educated asian-americans. it's much more complicated than just skills. >> we've seen a lot of gaps. >> yes. >> if the gaps are not addressed, and future policies go forward, they just create a greater divide. >> yes, and so we have to be far more effective in what we do with unemployment, but we have to be committed to the public sector and understand this downturn we just had. we insured wall street. we said wall street can want fail. there's banks too big to fail. this downturn was the biggest decline in revenue for state and local government ever, and it was prolonged. the length and depth of it resulted in lower public employment and there's no clear path that it will come back. yet, we know we still need teachers, police on the beat,

firefighters, and all the same public services. our demand for public services can't depend on the cycle. the federal government doesn't realize when you need the investment sector, you need have to a public sector. [applause] and so when we have these downturns, the federal government must step in to ensure the state and local government. the problem detroit faced is that -- >> state, local, and tribal government. >> and tribal government. [laughter] >> okay. >> the problem with detroit, unlike many municipalities that depend on revenue from real estate tax, they run on income taxes. they never recovered from 2001. the black unemployment rate never recovered from 2001. that downturn decimated the

revenue stream for the city, and it never came back. if there are banks that are too big to fail, and we have to step in to make sure they function, there are cities that are too big to fail. [applause] >> bankruptcy in one of those cities. >> yes, and so it is not enough for the administration to say, oh, we're behind you, droit. no. we said to wall street, $800 billion we're behind you, so that's being behind me. [laughter] >> okay. behind you, what are the policies? >> so, wall street caused more damage than what we have put into the budget. there needs to be a financial transaction tax because when they gamble, we lose. [applause] they have to pay for cleaning up

the whole mess, not just their mess or the mess that let them get their jobs back, get the bonuses back and argue for a tax cut after they got their bonuses, and we saved their bankrupt companies. if we savedded aig that was bankrupt, we can save detroit that was bankrupt, and if aig people could get a bonus, they had to get a bonus, than detroit city workers can get a pension just like it said in their contract. [applause] >> okay, all right. [applause] >> mark, what would you like to add to the conversation? >> i don't know what to add. [laughter] >> couple things, you asked to look to the future, and i want to add a couple things about the nation's demographics and how it changes. certainly, by 2015, the united states will be a different country than today just because of the changing demographics, already underway. we see that among young people today, but you're going to see a

nation that is not majority white, that's going to be different in terms of the demographic and economic characteristics of the country, and, also, it's a more foreign-born country than it is today because we've seen over the last 20 years large inflows of immigrants, and it's likely there's more immigrants coming to the united states, which, of course, makes the united states unique and different from other countries in the world, the 40 million immigrants now, and no other country comes close, but i -- looking to the future, it's going to be a very different picture demographically. that doesn't mean, of course, everybody's going to have great economic opportunity in the future. we don't know where all of that will be, and everything you mentioned are going to be important parts in shaping that economic future. there's also importance to see how young people today come of age and what type of economy they come of age in. when you ask us to look to the future, there's a tremendous number of opportunities -- a tremendous number of challenges as well, and i think everything you said here, of course, plays into shaping america for the

future, which will be a very different country than what we see today. >> all right, great comments, lisa, would you like to? >> sure, i have a whole list. >> okay, good, i want to hear the list of the future. [laughter] >> well, first is multiracial people's movement for full employment would be awesome in 50 years to say we started somewhere in the 2020s maybe -- [laughter] we have to work on this, you know, i just wanted to also talk about the fact that, you know, we're in the house of labor, and there's a long history of asian-americans, pacific islanders in the history in the labor movement in the union organizing and i feel like there are many, many causes that could be framed as things that asian americans and others could get behind so whether it was, you know, the strikes with the -- with the -- in california with

the grapes, and, you know, there's so many labor leaders, but i think that the large race of -- high race of incarceration and racial profiling, the community and hawaii communities relate to that. i think the issues with voter ids. you know, you've got older, aarons and -- african-americans and immigrants, really, that's something to mobilize around a lot more, living wages and jobs, i think that, you know, to work on a lot of the safety net and type-poverty programs. nobody talks about that anymore. there's not an active, i think, advocacy movement that particularly has both racial justice plan as well as an economic justice plan. where is that infrastructure? i think that labor has been amazing in trying to really bring together african-americans and immigrant communities around immigration reform saying it's about all of us, the future of the country. you know, i think the work a lot of us on the stage has done

around housing and the financial crisis, i think that those are some of the things where we need a much more robust conversation about how those -- all of those things come together, and i think that particularly communities of color and knowing the history, we have to claim it and move forward in a much more direct and intentional way. >> so mark talked about the fact that the demographics of the country are changing, and, certainly, that we will see in the near future whether minorities is now the majority. you think about something dr. martin luther king said in one of his speeches talking about the fear and the fear of not knowing each other, and sometimes that creates a crisis for working together we have a changing demographic, a gap in the economy, and the fear of not working together. how do we as organizers or

leaders and champions bring together the collaborative environment to have this conversation that bill is now put on the table that we want to have about moving forward, and what can we do to help organize or message that or bring it forward? anybody have thoughts to add? >> i'd say events like this are an important part of this to have a conversation where we all talk about all the different experiences of all the different groups, but invents like this are an important part of that moving forward. >> well, i think we have to be right about where the problem is coming. we, looking back in 1963 to today, you'd see a much smaller labor movement in terms of the shared workers who are organized. when workers had a voice, they had a way of making sure the pie was divided fairly. since the 1970s, the pie is not divided more fairly.

more and more goes to profit, interest, less goes to workers. as we shrink the pie for workers, there's a fight among ourselves about a smaller pie. it's not creating a smaller pie, but point to the right people for creating the smaller pie, and we need government to fit the size of those of us who are earning our pay versus those speculating on wall street and betting on horses. [applause] i think when we do that we can understand, and the fear is we won't reach that soon enough, but we can understand rather than workers picking on each other, it's really how do we get voice back to workers, a voice back to those of us who actually earn a paycheck and make something and how do we then read it and make policies that

are fair for everyone? >> just one comment. i think that maybe you can help me out here, mark. there are cities that are going to be majority-minority sooner rather than 2050 or 2020, whatever the country is going to turn. >> 20 # -- 2040. >> 2040, there you go, i knew it was somewhere in there. it could be interesting to go deeper in those places where there's a diverse demographic and the tipping point because we are -- i am concerned, right, of what's going to happen, and i think as national leaders, we should be figuring that out. >> i agree, but i think one of the challenges is that we seem to be somewhat cyclical that means that we all say the right things about we want to be the employment and getting a job, but when, you know -- i'm not talking we, collectively, but we, americans, and we get to the

position where we actually are a little bit, you know, taken care of more than our needs by what we are earning and our earning mechanism, and sometimes values change, an i guess my next question to you is how do we think about the american dream and reiterate values that once again put all of us at an equal playing field? you know, how do we then go back to the d whether it's the martin luther king "i had a dream," or bobby kennedy, you know, equal opportunities, and how can we, ourselves, within our individuals,. our groups, but how can we, again, tie ourselves to the principles of the equal opportunity? >> what i was going to say, epi

actually has a really good website on what policies drove the level of inequality between the 1% and the 0*er 9-- other 99% of us, and i think looking at those series of policies, whether it's the deconstruction of the safety net for workers and taking away their rights to organize, taking away their pension, taking away their health care and retirement, whether it's free trade agreements that end up decimating the wages of american workers, i mean, all these things are policy choices we have made, and it's really empowering us to say, no, we understand those outcomes, no matter how you gloss it up. we understand what they did to us as the american people and as american workers, and let us then talk about fighting against those kind of policies, the kind of policies that congressman ellis kicked us you have saying, we have to stop. i think that's a useful too if you go to the website and sort of look at broken down in a way

that i think most people can follow. >> you know, i think even in my own community, and, mark, you might be able to speak to this, but when we start talking about complex financial terms or understanding certain, you know, interest rates or impacts or talking about the national debt in a way that doesn't just relate to, you know, their immediate home situation. it's difficult for people to understand these pieces and the impact with federal policy. you know, i think as a community, a community of color, this is our challenge. we try to have a conversation before about when we talked about wealth gaps or talking about asset building. we had conversations, and yet we still have not gotten the traction, i believe, that, bill, you talked about in the dialogue that we need. mark, do you have some ideas? >> well, certainly, when you look at data for latinos, many,

don't, for example, have a bank account. a recent report covered this particular point. i mean, you look at wealth building in la teen -- latinos, and prior to recession, many owned homes, and the home ownership rate for latinos was rising to a record high right before the recession, what's interesting to take a look at is where latinos are building their wealth. in many respects, oftentimes, assets that many latinos have is the only asset they would have, would be, like, something like a vehicle, as opposed to an asset like a 401(k), less likely to have those assets so when you talk about financial literacy and connecting that to what happened in washington, more broadly in the financial community, one of the surveys years ago, many latinos were unaware of the connections on where the credit crisis came from and how that may have impacted them. certainly, i agree with you that there are many -- in many respects, this is one area where

focusing on financial literacy and drawing connections might be very important. >> okay. lisa, if you think about mar-- marching on washington because bill motivated us -- [laughter] march to washington to change the future, how are you going to rally your folks? >> good question. i was just thinking i feel like we have to do a lot of political education. i mean, it sounds really basic and not super sexy, but there's so much just, like, history telling and story telling and information sharing, translation, like, when i talk translation, my work of translation is translating the crazy language of this city to the rest of the folks outside of the city. it's not about any asian language -- [laughter] of which i don't speak any. [laughter] i learned the dc language a little bit, and then that constant work of translating to the rest of the world is, i feel like we need to do that in a deliberate way, and so i think it is about the grassroots organizing, the local, political

education, and having a larger conversation. we say we need a larger public dialogue or conversation about it. i think trayvon martin, everything that happened around that, everything with the blogs, effing that was happen -- everything that was happening, particularly amongst young people, it was encouraging because there's a connectedness there that we need to tap into and a consciousness of the importance of race in all of this, and so something, i don't know, it's not sexy, but organizing and a lot of political education, we don't do enough of it intentionally. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. [applause] >> i'd like to conclude the panel by saying this quote, and what about the future? i believe there are signs of change, clear signs of turning the tide. america today is moving forward, more rapidly and in more ways than other before. moving forward the fulfillment of the destiny and the land of the free, a nation in which

