. in regards to your comments on the increase of boots on the ground these of the state department, assets -- vis-à-vis state department, it's been my observation watching things in -- >> make the question very brief. >> yes, i'm sorry. that we have approached it from

more of a top down as far as development instead of bottom up and up wondering if you could just speak to that. >> and the final question backed by the back door, police. >> thank you. i first wanted to thank you for your comment about how the military does everything right and all the rest of the government does everything horribly. spent identify yourself. >> know, just joking. my question is, how can we engage militarily, or is it even possible to engage militarily in a cooperative manner when diplomatic channels and to close up or tensions tend to increase? is that even possible? should our military leaders actually continue to push engagements, despite diplomatic tensions, or is it just an inevitable for the military engagements to suffer when diplomatic engagements suffered?

>> thanks very much. why don't we begin with kori? >> i will take them in reverse order. first, i think that -- >> three minutes each, i'm sort. >> chinese military to military relations with unisys are a great illustration with the fact that the political relationship is difficult, actually the quiet low-key cooperation we have a military channels is actually quite advantageous. and even more important, i myself am quite critical of the extent to which we are relying on senior military people to perform fundamentally, diplomatic function. my favorite example is sending the chief of staff of the army to iraq to talk to the iraqi political leaders about the stalemate. that's a terrible signal about american diplomacy, that we are overreliance on combat boots rather than wingtips, or at least good black shoes. [laughter] for what needs to be done diplomatically, which takes me to put. i think your exactly right.

it seems to me that we are not seeking clearly or strategically about how to do development as well. and it's shocking, given that we live in a country with the most tumultuous productive economy in the world, that we focus on top down things, in part because they are easy. also, because we have the experience of ngos and religious organizations, you know, the big beautiful mess of american civil society has in the last 15 years move into development in an enormous white, and has been great for the world. but we haven't read thought the question asked, what do we need to do as a government develop assistance? should we -- actually ambassador newmann has talked quite public about the subject them i want to talk to him afterwards. so there's lot we ought to be rethinking about what does the government need to do at a time when civil society and private

philanthropy is doing so much in this space. and to your point -- >> twenty seconds. >> okay. i won't talk to the nader, to the pakistani peace. the pakistanis do not have a positive strategy themselves for either the own success or success at what they want to achieve in afghanistan. working with them in a constructive way can nudge them towards things that the afghans might actually want, the pakistan's also want, and find a basis for cooperation with india is an extraordinarily difficult intellectual and diplomatic task, but it's the fundamental one. >> thank you very much. tony. >> very quickly, i think with regards to nader, this is the thing we all need to remember, nato countries, populations which have offered discounted afghanistan as a good part of america, we forgot about what happened in vietnam, but while

there are real risk, what minimize the risks was people already sought as a war that didn't matter when we left. and that greatly reduce the impact it had. the real problem i think in nato now is whether nato, europe, is going to actually ever implement any of the current strategy in terms of its more limited power protection and capabilities, and what the internal structure will exist there. the afghan war is not a test of nato, europe. the case of pakistan i think we need to be realistic. without getting into a, i think that the agency's study of pakistan probably is realistic. pakistan today is what pakistan will be in 2014. it is not quite a failed state, but it is failed government. and its attitudes on the afghan war are not ones we can change through negotiation.

it will be a major problem and the sanctuaries will remain. in terms of the whole problem of top down engagement and the rest, the fact is i think when we talk about military diplomacy and civil diplomacy, what i see in the u.s. and pakistani teams are actually very good mixes of civil and military diplomacy. but whatever you do in negotiation, you can't do more for the people you negotiate with will allow you to do. and the problem isn't that you have the wrong strategy for the wrong methods of negotiation. we will do a little better with pakistan because military to military and civil dialogue, but not much. and, finally, on the whole aid issue. understand that our prt structure already, during 2013,

will flow down to five entities on defined, but no more than five. they will probably go at least as quickly. that means that sometime by the end of 2013 the number of operational aid workers in the field, for governments, will be somewhere like a third of what they are now. and the whole surge will disappear. how much money they will have is anybody's guess. that's going to put more and more of a burden on the ngos, if the ngos can stay. by the thing that is being forgotten here is the contract security forces that many people depended on will be gone, and the replacement for the contract security forces are one of the on debated failures of the development of afghan security forces. the system isn't working and it

isn't going to work in the foreseeable future. >> ambassador neumann, final word. >> i will take your challenge for three minutes. i think we need both top down and bottom up, recognize two things. bottom up is vital as it is, is there for difficult to scale up quickly. the success of most small projects is affected and carefully at a small level. by their very definition you can't massively expanding, and we are an impatient folk usually asking for very fast results that pushes us to both top down and it pushes us and often demands speed and metrics that are highly unrealistic, when that fails. i don't think i know enough to say anything useful about the i can speculate but it's not worth having.

on pakistan, one cannot possibly answer that question into two minutes and five seconds i have left, but i would say that we, first of all, if we greater clarity about what we are going to do, we would have somewhat more chance of influencing the strategic perceptions of pakistan. without that clarity, if we give up the greatest signal lever we would have to change their understanding of the world they have to live in and deal with. secondly, we alternate between what a strategic relationship when we're mad, mad as an angry, not as in our potentials. that alternation is confusing, and it serves little purpose. and one needs to understand that both element of pressure and other reward are going to have to operate rather continuously. i don't think we do that. on this last question, which is

a very complex one about military engagements against civilians, if you're talking about negotiations, then i think the answer is these are parallel tracks. you do both simultaneously. prime minister rabin, i'm very fond of going on this one, asked that he could negotiate with tears said, that i must fight terrorism as though there were no negotiations, and i must negotiate as if they were no terrorists. that i think is fundamental. when you get down to an operational level, there are times when you need, frankly, to control your military targeting for political purposes. there are other times when you don't. if you're going to run, there are times you need to do even with the military, if you're going to run special ops, then you need to deal with local situation and not stumbled across your own maneuver units and what they are trying to do.

that can also be true of pakistan. so, that's very, very antithetical to the idea of political control of medicare targeting, but there are times when it is appropriate. we never get past president johnson using it, but there does. so you can do both, but you need to be looking very carefully what you're trying to do, and i am 10 seconds over, thanks. >> ambassador neumann, all of you, thank you for coming today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the pope is a very famous way of being determined, and that's, the cardinals level post. the pope handpicks this person. this person decides when the pope is dead. he hits him three times and it was a silver hammer and calls out his baptismal name three times, which is carried over from the romans. the romans used that as eliminate that you three times the a note even today the pope isn't it until he says he's dead. >> saturday night at 10 p.m. on

afterwards, dick teresi defines the ever-changing description of death in his controversial argument that the business of organ harvesting is blurring that line. also this weekend on book tv, former pennsylvania senator arlen specter on the split between old guard members of his former party and those supported by the tea party. sunday at 8 p.m. booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> our specific issue is to work to see to it that human rights remained a central part to american policy. and that when we are evaluating our foreign policy moves globally, human rights can never be the only consideration but it has to be part of the dialogue. >> katrina lantos swett is the president and ceo of the foundation for human rights and justice. >> when we abandon our deepest values, and whether we're talking about torture as released to the war on terror,

or the reset policy with russia. you know, and the upcoming issue of whether or not congress should pass the accountability act which we don't need to go into the details of that policy issue, but whether or not we are going to stay on record as saying human rights matter. they matter in russia. they matter in china. >> more with katrina lantos swett sunday night at 8 p.m. on c-span q&a. >> the convention center in washington, d.c. for more from the national action network's annual convention. opening up this morning will be a conversation on race and politics. after that we expected from housing and urban developers secretary shaun donovan, epa administrator lisa jackson. they will both deliver remarks late on this morning. every year the national action network holds this convention focusing on issues most important in civil rights that year. the national action network is a

civil rights organization founded by al sharpton in 1991. it's going to be a few minutes before the group gets under way. while we wait we'll bring you remarks from health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius to address the group yesterday afternoon. >> thank you, thank you. well, i'm going to start by thanking reverend sharpton, not only for his terrific leadership of this incredibly important organization, but for his leadership across the country, for his voice that continues to call on all of us to form a more perfect union. and we are clearly still a work in progress, but thank you, reverend sharpton, for reminding us that we have a lot of work to do, and as we watch committees across this country deal with very difficult issues, it's really wonderful to have your

voice and your courage and your leadership out front. and stand up if you would just a second. doesn't this guy look good? talk about a let's move agenda. i'm telling you. [applause] >> shelley didn't clap. [laughter] >> it's impressive. so i'm really delighted to be back here, and here in part because this administration is definitely committed to health of all americans. we are committed to building a nation where every american has a fair shot to achieve his or her dreams. and i don't think there's anything more central to that goal than improving our nation's health. now, on a national level, you can look at any of the biggest goals that we have in the country, creating jobs, helping

our children succeed in school, building stronger and more prosperous communities. improving health contributes to every one of those goals in a very fundamental way. on an individual level, there's no question that health is fundamental to opportunity. the healthier we are, the more freedom we have to pursue our own dreams, contribute your own families and contribute to our committee and our country. a healthier country is one in which many more americans have the chance to reach their full potential. and that's why our country's persistence racial and ethnic health disparities are so harmful. now, we know that minority americans today are more likely to go without preventive care they need to stay healthy. they are more likely to suffer from serious illnesses like diabetes and heart disease. and when they do get sick,

they're more likely to have limited access to treatments and medicines they need to get better. so as a result, we have way too many minority americans living sector and dying younger than they should. and those inequalities spill over into other areas. it's hard to pay attention in class when you have a toothache and you can't find a dentist or a four to go to the dentist to get it fixed. it's hard to go to work every day if you have a chronic condition that's not being managed. it's hard to take care of your family when you have a stack of unpaid medical bills sitting on your kitchen table. so if we can begin to close the disparities in health, we begin to close disparities in those other areas, too. so a year ago when i accepted reverend sharpton's invitation to come to the national action network conference in new york, i spoke about some of these

challenges. but i also talked about to powerful new tools we have to start addressing them. first of all, under the direction of this president, our department has put together as the first of its kind action plan to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities. and it really is an ever in the department of health and human services to use all our department resources to close the gaps. and secondly we have a law that was signed two years ago by president obama, the affordable care act. so today, we don't have to speculate about the difference that these two tools can make. we can begin to look at results. and this afternoon, i just want to give you a couple of highlights. because of the steps we have taken, there are 410,000 african-american young adults across the country who were uninsured but now have insurance

coverage under their parents health plan, thanks to the new law. 410,000 young men and women. [applause] now, one of them was with me in miami a couple of years, a couple of weeks ago, i'm sorry. 25 year old law student named ashley. now, ashley is one of those young people who make you have renewed faith in the future of this country. she is a bright, she's dedicated, she's working on her law degree. she wants to devote her career to working on social justice issues, which is why she is going to law school. and she didn't go ahead and pursue that dream now because she no longer has to worry about getting health coverage. what ashley tony west she was afraid she would have to go to work for big firm that she didn't want to do, or choose a dog on 10 job that didn't have

health coverage, as she goes through law school, but also make sure that she has affordable coverage when she comes out of law school, she can pursue the job of her dreams and really served her community. there's an estimated five and a half million african-americans with private insurance who now are getting recommended preventive care without paying any co-pays or deductibles. think about that. [applause] that's a big deal. i have to tell you, i've met people over and over again across the years to put off a mammogram, or don't go get a checkup, because they really don't have to co-pay and deductible. they are not sure where they're going to get the, even though they have insurance coverage, they don't have the extra cash in the pockets. we think it's better to keep people healthy in the first place then wait until you get sick and come to emergency room doors or end up in the hospital. so pushing preventive care,

making sure people catch things early is a part of the new health care law. there are four and half million african-americans on medicare who have access to new benefits like free preventive care and savings on prescription drugs when they hit the coverage gap, known as the doughnut hole, and that is real money in people's pockets, and seniors pockets, day in and day out, and that's a huge step forward. [applause] >> and again, i see these folks who were really worried about what happened when their drug coverage ran out, how they're going to choose between groceries and rent, who was going to get to take their pills each week when a husband and wife both have the same situation and are paying 100% out of pocket. so that doughnut hole will close over time, but this year, it's a 50% discount at that accounts for over $600 per beneficiary

back in their pocket. that's a lot of money that people are able to save. there are new commonsense rules of the road for insurance companies, finally. for example, insurance -- it is illegal now, thanks to the affordable care act, for insurance coverage to be denied to children because of pre-existing health conditions like asthma or diabetes. [applause] that will never happen again in the united states. now, a couple of years ago i was at a congressional black caucus dinner, and a woman who was sitting at a nearby table came over and tap me on the shoulder, she said, i just want to tell you what this law means to me. she said, my son had a liver transplant when he was 10 months old. no, i did not any idea how old her son was now, or where he was, and i said, you know, out is he, hoping that you still alive and healthy.