neither indians or religious or racial minority lives in under privilege. these are the records of kennedy, and he saw a bright future then. we are making progress for achieving that future, and i think that these panelists have shown us that the march is not done. we have much more work to do because we want to engage this conversation that bill put forward. we want to organize like lisa said, get the message forward, and we want to make sure we bring all the people forward as mark said. thank you, panelists, for joining in this conversation. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> thank you for that panel. you know, when we structured the panel looking at the economic crisis confronting people of color, it really had all of the preconditions to be a really depressing panel, but the panelists were able to go beyond depressing to provide inspiration and uplift us, so let's give them another round of applause. that was great. [applause] as we bring the third panel up to the front, one of the things, first of all, i'd like to thank bill sprigs -- we didn't does him to do this -- [applause] but bill mentioned an epi website about inequality, and because he mentioned it, i'll reiterate it. it's www.inequality.is. inequality.is where you can find epi stake on how we got to where we are, vis-a-vis inequality in the country. now, thus far, we've looked at

the march on washington and what it was really about or what we ought to remember 50 years later about its importance, and we talked about the economic circumstances today, which, quite frankly, are not all that different than the economic circumstances that precipitated the march 50 years ago, so we also heard from the last panel that there's no shortage of ideas about how to move forward, so when you've got the conditions being right for change, when you've got ideas about how change ought to occur, it begs to question, well, why is change so hard in coming, and maybe the answer comes from how we envision this last panel. the poll sicks of race in america. where do we go from here? why is it so hard for america to really talk honestly about race in such a way that actually moves the dial and changes circumstances so that, hopefully, our cohorts 50 years from now are not having another

conversation that looks a lot like conversations that we're held decades before. so, for this panel, we've got an incredible ease steam -- esteemed group of people, and i'll introduce the moderator and then the panelists. the moderator is president and ceo of global policy solutions which is a social change strategy firm in the district. disposition is a culmination of dr. rocky moore's vast experience working on policy at the national black caucus foundation, vice president of research and program. prior to that, she was also senior resident scholar of health and income security at the national urban league, and she's spent time on the hill as chief of staff for congressman charlie rangel and professional staff on the ways and means committee, or what they call a chronic underachiever.

[laughter] sorry. we are joined on the panel with the collector of immigrant rights at the center for community change, an organization that works to build power in the low income community and build capacity for effecting change. now, she has a sense of experience as not only advocate in the work with ccc, but also as on organizer and lawyer, and she also served as deputy mayor of new haven to take a lot of the policy ideas and put them into a practical application in order to serve, under serve residents of that community. we have angela glover blackwell, the founder and ceo of policy link, an organization she started in 1999 after serving the vice president at the rockefeller foundation. policy link has, as its mission,

advancing economic and social equity, and under angela's leadership, policy link is the leading voice in the progressive movement to use public policy to improve access and opportunity for not only low income people, but all community of color, particularly, focused on the areas of health, housing, transportation, education, and infrastructure. then we also have roger clay, the immediate past president of the insight center for community and economic development. prior to joining insight, mr. clay was general counsel of the general of the california housing finance agency, and in his law work partner with the firm, did a lot of work advising on housing and community economic development bringing his skills in the law to bear on issues that are all together or all too often neglected by people in the professional and legal class. we are pleased to have this

incredibly exciting pam, and i'll now turn it over to maya rockeymoore. [applause] this is entitled politics and race in america: are we making progress? that is a very good question. it is at once heartening and certainly shameful that we are still debating the issue of race in america. fifty years after the march og washington for jobs and freedom, and 150 years after the issue of the emancipation proclamation. heartening because enough people still believe so strongly in the promise of america and its progress that they are willing to tackle the issue of race until equal opportunity and justice becomes a reality for all people of all backgrounds. disheartening because we are still dealing with the original sin of racism and its

manifestation in the form of racialized stereotypes, coding, treatment, and practices that make it possible for individuals of ill-will to, for example, refer to our nation's first african-american head of state as the food stamp president, to actively undermind the right of citizens to vote, and, yes, to profile law-abiding people as criminals based on the color of their skin, what they are wearing, or the sounds of their name. ladies and gentlemen, we are here to say that our nation is better than that. we're better than that. there is a path forward for real equality and opportunity in the country, so here, today to talk about the politics and promise of race in america is a very distinguished panel, and i've got to say they have been introduced, but these people are not only speakers on this subject. they are preimminent thinkers on the subject, and most

importantly, they are doers on the subject of this issue and they are committed to racial equality in the nation. with that, you know, this week, we have had a lot of talk about race, and it was really sparked by the treyvon martin verdict. the african-american community, the emotions are raw, and so the question becomes why are innocent african-american men on trial every day and this every way in the country? why are black men imperilled, roger? >> well, i've gotten that question before, and my first inclination is always to say, i don't know, but i think i do know. last week, i was on an elevator in a big hotel in new york, and i had my suit coat on, and a white woman got and, and she,

obviously, a little bit afraid, uncomfortable, and so i do what i usually do is i spoke to her, and i commented on the weather. [laughter] which relaxed her a little bit. i was a little surprised only in the sense that it doesn't happen to me as often once i got gray hair as i did when i was younger. [laughter] it was clear she was afraid. the real answer is people are afraid. they are afraid of us. that's a simple answer and complicated answer. because the question is, okay, why are they afraid? generally, the fear is not based on experience, and it's not based on fact. you don't often hear or, i bet most of us don't even know, of situations where black people are going around attacking white people. we, unfortunately, kill ourselves, but we're not going

out there doing that to others. they do it more to us, which is one of the things that's just out there, but this fear is a long time coming going back hundreds of years, part is people are conscious. fear, but they don't know why, but they are often unconscious, and it goes back to hundreds of years of us has black men and black boys compared to gorillas and apes and that sort of thing, which people don't consciously do, but research says today that people subconsciously still think of many black men and black boys that way. unfortunately, even black people have that unconscious feeling about black men and black boys, so i'm hoping that the panel is optimistic, but on this topic,

i'm -- i get upset. i'm not that optimistic because i think the fear is so deep seeded that it's really going to be hard to turn that around. >> the fear of the plaque man, the stereotype of the african-american male as a menace, as a -- as the other, as somebody to be feared in the society, does that mean that there is a racial bias in the system? does the fear permit our institutions? does it permit -- was it a part of the guilty verdict or the not guilty verdict? >> yes. i was kind of hoping to be optimistic in this panel, but begin -- given the question, i'm going to be overwhelmingly pessimistic. look, all you have to do is look at the numbers. we, as a nation, incarcerate more people than anybody else in the world. right now, we have 2.3 million

people behind bars, they are either in jail or in prison. of the 2 million -- 2.3 million people, 60% of them are people of color. right now, right, and any given moment, any given today, take today, for example, one in ten african-american men in their 30s are either in jail or in prison, and then when it comes to young black men in their 20s and 30s, without a high school diploma, the incarceration rate is so high, it's 40%. what that means is they are more likely to be behind bars than to have a job, and that's just the beginning because once you've been incarcerated and part of the criminal justice system, you don't escape it when you get out of prison. that is the beginning of a really -- or the continuation of

a really difficult trajectory. once you have a criminal record, it's hard to get access or impossible to get access to both public housing. it's very difficult to get student loans. nobody wants to hire you. the trajectory just continues, and i think that's part of the pessimistic narrative of race and politics in the country. ..

the criminal justice system is really touching a disproportionate number of lives of people of color. and until we do away with it, when i talk about racial justice, the first thing i talk about his criminal justice. the criminal justice system so touches the lives of so many people of color and so many communities that we will never get racial justice until we do away with disparities in the criminal justice system. trayvon martin case to me was part of example of white privilege. in this way, right? young white kids walking around with hoodies don't have to worry about getting stopped, the backing first, by getting harassed i cops, right? when you think about -- i have an eight year-old boy. i have a son, right? i have to have a conversation with him about race. i have to have conversation with

him already about what it means to engage with law enforcement officers. i'm not sure that there is in very many white parents left have those conversation with their kids at such an early age. >> so, angela, it really isn't about just disparities that exist naturally. aren't these disparities created by policies and institutions? and really, the question is how do these racial stereotypes and certainly attitudes change the policy institutions? what d do we need to do to reach it, so we can actually have a system that works for all? >> yes. yes. [laughter] absolutely. the disparities are there because of individual racism, structural racism, systematic

exclusion, all of those are operating. and we do need to come up with policies that reverse it. and it won't happen until we fundamentally change. that's why it's hard to be optimistic. and i think i am. i usually end. i think i will get there by the end of this conversation. just started in a hard place. because we are a nation in which many people carry ill will in their heart. we tried to move beyond the. we thought we could move beyond it. we thought that if we got opportunist in place, it didn't matter what the but in the hearts. just let me go to work, have a job. you don't have to come to my home. just let me have the home. we thought if we got policies in place we could leave the hearts alone. i don't know whether that was right or wrong, but i do know that people still carry a lot of ill will in their hearts. and we are at a moment which is a transition.

one thing that i'm optimistic about is that we are clearly moving beyond our evil path -- past. we will get there. it is inevitable, but the zone of getting their can be a long and dangerous period. because the old guard is afraid, losing. and the last gasp can be a dangerous time. that's exactly where we are right now. so i know we're going to get to a better place but we've got to go through this. those people who have ill in their heart are really acting out. they don't have to act out a couple of decades ago because they had everything. but now that they're feeling the threat, you really acting out. and our friends, those people who are liberal and supportive, have not embraced an authentic narratives about how hard it is to be of color in this nation,

particularly how hard it is to be black. [applause] and particularly how hard it is to be a black man or boy. and so what that means is in something goes down, we can all come together because half of us who want the same thing our thinking, what's the real story about what happened? i'm sure didn't happen exactly that way. as long as have other people ought to be together are raising those kind of fundamental questions, it's hard that the movement forward. we keep talk about having a conversation. i actually don't want to anymore conversation. [applause] what we need is an action agenda that we can all get behind and move out on. that is the conversation that we want to put before the american people. what do you think about this agenda? what i going to contribute to this agenda? how will this agenda become an american agenda?

i don't want have a conversation about the problem. i don't want to be understood. i want to have an action agenda that puts the policies you're talking about front and center. i'm optimistic that that will happen, but it has to happen soon. it -- if it doesn't happen soon the growth zone will become a way of life for a long time. >> the groan zone. we just learned a new term. but with that, when you're talking about an action agenda and when we are talking of public policy in the design of public policy, and eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in health, education, security and wealth. i mean, it requires a specific approach to policy designed to is that a race neutral or race specific approach? >> no. i think we have to put on racial lens and bring it to the policy. and i don't think that we just need to do it because it's the right thing to do.

i think it's become an imperative. that if you think about the shifting demographics, and i heard it on the penalty for, we know that people of color are becoming the majority. we also know that the nation is in here. it's an economic peril. it's an economic -- democratic bill. if we can do how we'll be the thing we been so proud of for so long, it's are the people who will be the future have to lead us there. they have to be the innovators, they have to be the leaders, the workers. they have to be the ones who value democracy and democratic participation. they have to be the middle class. if the people are going to be the future, there will be no middle class but i think went to bring a racial and ethnic lens not to just make up for past wrongs, but to go in the right direction. to make sure that everything, take infrastructure for example, you know the nation needs to fix its crumbling infrastructure.

but we also know that if we do that we allow some communities that are being left behind to come right into the center, that we allow the communities that are holding people back to be places that place in the 20%. those happen to be a lot of cities in this countries that are black and brown. so we fix the infrastructure and we get people who need jobs, jobs. we get communities that are not ready to be ready for the 21st century. at it doesn't work unless we bring a racial lens to. who gets the jobs? when we put the infrastructure? who is going to benefit? so i would like to see us bring a racial lens for practical reasons, not for redress a grievance reasons. you get the same result by think if we can combine they need to step up in a moral way with the imperative to step up so that nation can be strong, all of a sudden we are only path to the future. >> roger cohen we've had a lot

of conversations about this. and i think you probably agree with angela we have to have a race specific focus but how do you actually get broad-based support for that kind of agenda? >> i do agree with angela. but i think there are two things, i won't say but. and as i do think there's a couple things get to tackle first. one is we really have to have some vision of what we want this country to look like for the kids that are born today. if we don't know where we're going, you know, i think yogi berra, the baseball player, you can go anywhere. you can end up anywhere. at i don't think that we have ever done that. the other thing that is related to that is, who is included? one of the things about black men and black boys, too many people we shouldn't be here, or we can't be seen. as productive members of society.

and i think the same thing is going on now with some of the immigrant population. they are not us, and so we don't have to worry about them. we don't have to worry about them in terms of helping them do well. we do need to worry about them getting away, right? so i think in order to have any kind of policy that's going to move us forward we have to have that platform, and went to know where are we going and who is included. >> yes. >> the other thing i want to say though is, we shouldn't be naï naïve. i'm very excited about the fact that the country is becoming more diverse. i'm very excited about the fact that it will become majority-minority, but what does that mean? that really means that whites are not in the majority. but we shouldn't act like all of our different minority groups have always worked together last

[laughter] i think we are doing better. i've worked with you and we're really working hard at it. but that's not in our history. there are many black people that don't like immigrants, the whole idea. there are many people that don't like gays. we have to work at this in order to move us all forward. i think though that the change in demographics gives us an opportunity, to very affirmatively and very explicitly work on a. we've got a ways to go. it's not going to get all better in 2014. >> kica, we can talk about the changing demographics of those demographics are being really driven by the large growth of the latino population. and we're certainly in the midst of a debate nationally about immigration reform. in the issue of race and the other, it's front and center in these conversations about

immigration reform. how our advocates like you and the people you work for fighting for the issue, on the issue, are on the grounds of racial stereotyping? >> so, a couple of things. i do think that this fight for immigration will form the immigration fight. when you think about the way that immigration and the issue has been framed, it has been framed in racial justice ways. i do want to paint a picture of who's behind, and again, when you think about race and to think about immigration, a lot of us don't really know just how racialized immigration is and just who is behind the efforts to oppose immigration reform. so want to quickly paint a picture. the organizations, most of the

organizations that are advocating against immigration reform are funded by a man i the name of john. i don't let folks know if it is a white nationalist and a eugenicist. he has funded a number of anti-immigrant organizations, including one that is funded by african-americans. and allowed to -- some of the people who are staff members are white supremacists. and these are the people are really driving the ugly debate around immigration reform that we're hearing and the offensive terms are put out that way to alienate immigrants, right, so that immigrants are seen as somehow inferior. in addition to the anti-immigrant organization from if you look at who in congress is opposing immigration reform, again, you have a very small group of legislators who are

extreme right wing republicans. who have never embraced people of color. be they african-americans are beefing like you to speak at their the ones who are really opposing, standing in the way of immigration reform. right now where the votes in the house to pass immigration reform but this small group of people are standing up and opposing immigration reform, these are people who have actually no problem referring to immigrants as illegal aliens, who talk about how they are destroying the fabric of this country. some of the language is racially coded. some of it is not. when you think about the combination of the two groups and how they collude and what it leads to, i just want to quickly mention a rally that took place here last monday. i'm going to hope that none of you were there, but if you were there i'm hoping you're observing for our side, it was put together by fair and one of the groups that was there was a black leadership alliance, which

is funded by john tanton and these are a handful of african-americans who say that they oppose immigration reform. and one of the speakers at this rally was, most of you know is one of the founders of the tea party. and mr. crowe gets up on the podium and a meal he starts talking about all of the negatives that he perceives around immigration and immigration reform and then all of a sudden he started going down the path of talking about breeding, and well bred americans. and i just want to quote the record from his speech. for those incredible bloodlines of thomas jefferson and george washington and john smith, and all these great americans, martin luther king, these great americans who built this country, you came from them. and the unique thing about being from that part of the world when he learned about breeding, you learn that you cannot breed secretariat to a donkey and expect to win the kentucky

derby. you guys have incredible dna, and don't forget it. now, who was in that crowd? senator jeff sessions who leads the opposition, who led the opposition to the immigration bill in the senate. congressman steve king who is taken up his mantle and has talked about ideas like putting up electronic fences in the border because that's what we do with cattle. and senator ted cruz. so that is what we are really getting with at the end of the day when we're talking about race and immigration and justi justice. >> yeah, everyone i talked to, at least to advocates for immigration reform are optimistic, despite all the. they're optimistic because of the energy of the dreamers to their optimistic because people are coming together even across race and even support immigration reform. they are developing language to promote inclusion and aspiration for new americans.

and so, i mean, there is a certain population of members of congress and certainly the american public that has been captured by the inspiration that is being driven by the advocates around the. >> absolutely. what we have in the immigration reform front is a movement, right? a movement of african-americans, latinos, asians, lgbt, faith-based communities. we have support from the left and we have support from the right. the majority of americans support immigration reform, and we have this incredible energy from young people who stood out and said we will give up our rights and we'll push the envelope, and to an extent, certainly second vice parts of their lives to advocate for immigration reform. that's the irony about immigration reform, right? the american people want it, right? we have a movement that represents a broad spectrum of

the community, and yet there were a handful of people who want to stand in the way of immigration reform. that's really the challenge that we have. have. and i was just the one less thing because we're playing hardball with the republicans that are getting in the way, and we will remind them of one thing. given the change in demographics in this country if they don't get right with immigrants and they don't get right with immigration reform, they will be an extinct party. >> and we're going to get immigration reform. i mean, i think that is the amazing thing, that people with that kind of money you've talked about, the kind of influence they can buy with that money, the place they're coming from in terms of what they want for the country, they will be defeated. we will get immigration reform. i hope we get at this time but, you know, for sure we're going to get it. when you talk about, roger, the challenge of where we all come together, we will come together. we are coming together. i never go anyplace anymore when people are not working to come

together. it is the rule among the change agent, the advocates, the social judge advocates and be on to say yes, it's going to challenge but we are moving in that direction. what we are not doing is we are not getting behind each other's agendas enough. we are not taking the few things. i was blown away by the fact that the naacp was able to get over 1 million signatures on the petition so quickly. all of a sudden all of us are able to agree on one thing. and when we do that we can make a tremendous difference. the work that we need to do is to accept that power has the potential to be on our side. but whether or not we're able to utilize it requires us to come together, to let a few things go and take a few things that we're actually going to move on to do that systematically. i don't think that we have

enough confidence in our ability to be able to overcome, for example, just giving the president elected a second time, tremendous forces on the other side that did everything they possibly could. yet young people and women and people of color and people who live in cities, they all came together and they made that happen. we needed to be able to sustain and that's part of the reason we're having so much trouble. we can't sustain anything for very long. i did a radio show on a pbs station in california. maybe it was earlier this week our late last. it's probably pretty early this week, isn't it? it was monday. it was lastly. we talked about trayvon martin. it was a thoughtful conversation but it was one of those calling things. the first two called for how long are you going to talk about this? we are so tired of this discussion. that was outrageous and we had a

lot of come back. it is the american way. you have given it three days, let's move on. we've got to stop that. >> let their innocent sons walk in with a bag of skittles and so to get shot, and then see if they're okay with a three-day conversation. roger, angela just said that we need to pick a few things in order for us to come together. yet, when you look at the press, all the challenges that are facing our community, you talk about health, education, income security, talking about wealth, talking about axis to the franchise. but i'm, you're talking a pretty darn broad agenda. and so, i mean you do, taking the issue of wealth disparities. people don't realize that we have racial wealth gap in this country. and so, you can do you think we can come together around that? tell us about the racial wealth gap, what it is, and what we can

do. >> well, first of all, let's just define what we mean by wealth. it's real simple. we are talking about people's assets minus liabilities. a few years ago many, five or six before the recession when you compare blacks to whites, whites had about 10 times the wealth of blacks. and today it's less than 5%. latinos are a little better. haitians are a little better but none of us is doing that well. and even though the whites have lost a lot of wealth themselves, the gap has not decreased. it's increased. while it's a really important, because it's really what stays people when things get really bad and that's one of things that's happened to the black immunity if we didn't have enough wealth when the recession it. it helps you put your kids in school. helps you buy a house. so you need those things in addition to income.