she said after his fine. he is now 23, but she said i have been terrified my whole life that he will never have insurance coverage, that he will never be able, if he doesn't have exactly the right job, to have been kind of health security for him and his family. and she said, now we have the peace of mind as his parents know that yes, he recovered from a very serious illness as a child, but we have the peace of mind to know his life will have some health security for the rest of his life. and that is a really big step forward, and that's a huge deal not only for that woman, but for millions of parents around the country. we have funding for our nation's 1100 community health centers, to allow them to build additions, as dental and mental health additions, stay open longer, and serve millions more patients. and today, i'm pleased to tell you that we have a record number of children in the united states

with health insurance. the highest number ever and a history of our country. [applause] it sounds hard to believe that even in these tough economic times, when we usually see insurance rolls drop, we have taken enough steps, thanks to this president's commitment over the last couple of years, that the highest number of kids ever have health insurance, and we're going to continue that effort. [applause] and talk about our wonderful first lady. i don't how many of you are stephen colbert fans, but she was fabulous last month. if you didn't happen to see her, she was terrific. anybody who can give stephen colbert and one for his money, i'm all for. but she has shined a bright light on a childhood academic --

epidemic that was really killing our next generation of leaders in this country, and that's childhood obesity. that's an epidemic that takes an especially large toll in the african-american community. and thanks in part to a first lady who stands up and not only shines a light on it, but brings people together to mobilize a national effort about it, thanks to the let's move campaign, it's gone from a problem where there was a lot of chatter in the past, but almost no action, to one where we have food manufacturers who are reformatting the foods that they process and sell, we have restaurants joining in, mayors across this country who are committed to using their resources for safer playgrounds and bike areas and places that kids can play outside, mayors, sports teams, lots have joined efforts. we have change for the first time in a very long time the

rules around the food that our children are served in school. what an irony is that that government funding that provides funds for kids in school often was, as reverend sharpton just said, feeding them down. -- beating them down. -- beating and epic sweep taken taken some very important steps. catchup is no longer a vegetable. you will be pleased to know. and that is good news for our kids. part of this is helping folks make healthier choices the easier choice. so that it shouldn't be hard to be healthy in this country. it shouldn't require people to take two buses to get to a store where there are fresh fruits and vegetables but you shouldn't have to worry about where to get exercise. there should be safe places to walk and play and be engaging them activity. that effort is finally under way. so we continue to take steps to

lay the groundwork for an improved insurance market that comes online in 2014. and that will, again, dramatically expand access to health coverage. in fact, we are releasing a report today that says that changes that are underway and the changes that are coming and the next year and a half will allow just under 4 million african-americans who would otherwise be uninsured to gain coverage in the next several years, and that is very, very good news for them and their families. [applause] and that's just the start. when you add all these pieces together, this is by far the most ambitious agenda for improving health and reducing disparities, maybe ever in my lifetime. but what's disturbing -- [applause] yes, thank you. and i'm an old lady. so i've been looking at this for a long time. what's disturbing and very

important that you all are here, is that we are already seeing attempts to roll back and almost everyone of these efforts are talking about, the enemy is at the door and we know that they would like to dismantle these initiatives. and that's really where you coming. now today, we are at a make or break moment. on one hand we have the most important health agenda since the mid '60s, when medicare and medicaid were first passed. and on the other hand we've got folks who are committed to undoing not only the important initiatives that we've made in the last few years but, frankly, want to go back and undo medicare and medicaid for the mid '60s. they want to roll us back years and years. we know that the best way to keep moving in the right direction is to give people the facts. the right now there are a lot of

people benefiting from this law who don't even know that's why they're benefiting. they don't know that when they get a free doctor checkup to check on their wellness every year with medicare, that's because of the affordable care act. they don't know that the discount that is automatically put in place with their prescription drug is because of the affordable care act. they don't know that getting no charge for a mammogram or colon cancer screening through medicare is because of the overlook interact. there was a recent article about a woman and jackson, mississippi, who went to the doctor took a couple of tests, including a colonoscopy and a mammogram that had been recommended. and the bill came and the final ballots, she was on private insurance coverage, the final balance said zero. she was so confused that she went to the clerk at the doctor's office feeling she wanted to be responsible and pay her bills but and they said no,

no, the new law says preventive screenings now -- >> the national action network yesterday, we'll take you to the groups gathered this morning for a look at a discussion on race and politics. among the panelists this point, moderator of "meet the press" david gregory but also on the panel, april ryan, senior white house correspondent with american urban radio. they are just getting started you on c-span2. >> we have been joined thus far by kathleen sebelius, the health and human secretary as was hilda solis, the secretary of labor. and we will be joined today by the secretary of housing, shaun donovan. and we been joined by the education secretary, arne duncan. and certainly, we were joined on wednesday by the family of trayvon martin, as the news was broken that george zimmerman was behind bars for. [applause] we do not have much time today,

so we're going to get right into it. and without further ado i'd like to bring forth the president and founder of national action network, reverend doctor al sharpton. [applause] >> all right, good morning, and again, thank you. we are pulling people from the practices, but i would ask as they came and they come in quietly. many of you, we thank you, because we want to start on time and we must end on time. we are very happy that all of our panelists took time from their scheduled to be with us this morning. let me introduce the panel, as they are seated. let me first say that this, and i want is to be real clear, i'm moderating this so you all know

i am a firm moderator. i'm not going to let you go from the subject, because this is a very serious subject for all of us in civil rights work. and that is how we deal with the issues of race during this year, where we deal with the issues but not in a way that would polarize the country in an irreparable way. and as very difficult thing to talk about. but i think that is one of the critical issues the media will have to deal with. on one hand we want the issue dealt with, but on the other hand, we don't want to exploit to the point where there is a disrepair in the country that we all have to live with. and i can see many of you, particularly our southeast people, that were involved in the early days of the trayvon movement, though we had no idea

that it would end up the kind of polarizing issues that it was. i remember that has become. i remember that the day after with those first big rallies with the 30,000 people, that "national review" leading conservative magazine came out with an article saying sharpton is right, and that they broke clock is right twice a day. this was the first time i was right. i disagree with him but that's what they said that it almost seems ancient now because the right and the left have taken positions because of the subsequent occurrences. well, how do we deal with issues without becoming that polarize? or is that even possible? that's what we're discussing. of this is not, when we go to the audience, this is not an opportunity for you to critique the media in this sense outside of those boundaries, it's not a chance for you to ask how

religious can you get, and i don't want to shock you but you won't be on "meet the press" tomorrow. this is not about that. this is about building with those issues but i will answer those questions for the pen. we really want to do with the broader questions as people watch this around the country, and really try to get some real dialogue going. let me welcome, and it is introducing them so you'll know who they are. ana lopez buck, executrix of the national association the national association of hispanic journalists to my far left. [applause] >> we have george curry who is the -- of the george curry.com. [applause] he has been a writer for the "chicago tribune," editor of emerge magazine, and he is now also again with the mta as a national correspondent.

and we are happy to have george with. we have april ryan, white house correspondent in washington bureau chief, american urban radio network. [applause] we have dana milbank of the "washington post." [applause] to my far right is andre mitchell, msnbc. [applause] next to her we have our food liggins iii, is the president of tv one and radio one. [applause] next to him we have nia-malika henderson, who is the national political reporter for the "washington post." [applause] and a frequent guest with al sharpton but i promise that will build on the commercial today, i promise. [laughter] we, of course, have david gregory who is the host of "meet the press" on nbc.

[applause] i don't know how david -- out that you already church on sunday morning. i also want to note that several people in the audience, reverend freddie hayes of dallas was on a national board, some of our national board numbers i want to acknowledge, reverend suzan johnson cook was on the panel. [applause] and at the end i will have a submission by my friend and colleague and co-fighter for civil rights, president of the national them of the naacp, benjamin todd jealous. standout. [applause] -- stand up speculative the closing remarks after the panel. so he will try to tie this, make sense out of this. good luck, man. [laughter] let me start by asking the panel

to give me your view, the state of where media and race is today, in the sense of are we to sensationalized? are we just write? are we underreporting it? where are we, in your judgment, this day in terms of race and media coverage? let me start with you, ana. [inaudible] >> an organization represents latino journalists across the country. our main mission is to make sure that it is a fair representation of latinos in reporting in mainstream media. i think in this day and age we are still sensationalizing race by the media, and we need to do a better job of making sure that

we're reporting accurately and not just sensationalizing things that we think are important to the latino community, but really focus especially during an election year. and what is important to us as a community, and one thing would be the economy. most people think it's immigration would be one thing, or the most important, that is important but i think, like all other americans, we are concerned about the economy. we're concerned about education and health care. ..