so which ones what i focus on? well, since this is, the forum about the march and the various demands, i find it interesting that some recent research that tom shapira did aggrandize about what drives the wealth gap, happens to be exactly with those demands that we haven't done well on. >> okay. like what? >> housing. >> number one. >> that's number one. the second one is jobs. the third is, it's related to jobs but it's the level of pay. we do not have a minimum wage that makes any sense. those correspond exactly what the previous panel talk about. also, inheritance, what you can get from your family in terms of

support or what's left when they pass away. those are things that we really have to change for people of color if we're going to make a big difference. so if you give me two questions where i'm not that optimistic in the short term, because the gap is so huge that even if we did anybody even in terms of income, it's going to be way, way, way a long time. and i forgot one, education. i don't how i could forget education. the importance of education. and that's the other one that we haven't done well on, and it's also one that tom shapiro mentioned as one of the main drivers. i focus on those. those four things. and that brings us to other things to support those, like transportation or health and those other kinds of things, but

you need those to get to the fore. four. i focus on those four. >> angela, we do a lot of work on health, and we look at health disparity you know that black and brown people have been traditional left out of our health care system with regard to having to lease access. in fact, the statistic has been that of all then uninsured, black and brown people are a majority. and people don't know that when latinos lead that number. and so why the affordable care act is a definite step in the right direction, there is still unfinished business there. can you talk to us about the challenge of health? >> i can come and going to try to talk about it in a way that makes a larger point that perhaps can pull us together. i said that we need to be able to get on the same page. all of us who work for organizations and we do policy

work, we have different policies we're championing, but if we can get on the same narrative page, we can keep telling whatever it is we're working on back to the simple narrative. and i think the simple narrative is people need to jobs, people need capabilities, and we need to remove barriers that keep people from having access to opportunity. within that context, i think everything and fit. so take health. i had the honor of being on the robert wood johnson foundation commission to build a healthier america, you know, the robert wood johnson foundation spent a lot of time focusing on naxos. this commission focused not on access the health and well beings. they concluded that most of poor health does not come from like -- lack of access. it comes from not having enough money, not having enough education and living in a place that is bad for health. and so getting a job as one of the most important things you can do to improve health. we think about it affordable care act there's a lot of opportunities to create jobs, coming out of affordable care

act. we need to make sure we are bringing racial and in equity lives so we are pushing to jobs in the right direction. building capability. with to make sure that we really are investing in community colleges and job training programs and all other things we need for people to be ready. and we need to make sure that we are paying attention to where people live. you know, in america we live as a proxy for opportunity. it determines everything, including how long they live. you tell me your zip code, i can tell you your expiration date. [laughter] date. [laughter] and if we think about building healthy communities as a way that we help people to live healthy lives, we don't have to say, i can't work on your issue because i'm working on health. your issue to be jobs going to be building capabilities, it could be building strong committees, transportation. within a short, crisp framework at all keep pushing in the same direction. >> right. roger mentioned earlier that

there is a lot of competition between racial and ethnic quote unquote on recruits, communities of color and it doesn't always, they don't always play well in the sandbox together. yet at the national level i think that we are seeing a transformation. i think that certainly the insight center policy, the center for community change, i think all of these organizations and more have been a sight of a coming together at the national level. around many of these issues on housing. lisa, what was the name of the coalition on housing? [inaudible] >> cross racial, and people working towards the common goal. that's encouraging. kica, at the local level -- >> about to get pessimistic against. [laughter] >> the notion of coalition building is more elusive. what do we do at the local level that brings people together so that we can have a selected power building? i am going to frame my remarks

around my experience when i was working in government and i was deputy mayor, and i'm going to take an issue that i've been focus a lot on these last couple of years which is immigration and new haven was the first city in the nation to issue registration card. part of the reason we did that was to make sure that immigrants were not only welcomed, to the city of new haven, but that they could be more suitably engaged and they had an identity that they could show to law enforcement officers and other governmental agencies they were engaging why, at the time we did this it was 2007, and the nation was embroiled in this heated debate on immigration reform. and to all of these white supremacists landed in new haven. and one of the first things they did was that they went on a sunday to all of these african-american churches, and

they started flowering peoples windshields with all of this information, you know, you black people should be afraid because of these immigrants are going to steal your first born and they're going to flood your hospital and they will take over your schools. and we started getting calls from our friends and colleagues and city hall employees who were at church on sunday and they came back after praying and breaking bread with their brethren to see this hateful fliers. so the first thing we did was, we convened a meeting of leaders in the community and we talked about what happened. we decided newhaven was not going to be a city that is going to be divided that way. and so i around the issue of immigration they were very frank and painful discussions. before we got to progress, there were more questions raised by late in the african-american communities saying, well, is it true? should we be afraid for our jobs? what's going to happen to my

child's education? but out of that dialogue, the first thing we did after that was have a press conference of all of these people, committee leaders representing a broad spectrum of the community to say not in our city. we don't accept hatred. we don't welcome these folks here, and then it's interesting how communities engage, because what ended up happening is that people form coalitions and relation to start talking about issues of common interest. if you think about education, when who's at the bottom? its people of color. ..

>> and a way to move forward. >> okay. well, we're running short on time, but i'd like to ask if there are any burning questions, one or two. we'll take one, i was told. [laughter] any hands? one. yes, sir. you. >> okay. >> your name? >> my name's mark, i'm with the newspaper guild. i'm going to throw the curveball. how do we get -- we are preaching to the choir here. how do we get this message through to, pardon the hacknied phrase, the other 47%? [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> in this room, but outside of this room. so the choir is here, but we've also got the others. >> so how do we get it across to the folks who have been

resistant? >> sir. >> my name is -- [inaudible] racism, we have to go back to where it all starts, in the church. we have to go back to all the ministers -- [inaudible] have them on sunday talk about the issues that are keeping us separate. then when they go back to their homes, they'll be able to -- [inaudible] brothers and sisters to work for -- [inaudible] there's sexism and atheism and the other iss. >> i agree with you. i do know because i've seen it, the dialogue about the isms, being able to actually take apart the problem, helping people to understand the

history, the context as the president of the united states did last week. that is very helpful. i was being provocative in trying to push us to think about talking about the solutions. that's where i think talk could be more productive. many people are ready to move but aren't feeling that we're coming together enough around solutions to have the confidence to put themselves out there. i think that's the conversation we haven't been calling for, and i'd like to see it. >> so i'd like to end this panel with a very brief exercise, and the title of this panel was the politics of race in america, are we making progress. and, you know, we started off in 2008 with this question of hope and change -- [laughter] and so the question becomes, i want to ask you whether people of color are still waiting for progress, hope, or whether there has been substantive, measurable progress -- change -- on each of these issues. roger, economic opportunity, hope or change? >> um, we are changing and

hoping to change more. [laughter] >> angela, hope or change? health? >> change. >> and in your one-word justify for why you think that? >> the affordable care act. >> yeah. okay. [applause] >> kica, hope or change? equal justice? >> change. we're not there yet. that's why we're here, right? [laughter] >> anybody, voting power, voting rights, political power? >> i'm very optimistic about that. i think the supreme court in a weird sort of way did us a favor, because they pissed people off. [laughter] but i also think that president obama's apparatus in both of the last elections showed that there is a way to organize and include

a lot of people. and get people out to vote. so i think there are a lot of specific things that need to be done. i think that mostly what we have to do is keep on doing what we were doing in the fence of fighting every time -- in the sense of fighting every time we see a voter suppression action, we fight it. >> [inaudible] >> change, for all these reasons. and i think that the voting, voting, the desire to vote t is improving. the activity is more likely to take place. what we need is to have a sharp policy agenda that a people can attach their democratic participation to. >> christian, we have an optimistic panel. everybody join me -- [applause]

>> that concludes our third panel. i'd now like to invite up to the stage the inspiration behind this project on behalf of the economic policy institute. our director of the program on race, ethnicity and the economy, mr. algernon austin. [applause] >> hello, hello. thank you all for your participation here today. this is just one piece of our unfinished march project. if you go to unfinishedmarch.com, you will be alerted when we release essays and if we do any other activities around the unfinished march. as we've been mentioning today, the march on washington for jobs and freedom had specific demands, and we've focused on

seven demands of the march. and we're going to do an essay around each demand, where we were in 1963 in relation to that demand, where we are today and what, if needed, what are the policies that we need today to get us there. so we'll be doing an essay about -- and you can look at the back of your ram and see where we -- program and see where we saw the source of these demands, but we'll be doing an essay on decent housing, adequate and integrated education, around the right to vote. you know, there's a lot of recent developments there. around a full employment program, around discrimination in hiring and employment and around the minimum wage. so if you want to keep up with the writing that we're doing around this, go to

unfinishedmarch.com, enter your information, and you'll be alerted when we do an essay. in addition to these demands, we felt that if the march was being organized today, the issue of the incarceration rate, how to reduce the incarceration rate would also be on the civil rights agenda. and also the racial wealth gap that roger clay spoke about would also be on the agenda. so we'll also be releasing essays on those topics. so, again, unfinishedmarch.com, we'll alert you to that. so we've raised a number of issues today, and i know that people will want to continue the conversation to get involved, to obtain more information. and you can do that by simply

contacting the organizations that's been involved with the symposium. some of which you're probably aware of, and there are some due to conflicts in schedules were not able to participate today. so i'm just going to list the organizations to thank them, but you should also, you should know that if you're interested in whatever topic, these are, these are organizations that you can contact for more information to get educated. and if they're membership organizations to join and join campaigns. so my thanks goes to the afl-cio for hosting us and everything that they've done. [applause] also among unions the united autoworkers supported us, and they're also very important in the '63 march on washington for

jobs and freedom. sciu, the naacp, the center for community change, the leadership conference on civil and human rights, the insight center, policylink, the national council of la raza, the national congress of american indians, the pew hispanic center and global policy solutions. thank you to all of those organizations for the work that they've done in supporting us. all this work, a lot of what we're doing we wouldn't be able to do without the support of others, and the funders that i would like to thank are the annie casey foundation, jules bernstein and linda lipset. they've been really crucial in allowing us to do this unfinished march project. so thanks to them also. and just in conclusion i want to