>> and, you know, i think ideally maybe the audience would, you know, be a little bit more diverse, but i think this is a start, the fact that we have such a multiracial panel here. >> april. >> first of all, thank you so much for inviting me to be a part of this panel on this auspicious occasion. i take a different take on race in the media. excuse me. i've been at the white house for 15 years as a white house correspondent, covered three presidents, and i even worked alongside with ambassador susan johnson cooke when she was one of the persons on president clinton's race initiative. at the white house, i find everything comes to the white house between war and peace and everything in between, and sometimes race is not on the radar.

and why? because a lot of times there are other issues. and just because we have the first black president doesn't mean that it's all about race. but at the same time, even when we had all the other 43 presidents, where was race? and there are major issues. there are major issues in the minority community. not just black community, there's still disparities in almost every segment of life. so when you have that, that's worth reporting. and that's my take. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> well, i'd make a couple points. i mean, i think april makes a good one. i think generally the media landscape right now is both tense, and it's fast. so it's tense among ourselves. you have a lot of polarization in the media, and it's fast. the culture means fast, the media moves fast. we've seen this week whether it's the trayvon martin story, how quickly the storm is created

and moves and changes. we've seen it with comments made this week about ann romney. so it's all very fast. on the issue of race, i see it a couple of different ways, you know? there is a tendency particularly with the first black president to say, well, we've come to the place where race is really not what matters because wasn't that the goal, that it shouldn't be about race? it should be about the issues that effect everyone. and i think the challenge in the media right now is to understand where it should not specifically be about race. i mean, after all, you know, people of color in this country don't just care about a certain set of issues, they care about all issues. they care about children, about education, their care about income disparity, about foreign affairs just like everybody else. but when does it become about race when you say, well, we've got a problem with joblessness in this country for everybody, but look what's going on in the black community, okay? that deserves special attention.

we can't just say, well, the economy effects everybody, including blacks. so that's where i think it requires special attention that's a challenge for us. the other issue is in our political discourse, in our talk to bill cosby this week, an interview that's on our web site, he talked about the trayvon martin shooting in the context of guns. not just about race, not just about profiling, in the context of guns. that's an issue the african-american community cares as much about as anybody else does. and when we talk about delegitimizing political leaders, we've seen it with bill clinton, we saw it with george bush, we now see it with barack obama. what role does race play there? so let's not get into the business in the media of saying, well, all is settled, let's not make it an issue. there are times to emphasize race to say where does it exacerbate a problem, where does the first african-american president face opposition because he's black in a way that other presidents have not in addition to his ideological

views. so the bottom line is, um, there are a lot of areas where race i don't think should be the singular issue, but areas where it should still be prominent in the discussion. >> dana. >> well, reverend, i am shocked to think that anybody would think the media's sensationalizing race. in our defense, we sensationalize everything, and race is no exception. [laughter] i think what happened is after the election of 2008 we said, right, okay, took care of that whole race thing, and we're done with that forever, and that died down. but what happened is it sort of explodes in episodic ways whether it's over the immigration debate and, you know, electrified fences or the trayvon case or newt's race baiting on the campaign trail. obviously, these are important things that need to be covered, but i think what we do is we

cover episodes as opposed to the important underlying developments. i think the most important story of this cycle may be that, you know, the republicans may have, may be relinquishing forever their grasp to what extent they had a grasp on latino voters. and if that solidifies itself, you know, over the next ten or twenty years there's not going to be a republican party anymore. and that's a much larger trend that i don't think we spend a lot of time looking at. it's not, it's not a big, explosive story of the moment, but that's where race is hugely important. and i think right now we're seeing, essentially, a realignment in the parties like what happened in the 1960s. >> alfred liggins. >> yeah. adding to what mr. milbanks said, the media does sensationalize everything, you know, including the divorces of reality stars or who they're dating. [laughter] part of that, you know, has to

do with technology. thirty years ago, you know, thirty-five years ago there were three television networks, abc, nbc, cbs. now there's 350 different television networks that are on your cable system. um, there's also the internet, right? so there are thousands and thousands and thousands of web sites out there all vying for your attention. so in order to grab an audience, you know, as a business person or a journalist or, um, or any kind of creator of content you have to make a point, you have to be sensationalistic. and the nature of our society is to, um, with outspoken, grab attention, um, be heard and then turn that into some sort of opportunity. race is no different, and in fact, in the age of the first black president, um, i think that the issue of race does get heightened, um, for a couple reasons. one, you know, back people,

minorities now have a seat at the table. and when you have a seat at the table, um, a dialogue ensues. and when a dialogue ensues, there's your point, and there's always an opposing point. and to the extent that your point comes from a position of power, the opposing point is actually going to meet you with an equal amount of force. and you have to be prepared for that, and you have to actually navigate that particular, you know, tension point. and it's better to have a seat at the table than not have a seat at the table, but you have to be prepared for it. it's ironic that, um, i guess we were talking back in the green room that obama's had more death threats than any other president, and because he's the first black president i think there's a lot of people out there that assume that african-americans and minorities are receiving all of these unique and exceptional benefits, you know, because -- and, and the reality is that's not true, but we're still suffering from the perception that that is the

case. so you get the, you get the anger and the vitriol but none of the benefit. so, um, sensationalism in the media is here to stay, and race will become an even more, i think, prominent dialogue as all the different constituencies have a seat at the table. >> george. >> thank you. look, whether we're looking at oval j. simpson -- o.j. simpson, barry bonds or trayvon martin, there is a racial divide in this country, and it has been that way for years. even in a case that shouldn't be racial, katrina. be you said that had been a predominantly white city, would you get a different federal response? you see whites and blacks, totally, totally different views on that. and so that is there, and t also

reflected in media. people don't stop being white just because they go to journalism. [laughter] [applause] the problem is that, you know, it's all right or to call president obama a food stamp president when actually it was george bush who had more people on food stamps than anybody else. [applause] it's all right to portray him as a chimpanzee or an ape. so, yes, the media cover those kind of episodes, but in terms of dealing with the larger issues that are there, they do not. and, yes, you see a divide. you look at trayvon martin. if you say look at the gallup poll, the "usa today" poll saying trayvon had been white, would george zimmerman have been arrested right away. blacks more than twice as large a percentage as whites on that. so, yes, race is a problem. it continues to be a problem in our society, in the media, and it's going to get worse in the media because we've never had

fair representation in media. [applause] my final point, when i got in this business 42 years ago -- i know, i don't look a day over 80 -- [laughter] >> day over -- [inaudible] >> i was very optimistic and idealistic about how things would change. but now you look at the layoffs and people of color are left out, we are not the decision makers, never have been, and that's getting worse. [applause] >> i tend to agree with what george and alfred and some of the other panelists have said and april. because, frankly, i've been watching the media for a long, long time, many decades like george, and i don't see the kind of progress and diversity in the media at all levels not only on camera, but behind the camera that i think we should see.

now, there are -- [applause] exceptions and we have more people of color anchoring newscasts and being executive producers and having major roles. but not nearly enough to reflect the importance of the contributions and the role that people of color play in our multiracial society. and i just think that there is a, there's an effort in some quarters but not enough and that race does matter in your perspective, in your filter, in your life experience. i dare say that it's no accident that it was the reverend al and other people, african-americans, who were the first to really focus on trayvon martin's case. [applause] because of their personal experience. a young man who is on the air on our local station stopped me in the parking lot many weeks ago and said, i'm hurting. i just how are you, it's a nice

day, great weather. he said, i'm hurting. he's newly hired, came from florida. i said, what's going on in your life? he said, you know, i come from a law enforcement family, and do you know how many times i was stopped when i lived in florida because people said, you know, i didn't belong in that neighborhood? i eventually had to have a letter from my employer that i was a newsman because i was stopped so frequently in white communities. this is recent. this is a young man, and the trayvon case just reopened all of that for him. so i'm just saying, you know, i've lived among lots of people, but as a white woman i, i can understand, i can read, but i haven't lived it. and until you have more people of color in the newsrooms and reporting and editing and writing, there aren't enough people who will say at a morning editorial meeting, hey, this is important be. [applause] and that goes for women, also,

and others who are underrepresented, latinos. but i'm just saying we have a long way to go and that case in point, the traditional way to cover the news is on the one hand, on the other hand you're covering a debate. let's call it as we see it. let's talk what the food stamp president really represented. let's call out people who talk about the birth certificate and say what really is the continuing, pervasive racism that is underneath the surface and not so far underneath the surface of our political dialogue. [applause] and i think we can say it in a respectful way, and we don't have to enrage people, but i just think we have to deal with these issues and deal with them honestly and openly both inside and outside the media and in our coverage. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> i want to just try to advance this in one particular way which is there tends to be one area of media criticism that, you know,

we're not focusing on issues of great importance, um, and let's just take, you know, income and equality or poverty in the black communities around the country. it was 20 years ago, i'm from los angeles. twenty years ago you had the rodney king riots in los angeles. so, you know, do those issues get sensationalized? absolutely. but why not? i mean, unfortunately, there are times and events that happen that force us to have these conversations. you know, it's just like when we're all at work, you know, we've got a rob with somebody we work -- a problem with somebody we work with, i've really got to address that. it's tough to have conversations until something happens, and then you're, you know, we gotta talk about this. whether it was the riots in los angeles in '65 or after rodney king or the o.j. simpson trial which i covered that forced a tough conversation between blacks and whites in this country about justice, about celebrity, about law enforcement

or about trayvon martin where there's lots of questions we're going to have about profiling, about this law in florida, about the use of guns and about perceptions of each other. you know, these events that do get sensationalized and that do get a lot of attention force tough conversations that have to be had. so in that way it's just kind of how things go, you know? i mean, can you imagine bill clinton standing up before 9/11 and saying to the country in prime time, look, there's a group out there in afghanistan called the taliban, and we need to invade afghanistan because there's a growing threat to the country. i don't think he could have martialed the force of the nation to do that. and then something like 9/11 happens, and then the country changes, the country's focus changes. so some of the sensationalism, rev, i think, becomes constructive because it force bees these difficult conversations to happen. >> that brings me to a second question. how, how much do we really put

race all in one box and not deal with the complexities of race? and when i say that, often blacks, whites, latinos, asians are all put in one box rather than dealing with there are different class, gender, even nationality issues within a race. and i think, and i'm going to throw it to you first, nia-malika. we have class differences in the black community. i have fought cases where people have said to me, why would you touch them? i've gotten involved in, the biggest problem in -- [inaudible] he's not even from here. i'm talking about blacks. or why was i going to -- [inaudible] or the gender problem in the black community in terms of you have women that have to fight both the issue of gender bias and race bias and gender bias in the black community.

and i don't think that a lot of the mainstream media deals with the complexities of all of that. one of the reasons that i always like george, andrea and david -- and be i probably shouldn't say that because i never told david i liked him -- [laughter] is that they will invite me on to talk about other than race. most shows i'm only invited on if there's a trayvon martin. he brought me on, first time i did the show with david was on education. we weren't even talking about race. but you're put in a box. if it's a black box, call sharpton, it's a race question. but if it's about religion, well, i've been a minister almost long as i've been black, but they don't call me on that. [laughter] so how much do we not deal with the complexities of race that it differs, and it's not everybody's -- we're not all the same in our given boxes? >> no, i think that's exactly right, and i have two

experiences having the burden of having to talk always about race because i'm african-american. not often always called necessarily to talk about the fact that i'm also female. but i do think that black people have to deal with that. are they going to risk being put in that box which is often limiting in terms of talking about race. and i have been lucky, i think, especially in this election cycle to be on shows where i'm simply talking about politics, simply talking about the fact that i'm covering republicans and the deficit or whatever the topic may be. so i do think in that sense there has been some movement and expansion of the different voices of that can talk about different topics. and i do think it's been enlightening. this whole trayvon martin case, it has peeled back this idea that race is very complex, the idea that perhaps zimmerman wasn't just white, i think he had a latino father and what that means.

so i think one of the challenges that i have as a reporter is that you have to write a story, you have to have something to say. you have to go to an editor and have something to talk about. and often times they want it to be simple. they want a 0-second sound -- 30-second sound bite in terms of how this issue is going to be covered. and, you know, in trying to deal with something so complex i do think we are often in this sound bite culture, you know, a cable news chatter culture so it is very difficult, i think, to deal with the very complex layers of race and class and gender in one fell swoop. >> april? >> as someone who, again, covers the white house i sympathize with nia-malika henderson because i've been put in the same box. you know, i cover everything. david and i work together, taye that and i work -- dana and i work together, nia and i work

together. i cover everything; iraq, foreign policy, domestic policy. but you are put in that box. and i think that we need to understand as people that the complexities of our situation are very deep. they're deep-rooted. they're rooted from the time we were put on slave ships and brought here from the middle passage. [applause] but a lot of times, but a lot of times -- and it goes back to what andrea says. people don't understand, if you haven't walked in someone's shoes, you don't understand. and it really goes back to what andrea says, but at the same time it's for us to broaden our mindset. david gregory, i love david gregory too. i shouldn't say that -- [laughter] >> why doesn't anybody want to say it? [laughter] >> no, i mean -- >> for the record, i said like. [laughter] [applause] >> i'm saying, you know, you have a panel here pretty much with open minds.

dana milbank, i mean, who will listen. but there are those times when you walk into situations into newsrooms where people don't want to hear it. they don't want to hear it. and it takes that, it takes that open-minded news director, bureau chief to say, okay, let's delve into this matter. because because of the sensationalism of trayvon martin in the black media, the white media decided to say, okay, it has to be in sensational in a lot of cases for someone to take it on. and i remember one thing bill clinton did say when he did the race initiative. he said race is not something that you can legislate against, it's a heart issue. and i think we've got to look at that. it's more a heart issue in a lot of ways. [applause] >> dana? >> well, first, i want to say i love david gregory, and i'm not -- [laughter] i'm not afraid to say it, man. [laughter] um, but what april was saying made me oi this our times in the

briefing room or at presidential news conferences, and the press secretary would often call on april to change the subject thinking -- no, no, no. they would think, okay, i want to get the heat off of, you know, iraq, and they think april's going to ask something that's about race. but what i started to notice over time was, yeah, maybe she's more likely than i am to ask that question, but more often than not, she keeps hitting them with the same exact questions. so they'd try to use her as a foil to get her off the subject -- she doesn't like that word -- but she proved that she was not serving as a foil. thank you very much. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> but i think part of the, you know, viewing, um, a racial group as a single entity, i think it's the tyranny of the polls. and we look at polls, and there is no subcategory for middle class, wealthy, poor, african-american. and we just sort of live our lives according to those poll designations. >> andrea?

>> just wanted to add something else because david touched on the way the media have changed and the velocity of it and social media and, also, sort of a diminished focus on a lot of serious, complex summits. we -- subjects. we move so quickly from one thing to another x there's a lot more celebrity and tabloid reporting. i think race plays a role in the subjects we don't coffer in terms of foreign policy as well as domestic. can you imagine all these years after the earthquake that haiti, haitians are still hiving in tents -- still living in tents and that we are covering it, if at all, end sodically only when bill clinton, a white former president goes there, or maybe not even covering that. it just seems extraordinary to me that haiti is not covered. katrina finally did get the focus that it deserved. the nation was alerted by -- not

by the white house, certainly, or fema hardly, but by the media. i think that that's a case where the, um, horrific effects on an african-american community and a poor community at that -- because that was an economic issue as hutch as a race issue -- finally did reach to the top. but in foreign policy sudan, south sudan. it gets attention when george clooney got arrested, and he has been persistently, repeatedly going there and trying to arouse the conscious of a nation. but we do not cover the famines in sub-saharan africa, the droughts and the other problems in those parts of the world with the same focus as we cover economic and military crises in other regions of the global. so it does seem to me that we really need to constantly, you

know, take our own temperature and see whether we are paying enough attention to underserved communities not just here at home, but also outside this world. >> ana, isn't that part of the problem? at one level we talk about the sensationalism, and that's true, but if you don't risk making an issue sensational, it won't get covered. so trayvon, if we go in to florida when the family called us, if i don't call a rally and marchs, i still can't serve what they want to get the public attention. if i do they say here you go hot dogging again and sensationalizing the issue. on the reverse side, if nia-malika and april do not ask the race question, then the black community says are you selling it and if you do ask it, are you filling the stereotype?

>> yeah, it is, and i think that's important. part of the problem, i think, is when you don't have people in positions in news organizations of power who can say we need to cover the story, this is important to our communities, to all communities of color and until we have that, we don't have a seat at the table. and when a single reporter is pushing for a story, the news editor main listen to them or the news director. and that's part of the issue. >> but isn't that a lot, alfred, ratings-driven as well? you own 58 radio stations, and we say to you, you shouldn't play certain music. but at the same time, you've got to get advertising. and if you don't play it and your competitor does and get the advertising, you have to choose between staying in business and being all right with the activists or going out of business, being all right with the activists or staying in business and getting complaints, or david gregory has to say i'm

going to study the problem in sudan this week, but then his competitor will get a bigger rating because they've got newt calling somebody names. so, i mean, how much of this -- what's first, the -- [inaudible] >> it's a good point because we do get a lot of heat. we have a broad media company, radio stations, online sites, tv networks. we get more heat on the radio side because we have a room full of, you know, focused, committed, educated, intelligent, mostly adult african-americans here, and you probably love listening to reverend sharpton or magic 102 here, you know, or our praise station, 104 -- [cheers and applause] or praise 104, 104.1 if fm. >> [inaudible] >> shameless plug. >> but by the same token, i get

a lot of heat for 93.be 9 wkys which plays a whole bunch of hip-hop, some of it viewed as questionable. and in houston in particular recently i got a lot of heat from, um, the community because we took a gospel station off the air. we put an all-news station, general market all-news station on the air, so i thought -- and there was no all-news station. there was only right-wing rush limbaugh type radio, but the community rared up and used it as an opportunity to attack our hip-hop station and wanted me to change the music and play positive hip-hop and things of that nature. and i had to explain to them that, you know, there is a segment of the population that wants this music, your kids, your young adults that are in your family. that radio station, by the way, the hip-hop station, is the number one station in the market, right? and we make a lot of money wit. so, you know, we have a responsibility as a media outlet

to reflect all segments of the marketplace and what consumers want, not just what one segment perceives to be positive in nature and values. and also by the same token as a media outlet i don't feel it's our responsibility to try to shape, you know, the hinds and the values of the people -- the minds and the values of the people who have partaken in consumer outlets. that happens at home. that's what i do with my son, you know? [applause] and i don't think any government, any media outlet, any third-party organization, you know, should should be saddh that burden. it's we as parents have to be saddled -- >> i want to -- >> i'm going to take david and george, and i'm going to take some questions from the audience. i'm going to take about ten questions because i'm on a time thing, so line up, and you need to identify yourself and your city. and, damon, somebody get dan,

stop at ten. [laughter] >> i just want to talk about radio for a second, okay? and this is to use an analogy here. so i grew up in los angeles listening to rap and hip-hop in the 1990s, okay? -- 1980s, okay? and my 9-year-old comes to me, and he liked rap music, and i say, well, i'm going to take care of this. i said, let me make you the playlist from when i was growing up. if you're serious, you've got to have a little eric b. and public enemy, right? [laughter] and he's looking at me like, dad, can you just download a little tyga? [laughter] he says, what does explicit mean? i said, it means you can't listen to it, that's what that heenes. so i said why can't i find, you know, any acceptable, clean rap and hip-hop like i used to listen to? there was some bad stuff, too, okay? but the point is, there are big commercial interests for these artists that are driving them in a particular direction when we in the community are saying, hey, wait a minute, we want the

message of a tribe called quest, we don't just want nwa out there. there's a similarity -- really, i just want to talk more ab -- [laughter] but there's a similarity here, and some of the things that the rev is talking about in the broad media are not always going to accomplish whether it's the african-american community or whether it's medicare. we're not always going to capture some of the complexities of the issues on policy or people to everyone's satisfaction which is why there's got to be a mix of both perspective in the mainstream media, but also outlets that are catering to a particular community that is going to be more representative of those, of those communities. >> george. >> dave knows more about rap than i do. [laughter] and that's why most rap is sold to whites inted of blacks. [laughter]

i want to go back to the point you -- that's another panel. i want to go back to why you have this class among african-americans. somebody don't see how much money is in your bank account. they see you as being black, and they treat you that way. they don't get into this, when they put him spread eagle against a train -- [inaudible] say look at race, and so we can't back down from that saying we've got all this different knowledge. they look at you a certain way, and they treat you based on that. the other thing is and my final point is we don't cover it except as david mentioned earlier, these outbreaks. we've got a case coming up in the supreme court on affirmative action. we should be having discussions why are people afraid to talk about affirmative action? they don't want to talk about race. they'd rather talk about diversity, so we can talk about things other than race, and these are the kinds of things we should be covering. >> all right, i'm going to the audience. thousand, again, i want questions, not speeches. and if it's a question out of

bounds, i'm going to thank you and seat you down. this is not the panel, this is me because i'm going to do this in the time period, and we want to get somewhere on here. all right, let's start. this is greg brinkley, president of the -- [inaudible] philadelphia chapter. >> thanks, reverend sharpton. >> you can do a quick question. >> the question i have is to the panel what can we do, the public, what can we do to influence more representation of the issues concerning black people? on "meet the press" or "60 minutes," the other news shows you -- >> that's what we call an over and out station to the other people. >> you might have donna brazile representing, but i don't see her on major stations where you have more of the george curries representing our views on those major shows. so what can we do as a public to

influence those who make the decisions to allow for that to open up so that those issues can be covered fairly? >> all right. anybody want to -- [applause] >> well, you know, that's hard. i mean, i wonder all the time how i can get on "meet the press" myself -- [laughter] i love you, too, david gregory. [laughter] but i do think one of the things i think we have to do, and this would take some time, but i think we have to encourage our young people to become journalists, to, you know, intern at their local papers, write for their school papers, and it's a start. it would, obviously, you know, take a while for that young person to be on "meet the press" or cnn or msnbc, but that's what we have to do. i also think there is this great leveling of the media world at this point. a lot of the newest journalists that you see on tv that work for "the washington post" started out as bloggers. they started out doing their own things and, you know, were able

to gain some attention from the major outlets. so that's why i encourage people to do it. there's a great entrepreneurial spirit that is going on, i think, in the media landscape now that i think everyone should take advantage of as well as encourage canning young people to get into the business. >> yeah, go ahead. >> i was going to say, um, the blogging point, um, brings something to mind. engage. you now have the opportunity as a consumer to engage with these media outlets unlike you've ever had before. comment on their web sites, right? watch the shows. msnbc put reverend sharpton on in the afternoons at 6:00, a very controversial decision. >> 5:00 central. >> i'm sorry? [laughter] >> 5:00 central. >> to the extent that you actually watch him on a daily basis, those ratings will go up, and he'll be in that slot for a very long time, and he do

will -- [applause] because at the end of the day these media outlets are going to follow the audience, right? it was just like back in the '60s when you wanted something to happen and you marched in chicago, the jewel-osco demonstration where people stopped shopping at the grocery store and things changed, to the extent you mobilize your ability to show that you have audience, you have mass, you have size, then the media organization will move to meet you was they want the audience because they can monetize it. >> andrea? >> you are consumers and that, you know, it's your wallet, you know, they want you to be watching and listening, and they want you to be spending money on their advertising. and you've got power, more power than you may realize. as consumers. he's also on 3:00 -- [laughter] pacific time. >> that's right. [laughter] >> i just met david gregory, but i do like him.