give a few words from the march. we've all probably heard martin luther king's "i have a dream" speech tens, dozens of times. i just want to give us a few paragraphs from some of the other people who spoke that day. so a. phillip randolph, part of his speech he said: we know that we have no future in a society in which six million black and white people are unemployed and millions more live in poverty. nor is the goal of our civil rights revolution merely the passage of civil rights legislation. yes, we want all accommodations open to all citizens, but those accommodations would mean little to those who cannot afford to use them. yes, we want a fair employment practice act, but what good will it do if profit-geared automation destroys the jobs of

millions of workers, black and white? so again, this issue of full employment for black, white, everyone was central to his vision of what the march on washington was about. walter luther also spoke, president of the united autoworkers, and he also spoke to that theme. the job question is crucial, he said, was we will not solve education -- because we will not solve education or housing or public accommodation as long as millions of american negroes are treated as second class economic citizens and denied jobs. and as one american, i take the position if we can have full employment and full production for the negative ends of war, then why can't we have a job for every american in the pursuit of

peace? and so our slogan has got to be fair employment, but fair employment within the framework of full employment so that every american can have a job. and i want to conclude with the, a little bit of the speech of matthew almond who was executive director of the national catholic conference for interracial justice, and he also spoke at the march. some of what he said is the following: we have permitted evil racial discrimination to remain within us too long. the united states of america is a country which produced the marshall plan, helped resurrect the spirit and economy of europe with great dedication and billions of dollars. what man can say to this great country and its democratic ideals, its vital and resilient spirit, its sophisticated resources cannot bring an abrupt

end to racial discrimination at home. and within a decade or two, end the disability under which for so long so many of our negro citizens have labored. we dedicate ourselves today to secure federal civil rights legislation which will guarantee every man a job based on his talents and training. we dedicate ourselves today to securing a minimum wage which will guarantee economic sufficiency to all american workers and which will guarantee a man or a woman the resources for a vital and healthy family life. unencumbered by uncertainty and by racial discrimination. a job for every man is a just demand and becomes our motto. thank you all. [applause] knox. [inaudible conversations]

>> thank you all for coming. >> and taking a look at what's coming up tonight here on c-span2, at 7 p.m. eastern crystal wright, she's the editor of conservative black chick blog, she talks about her parents' experience with selling redwaition and how they became her inspiration. that's tonight on "q and a." and at 8 eastern on booktv, u.s. supreme court's historic cases. we'll hear from karen houppert, the author of "chasing gideon." and then martin clancy, tim o'brien, "murder at the supreme court: lethal crimes and landmark cases." and our final author tonight, sarah garland, "divided we fail." the story of an african-american community that ended the era of school segregation. all tonight starting at 8 eastern here on c-span2. and now some to have latest on egypt and u.s. aid. the national security council

issued a statement that says it is not quietly cutting military aid to egypt after a daily beast article came out yesterday that the u.s. had decided privately to halt some aid because of egypt's crackdown on protesters who are supporters of the elected president, mohamed morsi. a spokesman for senator patrick leahy had told cnn funds for egypt were being reprogrammed while the u.s. continues to review the situation there. we talked to a daily beast reporter about the u.s. cutting aid to egypt. >> the administration public line, they're disputing the term "suspended." so they are saying that this is under review, that no final decisions have been made, and that is, of course, true because no final decisions have been made. but at the same time, as senator leahy's office told me and several officials told our publication, while that review is going on the aid has been suspended. so what are we talking about? we're talking about out of $1.3

billion this military aid to the egyptian government, $585 million has not yet been delivered. it's due by the end of the fiscal year which is september 30th. so that's military financing monies that is not flowing -- money that is not flowing. most people inside the system see that as an aid suspension. the administration will say, well, it's not suspended, we're just not giving it out. to senator leahy, that's a distinction without a difference. we're also talking about delivery of some military items including some apache helicopters and f-16 fighters, that's previously been reported by other outlets. and lots of economic support be funds, it's a complicated account, but basically some of them, the ones that will go directly to benefit the egyptian government, are not being programmed and dispersed and, in fact, being suspended. meanwhile, a couple of items still are flowing; spare parts

for the egyptian military, some economic support funds that go to american ngos in the country can still continue, although there really aren't that many american ngos doing many things in the middle of this egyptian crisis. >> josh rogin was the reporter that broke that story in the daily beast. the hill newspaper write that is the white house denies it's quietly suspending military aid to egypt, that it's evaluating aid and that the administration will reach out to congress once a decision's been made on how to move forward. again, that is from "the hill" newspaper. on facebook we have hundreds of comments on this controversy. cuts should have been made -- >> in the last few years, the left has decided that the political debate is worthless. they're not going to debate policy, they're not going to debate what is the best way to solve the nation's problems, they're not going to provide evidence. they're going to label us morally deficient be human beings. >> the editor at large at breitbart.com, ben shapiro, is september's "in depth" guest and

will take your comments for three hours live starting at noon sunday, the 1st. and in the months ahead, october 6th, congressman john lewis. november 3rd from jackie o. to nancy reagan, oprah to sinatra, your questions for biographer kitty kelley. and then december 1st, feminism critic and professor christina ho be pp summers, and january 5th, mark levin. "in depth" live the first sunday of every month at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2. >> now, a look at class structure in the u.s. with charles murray who's the author of "coming apart: the state of white america 1960-2010." this is from the western conservative summit at colorado christian university's centennial institute. it's about 25 minutes. ♪ ♪ >> thank you very much for your service. i'm a proud navy mom, and i see that's one of the few services

that you managed not to find your way to. [laughter] look, as the congressman said, i'm a mother of five, grandmother of five. be you guys want to eat and get up and move around while i'm talking, that is perfectly all right. i am so used to people getting up, not listening to a thing i've got to say. [laughter] so, please, feel free to do that. you know all about me now. i want to know something about you and sort of where your heads are at. could you tell me, how many of you think teach -- deep in your hearts that america's best days are behind us? you don't want it to be that way, but if you look at the arguments, we probably are not going to give a country to our children that's as good as the one we've inherited. ooh. okay. how many of you think that, in fact, america's best days are ahead of us, that we are at the dawn of a greater day? [applause] hhm. okay. and of those of owe who think things are going to get better, do you have a sense of why? or is it some kind of a, you

know, i wish, i hope, deep in my heart i believe or like that sort of peter pan thing where you sprinkle on the fairy deaths, close your eyes? i believe, i believe tinker bell's going to come alive. look, i am here to give you some really good news which is that i think the united states is on the verge -- not tomorrow, but five years there now -- of major renaissance. and i'm going to give you the cold, hard facts of why. [applause] first of all, you know, if you look at the united states and our relation with the world, other countries of the world, how many times have you heard people and pundits including people who win pulitzer prizes say, oh, if we could only be king for a day. you know, china, they get things done, they've got a vibrant economy, people work hard. well, i'm here to tell you that of all the major countries in the world, they are all about to have big problems. i mean, big and fundamental problems. the other reason i think that

we're on the verge of a great era is not just because they're going to fall behind in the foot race, but i think there are a number of things that the united states is going to have in the next five, seven years that are going to allow us to have a new renaissance. first, i want to talk, though, about the globe. that's what i do for a living. i talk about all the countries in the world. and i want to tell you that i come to this as a pessimist. i studied nuclear weapons at mit. i'm a defense planner. i'm supposed to look at all the things that could go wrong. i look at a glass, and i think it's always half empty. but i have now concluded that, in fact, somebody else's glass is half empty, and ours is half full. [applause] let's go around the world. china, right? we're all supposed to be like china, want to be like china. china builds a city a week, a skyscraper a day in shanghai. china has had enormous and phenomenal growth for the last 30 years, you cannot argue with that. they have taken 300 million people out of abject, rural poverty and have brought them to the urban areas and given them

manufacturing jobs. that's a phenomenal, phenomenal achievement in the history of the world. but it's come at a price, and they are about to have to pay that price in the following way. you know, we talk about environmental issues. i was just in china six weeks ago. their environmental issues are overwhelming. you cannot see -- i was in beijing. you can't see across the street in beijing because of the pollution, and that's on a supny day. -- sunny day. you get eye infections, you get colds, you cannot even breathe the air. there's a story in the "wall street journal" today saying that probably somewhere between 8-20% of china's arable land is polluted with chemical pollutants and is not going to be product i. china has major environmental problems, and none of them are going to be fixed quickly. to fix them means that they've got to take a pullback in economic growth, they've got to move factory, out of areas around beijing. they're not going to do that, and they're not going to do that quickly because it's going to be

a huge price they've got to pay in their economic growth rate really. the second problem china's got is demographics, and it is a demographic time bomb. when i was in beijing, there's a park outside of beijing it's sort of like central park. it was a beautiful, sunny sunday afternoon. what would i think of if i went to central park on a sunny sunday afternoon? i would expect to see parents, strollers, kids, young people. i didn't see that. i didn't see any kids. there were no children. and when there were children, it would be one child in the stroller with four adults hovering, you know, mom, dad, granny, gramps. maybe auntie. that is a time bomb that's going to face them. china for the last 30 years has had a one-child-per-family policy x. because they favor male children, they have managed to get themselves into a situation where they're going to have a shortfall of 50 million females. they're going to have 30-50 million men who are not going to find mates, they're not going to find brides.

who knows what that's going to do to the world. when i looked at that, at the chinese in the park outside of beijing, there would be the one child, and i looked at that 3-year-old child and realized that child's going to have to support all those hovering adults because they don't have a social security system, they don't have a retirement plan. that child is not only going to -- ma tale child is probably not, you know, chances are not going to find a bride and even if he does, he's got to support maybe four adults as he goes forward. we don't know what that's going to do. we've certainly seen the opposite where because of wars male population has decreased and then women don't find husbands. we've never seen one where large populations do not find mates. we don't know what that's going to do, but chances are it's not going to be good. the next thing is the economic growth rate of china. i had dinner with the state counselor and my dinner partner was the vice foreign minister, and i said, you know, what are your big goals for the next five years? you've got a whole new

leadership generation, where do you think things are going to go? he said we're going to have economic and political reforms, and we expect a growth rate of 7% gnp. well, they're not going to get that. they're going to be lucky if they have 4% growth. they have for the last 30 years built their sort of legitimacy on the fact that you are going to work really hard, and you're going to have a better life, a rising standard of living for everybody. that's not going to happen. it's going to slow down. so if you take the demographic problem, the environmental problem, the slower economic growth problem, china's got 300 million people who are like migrant worker equivalents. they've got a big issue in front of them, and i don't know that they have the ability to deal with that comfortably. so when people say to you china's 10 feet tall, they can do everything, if only we could be china for a day, i don't want to be china for a day because i think they're going to go through probably 10-15 years of not only social instability, but

when the chinese get angry, they go to the streets. it's not going to be any place good. okay, look at russia. putin has actually danced around obama for the last five years sort of besting him at every step. but the long-term prospects of russia are not very good either. russia has had for the last 15 years a real boom because of their energy exports. they export natural gas to europe, and they export oil to the rest of the world, and that's how they make their foreign currency. in that amount of time, they've never developed an industry. they've done what a lot of petrol powers do, they've just sold the stuff, gotten the foreign money, given it out in the form of subsidies. who buys russian computers or cars or clothes? you don't. people buy russian energy. well, russian energy's about to play out. in siberia where the russian oil fields are, they're pretty much played out. there is oil, and eastern siberia, but they don't get to it unless they have foreign investment and western technology.