[laughter] >> i think we need to spread our love around here, and curry, i love ya. and, yes. okay. [applause] um -- >> your name and city. >> oh, excuse me. i'm here in the district of columbia, i have a homeless ministry. i also have a press pass, reverend sharpton -- >> okay. >> because i do 35 homeless magazines -- 34 homeless magazines, working on the 5th one. -- 35th one. homeless people have no voice as loud as we speak. we need to speak for ourselves. i prayed a lot this morning, reverend sharpton, because it is so hard to sit through this knowing that my own people as articulate as they say i am, i went to stuyvesant, all that good stuff, but i don't feel smart at all because the doors are closed to us.

we have a vehicle, channel 32. they took lift every voice and sing off a long time ago, the all-star thing with lou gossett and, you know, everybody, bobby brown. how do we get lift every voice and sing back on the air, create a 24-hour talk-a-thon, whatever you want to call it, we can do a fund raiser and get everybody's voices heard? because i'm just so tired of everybody speaking for me and turn around and say, oh, you're so smart, and i don't have an inroad. and i've got pa 35 magazines -- >> okay, i'll tell you what we'll do. tameka maori, go right there, i'm going to put you on our radio show today, and i'm going to set up a meeting with you -- [applause] >> go ahead. >> see me later, al. i want to talk to you. >> and george curry said see him

later, he's got something for you too. see? [cheers and applause] didn't you say you love george curry? all kinds of things happen. [laughter] >> i love david, what does that get me? >> yes. >> [inaudible] maybe you want to put me back to a tv station because my show on tv station, my house was taken away. all my rights, all my life is almost taken away. and be what i tried to say today especially to the panelists, all the media and civic leaders, what i would like to say is not just focus on racism. we have to go back to the basics in justice system. so -- [inaudible] not to be misled by money. don't just follow the money, but have to follow anything from

your conscious. so the media or newspapers because they are propaganda by officials which is a big part of -- [inaudible] they are appointed by some bad guys. so what i would like to say is this panelists and this civic organizations, it's very important. i have been running for public office since '94 from local to federal. basically, nobody want to interview me. they say i'm undocumented alien. so we have to really go back to restore the justice, to restore people's rights. >> okay. thank you. i think you said this is the lady that challenged governor romney. okay, yes. >> i'm jill st. george, founder of fht which is a new media outlet out of scottsdale, arizona, and i'm an attorney. i have two questions. the first question is with regard to the fact that there's

more shows on tv with regards to the law, and they are primarily judge shows, but there aren't shows that have real dialogue between, with lawyers that talk about the real legal issues and the impact of certain laws in a more in-depth way that's both educational and much more informative. identify found there's been information that was -- i've found there was information that was often shared in situations that doesn't explain the law correctly, and in some ways enflames or increases the inflammatory issues covered by news media. so the question is, why aren't there more substantive programming with regards to addressing legal issues, not just how they effect the black community be, but just, um, that is more educational but deals directly with the issues that are at hand? and then my second question is with regards to programming.

um, mr. liggins, you said that the media is not to train or to be the voice of the community in a way that it's supposed to create, um, values. but by definition you have tv and radio programming, and the word "programming" means exactly what it means, and that is to -- [applause] program the people that's listening to your music. and so wouldn't you agree that there should be more, um, ethics involved in the standards by media -- [applause] to address -- >> let's let him answer. >> sure. there are standards, and there are ethics. like, on the radio stations we, you know, we don't actually air explicit lyrics. but i am a firm believer that, um, because i was a media junkie when i grew up as a kid. and the primary, um, compass that i have is not what i saw on television or what i heard on radio or, quite frankly, what i

experienced at school when there were no adults around. my primary compass was what i was taught by my mother and the values that she made me adhere to. and i think if you put that kind of expectation on the media, and it's also laying off some of the responsibility, you're going to be this a situation of failure -- in a situation of failure. you can't win that way. so, you know, i stick by what i said. yes, there has to be standards, all right? but there's just no way that you can expect any sort of media organization to take that responsibility. that's not what they're there for. they call it programming because they're programming to get an audience. and that's why "american idol" is the number one television show in america. and that -- >> all right, thank you. next. >> can i get an answer to my second question with regards to shows -- >> about legal shows. anyone want to -- i don't know if we have anyone other than liggins that owns -- >> yeah. i can tell you that what you just described from a legal

standpoint, that's probably not a mass audience, you know, opportunity for television. but that certainly is an audience for a new media outlet or some sort of, um, a web site. >> or talk radio. >> or talk radio. there are lots of legal shows on talk radio. we carry some. if you were to create a web site that focus bed on laws and how they affected different minority communities, we'd syndicate it. we've got eight million monthly com score users and a very, very large audience. so it's probably not something that would end up on a television network. >> -- [inaudible] >> i'm happy to talk with you. >> all right. thank you. >> my name is ronald, i'm the ceo of the black sports -- [inaudible] foundation. and what we do, we use film to educate our youth on the impact on local and national sports legends and their impact on american history and culture.

but my question today to this panel as it relates to media being that i've been here in washington for years, you've talked about the fact that the black consumer has a lot of power. i'd like to refer, just be very brief, but who really owns the media? is it the koch brothers of this world? because it seems to me that we cannot mobilize, and can we're always told by how many billions of dollars that we're, that we spend as consumers, but when we come to these panels, i often hear many of you say we don't have people in decision-making capacities. so how do we get the media -- [applause] to target in and talk about who owns the media? >> let me answer that. i think the way we do it is the way that we've done this.

the advertisers that influence a lot of what's going on, i think -- media people cannot tell communities how to organize and target what they want. there's a campaign right now with certain media that's been very effective around the -- not the stand your ground, the voter id law. we did it with imus. so i think that a lot of it is you've got to go after advertisers. i don't think anyone on this panel can answer that. next -- >> [inaudible] >> no, brother, i've got to close this in 15 minutes. >> will i just want to ask one -- >> no, no, come on, let's be fair. everybody behind has one question. >> how you doing? >> because i've had secretary donovan here, we're on a schedule. that's why i'm moderating because i know when we get tv folks in here, everybody wants to audition. [laughter] >> how you doing, reverend sharpton? i'm from 1010 baltimore, wlb,

and my main issue is how we are projected in television, and i wanted to ask what could we do to make these changes? because me growing up in baltimore city, i was beat up by the police about five or six times, and it's a normal thing in baltimore. just the other day we was interviewing some kids that graduated from high school asking them what their plans were. the police jumped out of the car and told us, all these kids going to jail, don't worry about their future. which we have recorded. >> one of the things we've seen is the power of youtube. imagine if you had videotaped what you just described and put it on youtube and tweeted it out to every news organization. i mean, i think we have to think about what sort of power you actually have. i think it's, sure, there are problems in the media landscape, but you also have some power to get your story out. and if you feel like there's a rob in baltimore with the police brutality, you can film it. i mean, you think about that video on youtube with koni, this mass murderer over in

africa. that got something like 800,000 views on youtube, and it all of a sudden became a national story. so you have the power. it's in your hands -- >> and if you video and get it to our media department -- you in the baltimore chapter? okay. [applause] >> thank you. >> now, let me do this. i'm going to take, andrea mitchell has to leaf -- leave at the time, i'm going to have three people speak, have the panel respond, have andrea give a closing, then we're going to do three, and i'm going to end it. question, next question, next question, panel. andrea, question. okay? let's do it that way. and don't get mad, get mad at me because you know i don't care. [applause] >> good morning. i'm really a news junkie consumer. my question is why, and maybe somebody from nbc can answer this question, we see reverend

al at 6:00 here in washington, and then prior to him we see chris matthews. after him we see chris matthews, then we see other people speaking whom i love dearly because of what, the way they focus. but then they loop them all night long, and we don't get reverend al again. and friday, saturday nights we get a consistent diet of brainwashing of lockup which only focuses on minority communities. will -- [applause] and i want to know who, what and why can we change it? [applause] >> all right. next, next, next. yes. yes, sir. sir? sir.

>> first of all, i want to say good morning, everybody in the room. secondly, i want to say that all of you do great work, and i really, really, really appreciate it. thirdly, reverend sharpton and more importantly, i want to express, i want to express my condolences to the passing of your mother, and i really, really mean that and the great work that the national action network does. >> thank you. >> the other thing that when you ran for president -- >> come on, please, get to your question. >> please, folks. when you ran for president, you had a rally a couple of blocks down at the church. i was there, gave $50, and i really appreciate the work that you do. but the reason why i'm here is because one of -- this young lady right here, i know personally for ten-plus years

has been on the ground trying to voting rights in congress to the residents of the district of columbia. >> right. >> and that somehow or another it really troubles me and bothers me that people in positions, you know, the media such as yourselves somehow never have given her the due credit that. >> she does in terms -- that she does in terms of -- >> i concur with that. i know her, she's black, she's on that. i think you're right, absolutely right. >> and we'd like to ask that you all, please -- >> you come up specifically, i want you to meet some people. you're right. you're right. let me get the third one, and then -- >> her due credit. we really appreciate it. >> you're right. i agree with that even though it ain't on the subject, i'm going to agree with that.

come on, next. sit her right here because nobody's fought for d.c. statehood harder than she has. [applause] >> i've been in this -- >> next, and we have not been -- >> i asked y'all to -- don't be rude. >> he gave $50 to you. [laughter] >> go ahead. >> my name is victoria, and i'm the northeast regional director of the youth movement. [cheers and applause] >> i'm the midwest youth regional director of national action network youth movement. [cheers and applause] >> wait a minute, tell the panel how old y'all are. >> i'm 12 -- >> and i just turned 17. [cheers and applause] and our question is directed towards mr. alfred. you said that your radio

stations play rap music because it makes money, but drug dealers sell drugs. does that necessarily make it right? [applause] >> and rap music creates negative stereotypes in our communities, so we just want to know would you rather play music that degrades us and dumbs our african-american people down just to make money? [applause] >> all right, all right. dana thought he was going to be the target. >> exactly. um, my answer -- the reason we play rap music is, you know, we go after an audience. we try to get the largest possible audience that we can, and rap music, you know, i have to be honest with you, rap music has been a phenomenon in the african-american community that has created many, many, many economic opportunities. one of the problems that i have is that the mainstream media

always puts up our sports stars and our music stars as the most successful of our community. the fact of the matter is that those are the areas that black people have generated the most income en masse. and that music comes out of our culture, it comes out of the cities that we live in, and the fact of the matter is if we don't portray that, if we don't highlight that artistry, somebody else will do it. and the audience wants it. i mean, people want to listen to it, and we make sure that we try to be as stringent as possible so that we don't, you know, cross any sort of degrading guidelines that would negatively be, um, affecting the audience. but, you know, we don't, you know, control the artistry from that perspective, and i don't ultimately look at that as tantamount to being a drug dealer. i understand, you made a very powerful point, and it's a very

controversial issue, but, you know, if we don't reflect the culture coming out of our commitments, we're not doing our job as a media outlet. >> i'm going to have andrea -- [applause] i'm going to have andrea mitchell give her statement. she has to leave. and stay tuned sunday, "meet the press" headline, 12-year-old knocks out alfred liggins. [laughter] [applause] >> many i just want to say i apologize because my program is on at 1:00 every day, and so this is our writing and producing time, so i've got to, you know, go get lined up and get back to the bureau. but i just want to thank you all because it's been a very good interaction, i think. and we've learned things, maybe some of you have learned some things about us. but reverend al always brings it together and gets us thinking, and that is what we really need to do because i just think as long as we're talking amongst

ourselves, and these are conversations we have all the time at work. but they should be more often and more persistent. this election could not be more important, and hold us to the fire. you know, let us know. believe me, we respond. that is, you know, you are our viewers, you are our customers. we need you, and so without you we can't exist. and, um, i'll pass on to the reverend al the question as to why he's not looped in the middle of the night because, you know -- [applause] i don't know who makes those decisions, but it's above my pay grade. i think david gregory might know. >> david going to make his statement before you go, and ten we -- >> i love the rev. i'm not giving up my slot, you know what i'm saying? [laughter] can i just wade into a little bit of that controversy with alfred, just as a consumer i want to make one point. a lot of the rap and hip-hop,

you know, that i've enjoyed coming up and that i still enjoy and my kids enjoy, this is not a monolith. it's not all one thing. and, you know, back in the day when ll cool j and grandmaster flash and others -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] but, you know -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah, right. but, you know, i mean, you think about even the early '90s, these were groups that were, that wanted to get on the radio, that wanted to get on the radio and be -- wanted a wide commercial appeal kids like me growing up in the suburbs in l.a. were out there singing rapper's delight. so you had that crossover appeal. i think one of the things we all need to think about as parents, too, is this is not just one kind of music. and we as parents can make choices about misogynystic lyrics and saying even the explicit tyga album may not be appropriate. my son says, god, can't i listen

to any snoop dogg? and i said, no! the point is, we have to headache some of those choices, and as consumers white and black, that's the point of this music, we can send some of those messages through how we react. and it's not all about -- because the audience is there. the audience is there, and can that's why these artists today decides, well, to heck with being on the radio. i can sell my stuff and do it other ways, and i don't have to worry about lyrics. not quite what i expected to get into today, but i'm very interested. >> thank you, dade. [applause] >> hi, my name is brianna patterson, i'm a senior at -- [inaudible] high school in maryland, and i'm 18 years old, and i just wanted to know why youth are portrayed as such bad people when there are more youth doing positive things in our communities as well, but the media always focuses on the negative? >> let me respond to that. i've gotta go run --

[applause] identify got to go -- i've got to go run and tape a roland martin show, so i apologize for leaving, but you've go to go to the press that portrays you the way you are. there are over 200 black newspapers and radio stations who do not stereotype black people, but they can't do it without your sport. [applause] without your support. [applause] ..

national action network is here to help you. so of the 53 radio stations, 13 of them happen to be hip-hop. the other media outlets, we have, what do we do about racial profiling and things of that nature, go to website called news1.com which has a very, very wide audience, there is a story on there every week about some racial, some profiling incident. now trayvon is in the news and it's the big thing but the tulsa shootings, okay? are bubbling up below and there are probably four or five other stories over the last three weeks that look at injustice, try to bring a highlight to issues that we

should know about and should be foc on and that's what we're doing and that website is syndicated not just throughout all of our other web properties. it's on every radio station's website across the country. it is on our syndicated radio show web sites which includes sharpton, yolanda adams, tom joyner, ricky smiley. we as a news organization look at that every week. if you're looking for stories, issues, things to focus on, go to news1.com irv week. you may find two or three weeks. >> we talk about the sensational the media can be, that in some way ways play to your advantage. think about rodney king news that wouldn't have made national news without the video. you can police the police if you carry around a video and get instances, if there is racial profile, if there is police brutality. i can't emphasize enough.

the world of television journalism, if it leads, if it bleeds it leads. meaning if there is something unfortunately sensational, violence often, that is something that captures audiences and certainly can, i think, move the conversation forward. so again i know i keep saying this but youtube is powerful and you can use to it your advantage if you want to get these stories --. >> [inaudible]. >> that is not fair to the people. >> good morning, i'm ask if the others were still there. do each of you really understand you have a responsibility and the ability to make a difference in the discussion of race by holding your colleagues accountable when they allow lies to be stated about president barack obama in their presence and on their television shows? [applause] >> that's good.

>> she really asked what i was going to deal with and i was going to deal with the communications ethic and the responsibility that you guys have as journalists and media people to portray accurately who we are and one of the things that has hurt me most going through and watching what is happening with tray john -- trayvon, they keep calling him a man. i have a 23-year-old and a 19-year-old. those are my babies. they are not men yet. and he is 17 and, he couldn't vote. he can't drink alcohol. he was a boy. and mamas say babesies [applause] to me it is irresponsible to allow that to just go. he's 17 and he's a boy just

like their boys are boys. when their boys shoot up schools, i mean it's, it's a boy. they don't call him a man. he was shot by a man but he was a boy. [applause] >> let me say this. let me thank all of the panelists and they stayed a little over and we're on c-span. let me thank the audience. in our summation tomorrow i think that we will, rachel will come out with some of the conclusions. everybody should be at howard at crampton auditorium at 11. thanks to alfred liggins who has now recovered. [applause] it will be, it will be on tv-1 nationwide. and i think part of the media conclusions and committee will work it has to be dealing with d.c. statehood. his question about continue the movement. i think some concrete things came out and i think it was good that some of the heavy hitters like moderator of "meet the press", which you

don't get bigger than that on tv and andrea mitchell and did come to hear from you leaders in the community. we're going to hear from the president of the naacp and then i will bring in the hud secretary sean donovan on a housing panel and we'll hear from the president of the national urban league. we'll stay right here so the cameras don't have to reset. i want to bring you the president of the naacp, benjamin tillis [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you, reverend sharpton. thank you, nan. good to see dr. richardson, doctor haines and some other of your great leaders here, working with ms. mallory is a blessing every time. we are in a tough times right now.

troy feels like a century ago, troy davis. it was just a few months ago. trayvon, we're in the midst of. tulsa we'll both be in on sunday. these are tough times. this conversation is powerful and helpful, breaking down lines and folks listening to each other is important. i think as george pointed out, remarking the most on the stage work for black media. we aren't even as integrated there as we would like to be. it is important in this moment for us to understand the nature of the demon if you will that we're fighting. see in segregation there was a demon we were fighting. there were a lot of laws we were fighting but there was a psychology behind it and historians pretty much agree both segregation in our country and apartheid in south africa, the psychological demon was pushing this notion that

white women had to be protected from black men. defending white femininity. that is why lynching was sort of the typical punishment if you will of the time. and what spurred lynching and that moment that kids like me were raised with our parents talking about, the way these babies today will raise their kids talking about trayvon was emmedical till who was 14 years old and lynched for whistling at a white woman. between that period the end of the civil war and end of modern civil rights movement which never really ended but we call it that, 100 years ago and dr. king's death, that is what tip paid the crisis. that was the psychology behind the crisis. now our struggle has continued over the last four years, 1868 to 2008, the struggle has continued but the psychology has changed

and the demon that we're dealing with has changed. the fear, if you will,jf that james core esquire which is different than old jim crow but just as problematic, which is typified by the overincarceration of black men. [applause] we see between the end of the civil rights movement and the -- so between the end of the civil war and end of civil rights movement black men were incarcerated twice the rate of their white peers. today we're incarcerated five times the rate of our white peers. truth be told the white peers are incarcerated. white man is likely to be as as black man in apartheid and they were the world's leading incarceratetor. what is the leading the fear now, what started to switch in 68 with nixon's law and order ticket is protecting the white community fromt( black men. black men viewed less as racist, more as criminal and therefore more infractioned

and therefore more incarceration. with the drug wars of '80s, it became protecting the country from black men. protecting country even our own communities from black men. stand in sanford and people in the church, loudest response seems to come from nowhere, biggest spontaneous applause, a lady stood up let's be clear we're not just talking about the whis officers. we're talking how the black officers street us too. [applause] and when we listened to the men testifying about racial profiling and one of them said three cops stopped me at once. white cop, latino cop, black cop. they triangulated me the black cop said to me, don't worry, don't feel bad. when i'm out in uniform this is how i get treated too. so let us understand that the young people are white when they say the media has a role to play in shifting how our country thinks. we have got to understand that while yes, media needs freedom. i'm a journalist myself.

i believe in freedom. i was raised in that sort of libertarian tradition of advertising. there are limits. as we said there was a limit with birth of a nation because it portrayed black men as racist and fueled the scourge lynching, we must say there must be limits in constant portrayal whether it is on the news or entertainment media of black men as criminals because it's fueling overincarceration. [applause] thank you and god bless. [applause] >> okay. thank you very much. everybody can still stay seated. we will bring in the housing secretary, sean donovan.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all right. call you back into attention. we're joined on stage by the chairman of<  our board,

reverend dr. wchlt. franklin richardson. give him a hand. [applause] and from dallas, texas, the reverend freddie haines. give him a hand. [applause] there has been significant developments in our concern about housing, about the mortgage meltdown. about affordable housing, and we are honored every year that he has been secretary. he has been here to address our national convention in new york. first year we're in washington. he used to like coming to new york because it gave him a excuse to visit home because he is a homeboy from brooklyn. honored to bring the secretary of housing and urban development of the

united states, the honorable shaun donovan. [applause] >> thank you, reverend. and i do love coming to visit you in new york. i'll be looking forward to that invitation soon but i will visit you anywhere. wherever you want to go, wherever you want to have the convention, i will be there. because, and i don't need to tell you this but i will, reverend sharpton over four decade has brought a powerful, moral voice on behalf of the most vulnerable americans and that has always been important. always been important. [applause] but it has never been more important than in the wake of the most devastating economic crisis any of us has seen in our lifetimes and so let us thank him for that voice, that moral voice. [applause]

national action network has been a remarkable, remarkable partner to all of us in the obama administration. i was just joking with the reverend on the way in. we ought to be holding our cabinet meetings here with you at the convention center because so many of us are here over these last few days. [applause] but it's also the remarkable leadership that you have brought. dr. richardson and reverend haines, i have to say, a shoutout to tamika mallory for her remarkable work. michael hardy [applause] just a wonderful, wonderful team that you brought together and the reason your voice is so important and the work that you do is because you're the ones who see this impact of this devastating crisis up close. you see it in the eyes of the families that you serve.