and when putin ten days ago went to an economic conference in st. petersburg, he was saying to them invest in russia, a great opportunity, we're going to do great things, we're building our infrastructure. not buying it. in fact, some of the leading investment companies and spokesmen were coming out and saying, oh, we're not so sure. why? because the rule of law doesn't work in russia. corruption is rampant. because they're not really sure whether they go spend and invest that money where they're going to be able to reap those profits. so russia, as much as it looks now like they've got snowden and they're outsmarting us at every step, they've got a problem going ahead. and be it's not dissimilar to the problem they had in the 1980s where they built everything on the basis of their oil revenues, and their oil revenues are declining. they're going to be on the ropes. let's go now to europe. europe, despite all the advance publicity, you know, the european union has not done very

well, and they're going to probably spend the next decade, the creditor and the debtor nations fighting with each other. not militarily, but verbally, politically. so while europe may limp along, it's not going to be an economic powerhouse people once thought it would be. middle east. i think that the middle east is on the verge -- and you're seeing it first in syria -- is on the verge of a battle between shiites and sunnis of almost biblical to portions. -- proportions. you're seeing it in syria. ..

you might not like the people that you elective but what do you do? you don't grab your gun and had to the barricade. you figured out okay we are going to regroup and do things differently. we are going to win the next election to a lot of countries don't do that. they had to the barracks. the arab awakening was in part because as a generational issue they didn't know how to elect or choose the next leadership generation. we have rule of law. russia doesn't have that pitted the have corruption and we have a rule of law so that we more or less played by the same rules. if i am in kansas or illinois or massachusetts, it's roughly the same legal system. although i may be angry at somebody for this or that, at the end of the day i have my day in court. civilian control and the

military. look around the world. women in the history of the world it's been a powerful history which hasn't tried to run things. our military takes orders from our civilian leadership even if they don't like those orders. that is an advantage we have over every powerful military country in the world. demographics. you know, i talk about china's demographics. i think that demographics and population growth i think of it as goldilocks. too much isn't good, too little isn't good either, too much and you have the arab spring and a half the population is under the age of 30. you get to japan where you have a population that isn't going to be able to support the retirement of the aging population. the united states kind of has that pretty good. when men come a subject near and dear to my heart, women in the work force the world bank estimates if you have women that are educated and participating in the workforce has probably a

15-30% boom in the gnp. we educate our women and give them equal opportunities. japan educate women that they don't work. in the middle east they don't let women learn how to read. so we have those built in advantages that i.t. will do us very well in the years ahead that we have a couple things we didn't do for ourselves that were done for us. we have a geographic advantage. we have the atlantic and the pacific to the east and west. we have friends to the north and south. we don't fight over boundaries. the chinese and russians have fought over boundaries and europe spent a thousand years fighting over boundaries. we have that insulation that we don't need to worry about our neighbors certainly not in a military sense. the other thing we've got, and to me this is a golden opportunity of the generation is we have in the last three years developed and discovered and have the potential to develop

our own energy resources to make us independent in the middle east and energy superpower. [applause] you know, five years ago i was thinking the deficit is horrible we are never going to balance the deficit. but what has happened in the last three years or so is our engineers and technology guys developed the ability to look under ground and under the ocean to look for energy. in the house they have looked, they found that the united states is probably sitting on the greatest stockpile of energy in the world. we have hundreds of years worth of natural gas and at least 100 years worth of oil and we haven't even started looking for it yet. the other thing we've done is develop the technology to get it out of the ground or out of the water safely, abundantly, secure and cheap. it's not going to say there aren't going to be problems. maybe there are technology issues. we are good at that. we can figure out how to live up

the polls of excess water and do all those things and we should do them immediately. applause] i wahink about the fact that we have energy independence and we are on the cusp of it what that will mean. not only will it create jobs in america to the did you build the keystone pipeline tomorrow there will be jobs throughout the country. the american refineries coming to start exploiting american oil and natural gas there are going to be energy jobs that will take care of that unemployment and particularly even at the lower end of the scale people who really need labor jobs. the second thing is it's going to repatriate american manufacturing to the united states. there's an investor in new york who is one of the great war and buffet investors and he said that if we have energy that is an effect freed middle of a sudden american manufacturing is going to come back to the united

states because we have a reliable system of government and educated work force and rule of law people will start building things in america again and then finally if we have our own energy who needs the middle east? [applause] we don't need to be in the lot of a mob civil war. why the country has gone to war in large part has been over energy. you know, why did world war one that was in large part because who wanted to have control over the central european fields? world war to the russians and they invaded russia because they wanted the oil fields in the ukraine. the japanese bombed us because they wanted the oil to go into japan. we fought two wars in the middle east over oil. once we have our own energy and we are energy exporters, the world comes looking on the door. china needs energy and all of a sudden is our best friend. europe is going to need energy.

they are our friends. the middle east is when to be in chaos and we will be the one part of the world, we, canada, mexico, the united states have energy that is cheap and secure. you know you can get it and guarantee your way to the market. for all those reasons the rest of the countries aren't not going to do as well we are going to do a lot better. we have an idea ahead, but i want to finish by saying that that is not guaranteed. that energy future for the united states doesn't have it automatically. it happens only because people in the united states decide we are going to take our destiny into our own hands. people talk about reagan and i was a part of that revolution. i said last year and i want to talk particularly now to young people. one of the reasons reagan was so great is because the leadership had been more or less white down. we had watergate, vietnam, the

republican conservative movement that was really sort of finish. i remember being in the white house situation room the night the white house vp, nixon resigned and thinking the republican party is dead and gone and it won't come back. it came back within ten years and it came back because reagan understood that you return america to its fundamental values. even though he himself was an old guy, it was old people that got him elected. we all conservatives, wait your turn. you are too young. you can't have the leadership job right now. you'll get there ten, 20 years. it was wiped out after watergate. when ronald reagan came in the coming he had a couple of old guys and young people got him there. we are in that position now. reagan people are too old. we are playing golf. [laughter] and the people that were part of the bush administration a lot of them decided to leave politics and leave the national scene.

this conference is great because what you are seeing is the next generation of leaders looking at people in their 40's and maybe in their 50s who are going to be the next generation of america's national leaders. they are in their forties and fifties who is going to get them there? the people in their 20s and 30s. this is your time. this is going to be a great time for american and it won't happen by accident it's going to happen only if you get out there and do it. so they talk about the rendezvous with destiny. we've got it. but if you don't step up and get us there it's not going to happen. my call to you is get out there. i don't care who the candidate is. be part of the problem -- i mean part of the solution because then you are part of the problem. we aren't going to support you forever. go out there and work for your candidates and bring america back where it belongs to the thank you.

[applause] >> you can see why we brought her back. how encouraging we have the need act. we have time for a couple questions i hope from colorado microphones and at least one from our friends and arizona. for arizona only text your question and make it brief, please your question and putting your name and the town to this number from arizona. 720-489-78-700. make is a question and a question mark. i see one right here. >> the one question regarding

the middle east is israel. what would you say about israel? >> west guy benson who is going to speak next week or on the board with the syrians where the rebels are fighting the government and we were on the jordanian border etc.. i think i notice in israel this time around a much different attitude than i have seen even two years ago. they are in an economic boom in large part because of their high-tech stuff. but more importantly, you know, too, four years ago is president obama going to have our back and help us with iran? i get the sense this time there was much more self confidence in israel. you know the iron dome is? it is a missile defense system with missiles coming from gaza and they were able to shoot the missiles out of the air.

he said we know we could do it. nobody believed we could do it. we developed our own and we have shown that we have the ability to take whatever our neighbors can give us in the war i think israel understands it's going to have to defend itself by itself. in addition israel has fought off the coast natural gas. they always say moses wandered 40 years in the desert. we found the only part that didn't have oil? wealth they've now found natural gas and they are all of a sudden self-sufficient in natural gas. they are exporting to their neighbor to i think they are going to be in a lousy and dangerous neighborhood for a long time.

we can stand with israel. [applause] you must be shy down there. don't you have smart phones what's the windel in scottsdale? text me 72489700. i feel like a tv pitchman but we have 23 minutes and the offer runs out with kt mcfarland. >> we were in the nixon administration together with carbon copies that was our high-tech purpose today. sometimes i channel mr. nixon and i want people in, rather to know i certainly never expected andrews to get this far.