on the streets of the communities where you live, and make no mistake, despite being in the white house president obama see is it too. he has seen the shock and pain felt by families who lost a home and he has seen what this crisis has done to what were some of the most solid, middle class neighborhoods just a few years ago. some of which had spent decades fighting back from the last urban crisis that this country faced. that's why with his leadership this administration has refused to stand still. and today, i want to talk about just what reverend sharpton said which is the work that we're doing, the progress that we've made to fight back from this crisis. i want to talk about what we've done to keep families in their homes, the steps we've taken to hold the banks that created this crisis accountable for it, and the work that we're

doing to lay a long-term foundation for an economy, as the president likes to say that is built to last. most of all i want to talk about how with your help and with a leader in the white house who understands still going through, how we're going to finish the job of recovering from this crisis. now we still have a long way to go but there are many out there who would want you to forget where we started when the president walked into office. the day he took that seat behind the desk in the oval office we lost over 800,000 jobs that month. home prices had been dropping for 30 straight months. every month, for 30 straight months when the president walked into office. foreclosures month after month had been rising to

record levels. now, some who said then, and some who are still saying, you know what? government shouldn't be involved. just let that housing market hit bottom. you heard that, right? let the housing market hit bottom. not me, not president obama. we are not going to stand by while millions of families lose, not just their home but that tenuous grasp they had on the american dream. [applause] because, because we refuse to stand still, today six million families have been able to keep their homes because they have had thwip mortgages modified. [applause] we've got the number of families falling into foreclosure by more than half since that day the president took office. [applause] and most important of all, we're at four million new

jobs over the last two years and counting. [applause] now that is real progress but the president knows that this work isn't done until every community, every family has a chance to be a part of that progress. and that's why the work that we do at hud, with you, in your communities to help reach families with our hud-approved counselors, is so important. eight million families since the president took office, have benefited from the work that we do with so many of you to help get counseling to the families that need it most. now remember, a family that is on the verge of losing their home, and you know this from talking to them, they're embarrassed. they're afraid to reach out their hand. they're getting six or eight calls a week from scam

artists that want to take their home after they have given them those terrible loans that got them into the problem in the first place. our hud-approved counselors have a proven record of stopping foreclosures and yet, and yet, this congress, the republicans in the house last year said you know what? i think this is a good year to stop funding housing counseling. we have never needed it more and yet, last year they cut off that funding. so we fought with everyone of you, and last year, we won that funding back. we won that funding back. [applause] but let me tell you something else that we're doing. there is this little organization, part of my department that we call the federal housing administration, fha and in the midst of the crisis with

all these subprime loans out there we had shrunk to just 2% of the market. why? because we were making safe loans. we were making the kind of loans that didn't make these outrage just profits for the originators and servicers and the banks that were making them and so we had shrunk but we were set up that in a moment of crisis we would step up and be there for the american people. remember, some said, let the market hit bottom. government shouldn't be engaged. let me tell you what would have happened if those critics had won out. i want to just have you guess what share of african-americans who bought homes in this country last year used an fha loan? 20%?ú 50%? 60% of african-americans who bought a home last year in this country used an fha

loan. you add to that the veterans administration, and the work that we do in rural communities through usda, over 80% of african-americans whoo16 be that rock of the american dream, that, that bridge to

homeownership, that is it was set up to be and president obama believes it needs to be. now, with all of this work, that we did right from the beginning, we also knew that every day, every week, every month there was more that we had to do. and so last month the president stood up and he said, you know what? so many african-americans are in fha loans but if they're underwater, they may be paying seven, 8%. we've got the lowest interest rates in 50 years. so we got to open up the path to refinancing for those homeowners. we cut our fees by $1,000 a year for refinancing. think about that. the average homeowner, that's $3,000 a year when you put the fees and the interest rate savings together. you hear them talk about tax cuts all the time. this is like a major tax cut for the families that need

it most every year they're paying their mortgage. but it's not just fha. fannie mae, freddie mac, we made changes there. we have over 400,000 applications for refinancing just in the last few weeks thanks to the changes that the president made. and -- [applause] that's real money. $3,000 a year. that can be the difference between sending your child to college and a dream defered. but you know something else too? foreclosures, high mortgage payments don't just tear families apart, they can overrun entire communities. but there's good news there too. through hud this president has invested $7 billion in rebuilding the hardest hit places through our neighborhood stabilization

efforts and where we're putting that money, they can see rates are down in 75% of those communities. housing prices have started to rise in 2/3 of those communities relative to the neighborhoods that haven't gotten that money. guess what else? because african-american communities were the hardest hit by this crisis, they also need the help and so these neighborhood stabilization dollars are twice as targeted to african-american neighborhoods as they are to other neighborhoods. so we've made progress there too. but perhaps the biggest step that we've taken in recent months is our historic $25 billion mortgage servicing settlement that we reached with an unprecedented coalition [applause] 49 state attorneys general. i don't know what that attorney general from oklahoma was thinking not signing on but 49 state

attorneys general. now you heard the stories about the appalling way that banks had treated families throughout this crisis. losing their paperwork. when people were applying for help. dropping calls. six, eight calls until you finally get somebody on the phone and it may be too late. and most egregiously, signing thousands of foreclosure documents that banks never verified or even bothered to read. now think about that. the single biggest investment a family is going to make in their lifetime, signed away by a bank that didn't even read the paperwork. how can that be in the united states of america? well, i'll tell you what. it's not going to be again. we went in, the president directed us, full investigation.

but over and over we found that folks who never even should have gotten in trouble, were just 30-days behind on their mortgages, that could have been helped, irony here, this wasn't even just good for the families and the communities. it was good for the taxpayer too if you gotten that help because it would have avoided a foreclosure and a default on the loan in the first place. and not just this was the right thing for these banks to do to provide help. they were legally obligated to provide that help in so many cases. allowing some of our largest and most powerful institutions to play by a different set of rules than anybody else, to commit forgery and perjury against ordinary families, it is not just appalling, it's illegal and it is not what this administration and this president believes we stand for as americans.

so i am proud [applause] i am proud to stand before the national action network and say this settlement makes them pay for that behavior, $25 billion, the largest, joint federal state settlement in the history of the country [applause] but we didn't just say, cut a check. we said, help the homeowners that you harmed. keep them in their homes. provide tens of billions of dollars in direct relief to families. it forces them to begin writing down the balances of these exploding, unaffordable loans. it forces them to refinance loans for homeowners that are underwater. it forces them to pay billions of dollars to states and consumers to provide housing counseling

and other kinds of services. and the best news? last week a federal district court judge right here in washington, d.c. signed off on this settlement. and what does that mean? it means that as we are speaking here today, five billion in checks are being cut to state attorneys general and to the federal government and relief is beginning to flow to over a million homeowners who have waited far too long for that help. [applause] but it's not just those that were harmed that can be helped. you heard me say earlier, we can't ever let this crisis happen again. we can't ever let african-american wealth be devastated. in the way that it has by this foreclosure crisis and

so also included in this settlement is a homeowner bill of rights that says, on the one hand, and this is going to be done by richard cordray at the consumer financial protection bureau. you remember how hard it was to get that done with congress, right? even when the president gets it done they will stand in the way of him getting a director. he had to go and say, i'm sorry, congress, i'm the president and he will make an appointment and he did. [applause] right now because he did that, the consumer financial protection bureau is putting in place a single, straightforward set of common sense rules that families can count on when they're buying a home, when they're making the single-most important financial decision of their lives. but at the same time, and you know this from the crisis, right? we can't just worry about getting folks the key to that home. we got to make sure that they keep that key and that overtime, they can continue to be homeowners and get the

help they need. so the standards in this settlement say, and will force lenders and servicers to follow a comprehensive list of rights, should they ever lose a job, have a medical emergency that puts their home at risk, they will get help. no more lost paperwork. no more runaround, no more excuses. [applause] but with all of this done, our work is still far from over. that's why you gather here. that's why you keep fighting. you know that. first of all, we can't let families fall victim to the kind of scams that got us into this crisis to begin with. you know, this is, you talk about something that makes you mad. i've seen the advertisements already in newspapers in african-american communities saying, get your help from

the servicing settlement. just a few thousand dollars and we'll get you your check. here it is, the very folks who set up shop it make these terrible loans in the first place, we put them out of business. what do they do? they set up a new business. we're going to help you fix the problem we created. just give us a few thousand dollars, right? we need your help. you are leaders in your communities. you are the voices of justice. tell families there is help out there that is free. and i mean it. free. no charge. [applause] hud-approved housing counselors are set up to do this very thing. where do they go? the hope hotline. they go to hud's website, hud.gov.

hope hotline. 888-885-hope. there is a safe place to go. you are trusted. you are known in your communities. let folks know. there is help out there and that they won't be taken advantage of again. another thing you can tell them, even if they have already lost their home, if they were wrongfully foreclosed on, if they were charged fees that they shouldn't have, there is help for them as well. right now there is a hotline set up for a foreclosure review that is being done right here in washington by federal agencies to make sure we compensate folks at the banks expense for harm that was done but it's available until july 31st. we found 138,000 problems in foreclosures so far but

there are many more out there and unless someone picks up the phone and calls, they're not going to get help. so we need your voices on that too. that number, the hotline for this foreclosure review process, 888-952-9105. so that they can have their foreclosure reviewed and justice can be done. but only till the end of july. so we've got to be urgent about this. we've got to get help out there fast. but you get my point. all of these efforts, we're here to help in this administration. this president is here to help but we need your partnership. as activists and community leaders no one is better positioned to articulate the concerns family tom washington than each of you here today. whether getting congress to

pass president obama's plan to give every homeowner underwater and paying their mortgage the ability to refinance at today's record low interest rates, getting them to pass an enormous expansion of our neighborhood stabilization efforts that we call project rebuild that would create 200,000 jobs in the hardest-hit communities rebuilding the homes that are sitting vacant and boarded up and dragging down too many communities in african-american neighborhoods around the country. already, just insuring that as many dollars as possible in this record settlement go to help the folks that need it. we need to you make your voices heard and let not only congresspeople here in washington but your local leaders know that support for homeowners, community revitalization and housing counseling is a top priority for the families that you speak for.

finally, as we celebrate fair housing month this month, and it's one of my proudest things for me about serving our first african-american president, in the agency, hud, that had the very first african-american cabinet secretary, robert c. weaver, who won pass an in 1968 of the fair housing law, that martin luther king lived and died for. [applause] we remember, we remember that victory this month with fair housing month. and as we do that, we remember that we still need to get to the bottom of this housing crisis and to get justice for the families that were harmed most. so that's why just as we were announcing this record

settlement, president obama and attorney general eric holder announced a renewed effort to go after these lenders for the origination and the securitization of these mortgages. bad enough once somebody has a bad mortgage, you take advantage of them. that is the servicing part but let me tell you, where did these mortgages come from in the first place? that's what we've got to get to the bottom of. that's exactly what we were doing when just a couple months ago eric holder and i announced a $335 million settlement with countrywide that was the largest fair housing settlement in the history of the country by 10 times. i'll say that again. 10 times larger than any fair housing settlement we had ever had in this country. [applause]

so i'm proud to stand side by side with my partner, eric holder, with his leadership, with the president's commitment. we will get to the bottom of this crisis and hold those who created it accountable once and for all. but, let me step back from housing for just a moment. because ultimately, everything you've heard about from the full roster of cabinet secretaries that have been visiting with you this week, all these efforts are fundamentally about the same thing. not just turning the page on this crisis, not just getting past it, but insuring that families across the country have a fair shot in this economy. something too few people have had for far too long. i mentioned earlier there was, what was on the president's plate when he walked in to the oval office. it wasn't just the hundreds

of thousands of jobs being lost each month or even the foreclosures piling up month after month. in many ways those were just the consequences of a decade of deeping wage inequality, of 25 years of america's middle class being hollowed out. one community at a time. and taking good-paying jobs with them to places overseas or nowhere at all because they were just disappearing. people saying that no matter how many folks were being taken advantage of, government had no positive role to play in writing these -- righting these wrongs. i am proud to work for a president who believed this president was crisis was an opportunity not to rebuild but but to set things right. he did it right from the beginning when he passed the recovery act, that so-called failed stimulus that you heard about, you heard that, right?