[laughter] mcfarland, she had greatness from the beginning. another question from here. if you have the microphone sing out your name and question and make it concise to an estimate a continuation of that last question how what you handicap the situation with the nuclear weapon? is it going to happen and the world is going to deal with it or what? >> they've been saying for the last two years iran is a year away. they've been pushing it out in part because they develop a lot of fiber technology and the cyber attacks that have done we now know so they've been kind of ad war with iran for awhile.

they've pushed back the program but netanyahu can to the program in the fall and i don't know if any of you saw this but he had a poster of a bomb that was really kind of hokey but it said there is a red line here and israel isn't going to let iran go past this red line. he said they need three things. they need enriched uranium. we know they have that and we have to centrifuges and we can see the picture. and netanyahu said at that point they are halfway there and we aren't going to let him get all of gwader. he said about three-quarters of the way they're we aren't going to let them get all the way there. the other things they need our missiles to deliver those missiles. we know they have those and they can reach europe and ultimately develop in the united states. the third thing they need is the sort of blueprint that pulls altogether. and we feel like they have that llp and so i think that the experts would disagree whether it is tomorrow, next week, three years from now.

it safely happens in this administration how we deal with that i don't know if you look at the body language and the signal i don't think that the united states will do anything more than talk about it and give aid to israel. they've committed themselves to not letting it happen. and i do think that the new president of iran that was just selected that iran may talk about having direct talks with the united states overflowing its nuclear weapons program. but i think iran is now in its own head has gotten to the point where they think they are there and they are going to develop nuclear weapons and it is going to change the world. and it really will change their position not just in the middle east but i don't think you're going to use their weapons on anybody but what they will do is use that leverage and power that it gives them in the gulf region. so if 40% of the exported oil is

going past iran to the strait of hormuz and iran controls the street because of its nuclear weapons possession, in effect they have their finger on the world's economy. i think that once iran gets the nukes, the saudis and the other arab countries will want their own weapons and letting we will have an arms race in the middle east and that's horrible to but i'm not sure that we are going to do anything to stop it. i think that israel might and if they do, we stand by israel because once you're on gets the game changer i don't think it is a bigger picture of the united states ascendancies but it makes things really difficult. thank you. >> thank you, arizona. we can only take one of the 546 that came. thank you. i think that we will let kt mcfarland wind up with an easy question that came from scottsdale. that is what about the future of the terrorist threat? we have been told that these

word malkoff jihadis by fais president biden of the boston marathon. there is a story line that says al qaeda is part of global benghazi covered up. what do we do? >> i think that terrorism is not finished. what you're seeing are the syrian rebels. these are not george washington and valley forge. these are al qaeda affiliate's. despite what the administration said we got bin laden, it's over. al qaeda is not on the run. it is now in more places and stronger than it has ever been before. it's back in iraq and afghanistan. it's, as i said, the leading group as al qaeda and syria to get it is in eastern libya and north africa and yemen. the people that tell you it is all local problems aren't coming to get us. the underwear bomber or the christmas day bomber that was out of yemen. it is a threat.

i do not think it is an existential threat to the united states and i think with better intelligence and continuing vigilance we deal with it but i do not think it presents the kind of threat it may have presented september 12th, 2001. but by a longshot is long gone. >> the story of today is going to be i wish we had more time with phill in the blank. if you want to keep up with what kt mcfarland is doing on the national affairs based on the tremendous insight you have given us this morning send an e-mail to yourcomments@foxnews.com andy will be on her list for updates. i ask you to think about this. if your life in american politics or american culture you are known to just buy your first name. in show business its say prince of politics it's hillary.

what about when you are only known by a couple letters, jfk and lbj? what if you are only known by two letters. the famous kt. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> kt, for your art gallery at home, our illustrator, ben, has done a stunning portrait of you. can we put that up? if only she had a bigger hair. kt mcfarland. [applause] >> first a look at egypt and the u.s. aid. the national security council issued a statement it said it is not quietly cutting military aid to egypt after an article in the

daily beast came out yesterday that said the u.s. decided to halt some of the aid because of the crackdown on protesters. those protesters, supporters of the president mori. funds for each of for being reprogrammed while the u.s. continues to revisit the situation in egypt. we talked to a daily east correspondent that first reported the story. >> the administration is using the term suspended. so they are saying that it's under review and no final decisions have been made, and that is of course true because no final decisions have been made. but at the same time as senator leahy's office told me and several officials told our publication, while the review is going on the date has been suspended. what are we talking about? out of $1.3 billion in the u.s.

devotee eight, $585 billion -- million rather hasn't been delivered. it's due by the end of the fiscal year which is september 40th. so that is military financing money that isn't flowing. most people in the system see that as the lead to suspension. the administration will say it's not suspended we are just not getting it out. to senator leahy as well as talking about the delivery of some military items that the military already paid for in putting the apache helicopters and some fighters that have previously been reported by other outlets and then we are talking about economic support funds and there are lots of different economic support funds and it's a complicated account but basically some of them, the ones that will go to the egyptian government are not being the program or dispersed and in fact they are being suspended and the fact sustention meanwhile a couple of items still are flowing to get spare parts for the military and some economic support funds that

go to american ngos in the country and continue our although there aren't that many doing anything in the egyptian crisis. >> the newspaper reports the newspaper denies its spending its aid to egypt and its devalued in its aid and the administration would reach out to congress once a decision is made on how to move forward. that is from the hill newspaper. we may hear more on the topic during the white house briefing that will be here on c-span2 in a little less than an hour, 12:45 eastern. tonight on c-span2 we will have at 7 p.m. q&a with the editor of the conservative

more now from the western conservative summit on education policy and standards and something called campus group think and the dissemination of faculty members because of their political and philosophical views. we will hear from former u.s. senator bill armstrong, the president of colorado christian university and a member of the university of colorado board of regents. this is about 45 minutes. >> we have seen two different ways to do the panel and i will leave it to you this morning, guy benson spoke from the high a

stool and we saw the young voices panel make an opening statement here at the podium. what do you prefer? would you rather speak from up here? >> i would. >> okay. >> hello, everybody. my compliments on this conference. great speakers, great subject matter, and a wonderful coast to coast audience. i'm honored to be part of this and i am aware of the fact that there is a crisis in higher education. textbooks cost that much. that's not a crisis it is a problem. tuition is too high and that is a problem. it's not a crisis in my opinion. it is a serious problem though not a crisis yet that students graduate from college with way too much student debt. problem, not a crisis. parking is on tv to inadequate

on every campus in america. that is a detail. that isn't even a big problem. students gained 15 pounds the first few months the attend college, the freshman 15. that's a problem, it's not a crisis. the crisis in american higher education in my opinion is that there is 22 million students in american colleges and universities, and 21.5 million of them attend colleges and universities which are so far to the left that they can't see the middle of the road with a telescope. [applause] the reality is that they are not just liberal but many of the schools, and i'm talking about famous, important wealthy colleges and universities are actually subverting the values not only of america about western civilization.

i do not say on these campuses where 99% or maybe 98% of american students attend but every single student reflect those attitudes or every faculty members or staff member. i'm talking about what the germans would call the zeitgeist, the spirit, the overall tenor. let me give you a quick examples. on comparable christian university campus we say that jesus is lord. on most campuses they say jesus is a joke. not everybody says that that is the general spirit. this it's okay to follow jesus but don't tell anybody about it. adult site jesus authority for anything. don't look to the western tradition of either judaism or christianity to be it's not the thing to do. on the campus of the colorado christian university we say the bible is in there and giving it almost campuses, the campus as most students go to school, the bible is considered to be

irrelevant. we say moral absolutes and relativity is that a factor religion of most college campuses. we say capitalism or sometimes with deference to those that spoke just a moment ago to say free enterprise or entrepreneurship on most campuses the preference is for something quite different. when you call it socialism from redistribution of wealth, communism, social justice or whenever it is it's quite different than that the traditions of american and western civilization. we think it is appropriate for the men to lose separately from women. on most campuses, mixing the sexes in indoor manteca dormitories is uncommon. we say whatever is true and what ever is beautiful if there is anything that has a mayor it focus your thought on this. the truth of the matter is in most campuses it focuses on most things that undermine all of those values.

if i left you with the impression that colorado christian university is a little old-fashioned, maybe even know little reactionary - unit to you what i intended to communicate and if i -- [applause] if i have raised in your mind the question whether or not many colleges and universities contribute to the cultural decadence that undermines the character and martelle and future of america well then i told you the truth. thank you for listening. [applause] >> thank you. peter i think of your work of the national association of scholars in the context of the bravery, the spirit, the unwillingness to accept that something can't be changed and turned around and the same spirit saying the slave trade

must end. how lonely it must feel sometimes. tell us about the national association of scholars about the crisis in american education. >> well coming to colorado i guess i do not need to make the case that higher education or churchill knows that. it is a more complicated mess and there are these questions of does it matter and what can we do about it. i'm going to to answer those in their entirety in the next three minutes but let me say a little bit more about who i am and what nas is to be i'm an anthropologist and i studied average tribes. and right now i am studying it particularly average tried to be the only known tribe of campbell so fierce they want to devour their own civilization. i'm of course talking about the american progress of academics. i had this organization of scholars but in its own words it

seeks to foster the intellectual freedom and to sustain the traditions of the reason scholarships and several debates in american colleges and universities but now those are fighting words to the left. i will give you an example, the outgoing head of the american association of the university professors carry nelson recently said of us that we engage in the wailing about the western civilizations and the maniacal opposition to politics in the classroom being opposed to the politics of the classroom. another historian writes about seeking and ideologically -- to restructure and prioritize education and relentlessly derogatory towards the hard-working and underpaid professors. okay so there's two different views to simplify.

one is that american high your education is the best in the world and that it's only getting better, its achievements and bringing critical thinking to the students are unsurpassed. the others are that american high your education is in the rapid decline coasting on civilization of capital and not replenishing that capital. then this matter goes to the question are the best days still ahead of us and the answer from taking high year education seriously is that that is a proposition. it depends on us be more than a civilization that has prosperity, material wealth, abundance. we can have all of the cheap energy in the world and jobs for everybody that still be unworthy and profoundly miserable at a certain level. for us to have the world and lose our soul. our goals shouldn't be making

life easy for the short term that making life better for generations. the only way to do that is tico year education seriously and that is something the conservative movement has failed to do the last couple generations. to truly dry of the american education has to uphold virtue. think of what victor davis hansen was telling us. prosperity and abundance about virtue is imperial rome at its worst. it's hollywood and bears the certain resemblance to the contemporary average american college campus. now conservatives like to say that colleges indoctrinate. a few of them do but mainly what they do is shake students in more subtle ways to make the subject is disappeared and they make ideas you're relevant or out of date. they marginalize and ridicule. think of what jeneane was telling us earlier about the marginalized walking the line.