let me give you some news about this so-called failed stimulus. that failed stimulus created 3 million jobs. prevented 6 million people from falling into poverty. [applause] just one program at hud, one program at hud, saved 1.2 million people from sleeping on our streets every night. just one of them. [applause] instead of letting the housing market in our hardest hit communities hit rock bottom as some suggested, and continue to suggest, president obama said we're going to invest in those homes, rebuild that housing, reform the schools there and give those families a chance to open a small business. and as we speak he is fighting to insure that no millionaire or billionaire ever again pay as lower tax rate than their secretary. [applause]

for all this progress that i have talked about that we've seen under president obama's watch, keeping families in their homes, rebuilding communities, creating jobs, let's be honest here today he has gotten credit for virtually none of it. right? the media doesn't talk about it. well maybe one member of media, right? [applause] and plenty of folks in washington their hardest to talk about anything else. right? so why did he do it? why is all this work been such a priority for the president and everyone of us in the administration? because he knows what you

know. he knows what it's like to walk the halls of public housing because he has worked there. he knows what it's like to walk the streets of some of our cities poorest neighborhoods because he has lived there. what it is a like to take a subway or a bus just to find a fresh piece of fruit in a grocery store. he knows what it's like to wonder whether you will ever be able to afford a college education or decent health care. and he knows what it's like to be judged not on your merits or your talent but because where you come from, what your name is, or even what you look like. one of the saddest things i see in the neighborhoods i work in every day at hud, in too many communities you can predict the life expectancy of a child by the zip code they grow up in. and you know what the president says?

not in america. not while i'm president of the united states. not while i have the power to change that future. [applause] and i've seen that commitment up close and personal. i've seen him fight for hud's budget because he believes in an america where we don't leave families earning 10,000 a year to fend for themselves. i have seen him provide troubled cities like detroit, memphis, new orleans, with the support they finally need to rebuild. because he knows, he knows, we can't rebuild america until we rebuild the communities that built america and its great black middle class. and i've seen, i've seen him forge an economic policy that creates real pathways to opportunity, to working, to getting an education, because he understands that we can't end the cycle of poverty if we don't start creating opportunity.

now listen, you know, and i know that all of these problems won't be solved in a year, in four years, or even eight years. even when we've got the national action network, we've got mark morial at the national urban league doing remarkable, remarkable work and in partnership with all of you and in partnership with all of us. mark, welcome. thank you for your leadership. [applause] but i will tell you, even though change is hard, think about this, fair housing month, let's just take a moment and remember all of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice because they knew change was hard. the ultimate sacrifice. let's remember them when we talk about change and change being hard.

but i also know something else. that if you're marching backwards, ain't nothing going to change. and that's the choice we have to make about the future of this country and this year. if president obama's life and dedication demonstrates anything, that we're not sure when or how change will come but it will come if we keep marching forward together, it will change. that change will come. it will come because of the work that you do with this president, with me, with hud. i'm going to keep marching. i'm going to keep coming back every year to visit with you and renew that spirit, that fair housing month spirit, that this is a country that can and will

change. if we lift our hand together and say, march on. march on. thank you. [applause] >> secretary shaun donovan. secretary donovan has to leave. let me go right to another cabinet member because we have broken her schedule and we're honored to have her with us. let me say in march many of you were with us from around the country. some of the chapter leaders when we did the march from selma to montgomery about voter rights. that sunday in the brown chapel, which is the traditional service to

commemorate that our morning speaker ended up being a methodist preacher by the name of lisa jackson. she stunned the audience and she stunned the civil rights leadership. she didn't stun me. she spoke at our martin luther king breakfast and i know she can go. she is a profoundly efficient as well as eloquent member of the president's cabinet. she heads the environmental protection agency and she has broken her schedule to come even though she said i did y'all's breakfast in january, she said no, i'll come and share with the leadership from around the country of national action network. may we welcome the administrator, epa administrator, lisa jackson. [applause]

>> yeah, i'm good. thank you. well, thank you all very much and thank you, reverend sharpton. let me just start by saying, first, good afternoon, everyone. it's good to be with each and every one of you but i have to start by thanking reverend sharpton, not just for the opportunity to spend a few minutes with you this afternoon, which i will never turn down and always rearrange my schedule for but as a mother of two teenage african-american male children, thank you. i actually can't give word to how important it was for us as a family to tune in and listen to your words during a period of incredible fear and anger for our families. thank you. and to my home -- homeys. mark morial, grew up around the corner. i see him as head of the

urban league, i see him as oh, mark. [laughing] back in the day, still today, i know his wife. so much respect. now i'm really glad to be with you all and to -- it is what it is. i just got to be there. you heard from my administration colleagues. i'm happy for the chance to speak to you about health, health, and environmental protection. and why it is so important for you as leaders in our communities and why it's so important for our president. first i want to talk a minute about what it means to be here in this moment in amidst of all these challenges and, to be the authors of this chapter in our history. you heard that i have the extraordinary opportunity to speak at brown chapel in selma, alabama. i was proud to join reverend sharpton and congressman john lewis and jesse jackson and so many others to remember and honor the

bloody sunday bridge crossing that happened in 1965. i spoke that day as president obama often has of being a part of the joshua generation. in the bible joshua took the mantle of leadership after the passing of moses. in much the same way the people of my generation, our generation have taken on leadership in the next phase of our struggle. we are inheritors of the moses generation. so those who came before us and led us along the path to freedom. but we are the generation that must now continue the work and bring people into the promised land. it is because of the work of the moses generation that i have the extraordinary honor to serve as the first african-american administrator of the united

states environmental protection agency, for the third african-american president of our country. [applause] that work also allows me to be part of the most diverse cabinet in american history maybe up of men and women from different heritages, different backgrounds. many of whom you're hearing from as part of your conference and it was because of the path that the moses generation set us on that as a nation that our most recent presidential election which gave me and my colleagues the opportunity to serve was the most racially and he is nickly diverse -- ethnically diverse group of people that voted in any presidential election. i'm very glad to speak with but the role that i have chosen in my profession in the work of my joshua generation moment and that is the work to protect our health and our environment. see, i know, that the promised land we are moving toward will not be a place

where the water and the air and the land are polluted. i believe that my part, small part, in this generation is to make sure that when we get there it is not going to be a place where pollution weighs heavily on our health, and on our prosperity. but just saying that is nice. this is about the work. because environmental conditions continue to have a serious and often disproportionate impact on our communities today. consider the fact that heart disease, cancer, and respiratory illnesses are three of the top four most fatal health threats in america. i don't think anyone would argue that. consider that all of those illnesses have been linked to pollution in our air, in our water. all three have had an overwhelming impact on our

communities. stop for a second and don't go any further than your immediate family and tell me there is not someone who went too soon of heart disease or cancer or respiratory illness like bronchitis or asthma that just doesn't make them sick but took them from your family. african-americans are entering emergency rooms for asthma treatments at 3 1/2 times the rates that whites do. we die from asthma attacks twice as often. and asthma is not the only disparity we face in the african-american community. mortality rates for cancer are higher for us than for any other group. heart disease is the most fatal illness in the black community. we can all share those stories about loved ones, friends. my father passed away from a heart attack when i was in high school. my youngest son, that teenager i was mentioning, he is already that old, but he spent his very first christmas in the hospital trying to breathe and he has

fought with asthma his whole life. this conference is wonderful because it brings us together about a range of issues that face our community. some are right in our face and some we don't see each and every day. let me point out that those range of issues are interrelated. environmental issues like many of them rarely travel alone. where there are health challenges, other challenges are often there. maybe they follow. maybe they're already there. take education. exposure to pollution accounts for millions of lost school days each and every year. every time i talk to a group of schoolchildren i say, how many of you have asthma? in our communities the numbers are overwhelming. if i ask them say, how many of you have a sibling or cousin, virtually 100% of the class. how can you build a foundation for our children when they're missing day after day of school or they can't concentrate when they are in class? or we can talk about the

economic challenges that i know you're spending your time on. there are a cost to our small businesses when workers are at a greater risk of illness. there are costs to the employers and in lost productivity when workers have to call out sick. there are costs to communities when environmental solution and degradation keep as business from coming and investing in that neighborhood. they go somewhere else. poison in our ground mean poison in our economy. a weak environment mean as weak consumer base and unhealthy air means an unhealthy atmosphere for investments. but now, let's flip it around. a clean, healthy community is a good place to buy a home and raise a family. it is more competitive in the race to attract new businesses and it has what it needs for prosperity. so environmental issues, are health issues. and educational issues. and economic issues. for many of us, those things

translate into moral issues. president obama often speaks about rebuilding our economy around the values that we americans hold dear. it is consistent with our values to say companies shouldn't be able to dump toxins in the air we breathe or the water that we drink. it is consistent with those values to say that the food we put on our plates shouldn't be covered with harmful chemicals that threaten our health or the health of our children and it's consistent with our values to say that poor and minority communities shouldn't bear the heaviest burdens of pollution and the health threats that that pollution brings. [applause] if we want truly equality, we can't let the heaviest burdens of pollution and health threats fall on the poorest communities. we have health threats facing african-americans

because they are uncomfortable. we can't sit in the back and talk about how environmental degradation is chasing jobs and opportunities out of our neighborhoods and shake our heads. this is one place where my section of the joshua generation has work to do. in the last three years we've worked hard to insure that environmental and health protections are reaching every community. first and foremost, we have developed a comprehensive environmental justice plan at epa. and it's not just epa but we've now been joined by the entire obama administration. i've called on every program at epa, every government agency is also doing the same. every program is doing its part to address environmental justice disparities, to raise awareness, to consider the impacts of its decisions on vulnerable populations. it's not just the work of the epa. we've established or increased the number of job-creating restoration

activities. one of my personal favorites because we grew up in new orleans in the shadow of a mighty river is the inneragency federal urban waters partnership. that effort is designed to do a couple of things. first, reconnect people with their waterfronts and give them opportunities to revitalize those areas as part of building healthier, stronger, communities. and don't think that that doesn't help our community. just bringing our children, our people back to the waterfront, begins to build that connection as a community. especially in urban areas which are organized our mighty rivers. another example is our brownfields program, an niche tiff that -- initiative cleans up contaminated areas and repurposes them. i like to call it the recycle the land program. we don't want to build your business way out there that takes us forever to get to in a car or a bus. we want you in the community

of the sometimes that means job training or cleanup and that is where epa is doing its work. we've also, and i'm very proud of this, taken long overdue action to clean up the air we all breathe. at the end of last year epa finalized its mercury and air toxic standards that limit mercury and emissions from power plants. mercury -- [applause] thank you. mercury is a neurotoxin, folks. it is toxic to our brains. it's toxic to our children, as their brains development and, develop, and it starts even before our children are born. before those standards were put in place under this administration, just last year, there were no national standards limiting mercury emissions from power plants. . .