those are the ideas that matter on american campuses. it establishes an order of degradation. some things are good and bad and the bad ones and ignore. i'm out of time. i have to hold off on my answer on what to do about it until little bit later. >> take a minute and then preview that for us to the we need a robust sense of american conservatives that save our civilization to take hold of the issues on higher education. we all know what those are. the racial preference regime, the higher education bubble, the rise of the new four of flattening american k-12 education called the common core, the use of the system of the movement as a way of indoctrinating students. there's that word in the hatred of capitalism and markets. the use of the student loan

fiasco to create even more dependency among american students and the rise of the sustained towards america and the new form of anti-americanism that is the brief west we have ahead of us. what do we do about these? we make them part of our political agenda. we're right now they are the most tenuous hold on the interest of politicians who think that the way to fix high your education is to shuttle money at it and that is the worst way. >> i met dr. jim geddes as you heard when he was -- before she was a tea party or maryland before she thought of running for the school board. he was looking at that situation and she said something has to change. maybe i should be part of the

change. we want you this weekend to look at at least some of our presenters and say that could be me where he or she has come from and what they are now contributing. i would like to do the same or i know somebody that could be doing the same. we had a region in colorado but was a republican, happens to be a friend of mine but he was an individual who somehow decided that it was okay that the faculty rather than the people in the elected regional or even the appointed president would run the university of colorado. take the story up there, jim geddes. >> thank you, cementer andrews and anderson for asking me to be here today at this spectacular summit. i was particularly gratified to hear the perspectives of the young people in the prior session. i learned quite a lot.

i have to tell you i'm not speaking on behalf of the board of regents in speaking on behalf of myself and certainly not on behalf of the university as a whole. since becoming a region at the university of colorado in 2008 and focused on several issues facing the university. first is the budgeting of a 3 billion-dollar organization. a second is my favorite which is returning to the colorado buffaloes football program and basketball program to the national prominence that it used to be and will be soon. if there is anybody out there that questions me just keep to and. it will happen soon i promise. and then finally, the most important issue has already been address by the prior speakers and that is address in the intellectual, philosophical political diversity involving the faculty. i know this group is more

interested in that topic. two of my fellow regents in particular partnered in the effort to address this critical issue. tom who recruited me to run six years ago and who is in the room today. get a way of. [applause] xu has taken the baton and has come a roaring engine to be about a year after my election we were successful in proposing the guiding principle to include intellectual diversity. i can assure you that as we are and he elected a bipartisan board, this was by no means an accomplishment. unfortunately, over the last several years we were unable to receive any meaningful change. there is no question in my mind that our faculty have become quite, genius almost to the point of a group think in the liberal or progressive political and philosophical stance.

somehow i doubt i need to back up this contingent in this particular audience as we all understand this is a significant problem affecting many if not all of the major universities across the country. the group think is about as far away from the truth as we can get. and absent the diversity of the faculty, our students are robbed of the delicious soup of a stimulating and educational environment. frustrating by no discernible movement, we ask the chancellor's to report to us on any progress of intellectual diversity guiding principle. we were told that all is well, not to worry, progress is being made and the quality of education remains a superb. my response was it as clear to me that conservatives are just not welcome. as you might imagine, this was not well received to date of the

public meeting we propose to resolutions. the discrimination against individuals because of their political or philosophical view to the same level of concern and political does panaria actions. for the religious preference, race or gender identity. the second resolution was to obtain the campus climate survey of the university performed by an independent outside entity in order to access the intellectual diversity and to determine whether discrimination is occurring against the members of the university communities. the resolution passed unanimously and will be expeditiously implemented.

[applause] we hope to know which results this winter. during the hours of discussion and testimony that resulted from the introduction of the resolutions, professors marrec and robert, both highly respected and articulate conservators' gave testimony describing their own experiences and observations and both described a uniformity of the faculty with a strong effort of bias. >> you're doing fine. >> don't keep us in suspense. the american association of university professors has registered objection to the board actions including our plans to obtain the survey. you may read these comments published in the journal inside of higher education published during the first week of july.

among other concerns, it was claimed that our can this survey was an ideological survey and may lead to a political litmus test in our hiring or assessment of our faculty. mauney response is that nothing is intended or allowed by the current law in the region. my counter concern to the aup is that it appears to be eager to uphold the fine principles of academic freedom as it benefits and enhances their careers and even the agendas of its member professors. obvious consequences are the current strong system and hands of mandate to the university of governing bodies the faculties in general have been loath to take responsibility for the protection of the intfaculties in general have been loath to take responsibility for the protection of the integrity of our most cherished principle of

academic freedom. throughout the free world, we expect academic freedom protections and privileges will apply to all participants with in higher education. unfortunately faculty hiring practices have resulted in quite how much oeneus faculties. what a tragedy for the higher education and subpar for education. thank you. [applause] >> jim geddes i must have been hearing things. that was fascinating and encouraging in the same way a small flickering flame would be in a dark and cold might. i must have been hearing things. you didn't say that the resolution passed unanimously with both democrat and republican and putting some moderate republicans all voting yes to the campus survey.

some of the campus survey did and the other was supported by the region's bid for technicality. excuse me, technical reasons referred to the falls and policies committee and the further processing. >> i want to underscore for the delegates at the senate this is extraordinary to obtain the bipartisan unanimous without consent 9-nothing vote on the public scrutiny of a major liberal dominated state flagship university faculty as intellectual and political diversity. the very fact that the aaup, which is just a union, folks, it is no different than at the yourcomments@foxnews.com nea the republicans could come together on that. jim geddes, another round of applause for amazing accomplishments.

[applause] >> brahimi corona welcome back to the platform. not so long ago i knew you as our soccer captain and prison ministry leader and in your spare time on campus i will never forget -- step up their please -- i will never forget when brittany corona to ghana for speaker of the colorado house democrat andrew and didn't just take him on that took him up part about the fallacies in his assumption that somehow the government could create the wealth by redistributing well-deserved at the heritage foundation now and as you work on the education policy shift us to the que 12, would you let brittany? >> i would like to talk as a former student of colorado christian university how i can to understand the education as being more than just text ready.

the atrocities that we had was a push for pre-que for the kindergarten movement and for the college and a career readiness for the pre-k students, due for-year-olds need to be college and career ready? that doesn't seem conducive pitted it isn't just the occasional ready. there is something about the people at stake here. i learned that. now the panel is called self government education in crisis. i think i would be amiss if i didn't talk about what exactly that meant when the founders said we are going to be a government society, limited government. this is what is conditional upon that is an educated citizenry not only an educated citizenry but one that is a moral citizenry. now this is not going to happen from the national level and the founders knew that and this is why they opened up that civil

association. states, localities, families to take hold of what education should be and ought to be and fostering that virtue within children. this isn't the state of education today. especially with the k-12 education. we are no longer a government subject to serfdom and college is often too late, not all college students. they should be lucky to have a kind of restored education as i did at ccu and talk about the administrative push in the k-12 education. in 1965 this is the push for the education the congress passed an elementary and secondary education act under the notion of the conference compensatory education spending meaning that it would be best if the

taxpayers' dollars would be pumped into the education system to up the educational outcome. now this wasn't the case. what it did do is create a washington k-12 education. its authorization on the note child left behind act saw the same thing where the 600 pages of the federal regulation were pushing the case through 12 education and 25 billion-dollar price tag to deutsch. so from 1970 we spent a total of $2 trillion on education with very little as far as educational outcomes are concerned. this is education expenditures tripling since the 1970's. academic achievement has virtually flat wind since then to get half of the biggest cities in the nation we see the students do not -- 50% of students do not graduate high school. that covers about 50% in denver. one-third of the fourth graders

cannot read. the achievement gap between white and minority students persist and we continue to be in the middle compared to the international competitors and we are currently spending $10,000 per pupil with little to show for it. so that's to under 37 years after the founding we've come to a fork in the road in education pure on one side of his educational freedom in the form of school choice and then on the other side we have the greatest push up the washington national common core education standard. milton friedman, his birthday is next wednesday by the way and was the father of the school trace movement. the school choice movement came under the idea that educational opportunity, giving parents the ability to move their students and their children out of the zip code confined area would allow competition and a greater opportunity. we have seen this in the form of the vouchers, tax credits and

savings accounts. but the biggest threat that has hit us on a common standard is again the washington law by the then pushes the idea that spending more money wouldn't equal more educational outcome. we haven't seen this since 1970 and the $4.3 billion of the federal incentives on no child left behind waivers that signed on to the common core pushed by the obama administration are not likely to induce any further educational outcomes either. the threat to school choice is at stake. we see the standards being conformed to the common core. the common core national standards to and few of results can of $16 billion would be the price tag over the next 13 years or the next seven years for the common corestates, 45 in total. what does it contain? standards that are poorly sequenced and do not use the

help of a bounce and english standards that omit the classical education and low of informational text only. so choice for the centralized education in a common core national standards. so we have a choice to make. are we going to be self-governing society or are we going to be a society of people governed. it's going to start with education. [applause] brittany corona, thank you. the vice president for academics, chris leland. chris, talk about what's wrong and how to make it better and the beachhead for change. i love my students. i paid them the lead i come with many hats on today because one of the hats is the honor to work

as a professor in education in a place like ccu where you have heard about what is happening to the professors and what is happening in the classrooms. the second half by where is timely because it is from this weekend. i've been driving back-and-forth from colorado springs because there has been a charter school strategic planning conference going on for the school that i head up as the president of the board and to the questions are exactly the same whether we are talking to parents of kindergartners or of aggregate students. the other hats that i where i've been a school board member, local public school board member with one of the founding members of the charter school the institute's board which is an often rising toward a share in colorado. all of those cats have kind of come to the head as we begin to talk about what is the biggest problem? because parents will tell you -- i look at all the problems you we have heard of the problems in the last few minutes to be able

to say do we really -- it is almost too much. what happens in terms of the cultural shift is a paradigm shift and we do that because of accommodation. we end up somehow accommodating what you mentioned the zeitgeist , whenever the spirit of the age is and in education we have done two things to accommodate. first we've got an incredibly busy and we have what of the sort of family structure go away a little bit. the second thing is we have allowed the education enterprises to take over all of the responsibility for what we should be doing as parents. i am the data of four boys from 20 down to 12. understanding there is an investment that we have to take, one of the ways i want us to do that is to understand there is no magic bullet to the i don't believe there is any one policy or move i believe in school choice and i think that we ought

to be on all fronts be willing to fight for those kind of things. we want to be able to turn the empowerment of the education system back to where it should be in the household with the family and the parents. but that means getting the parents involved from the very beginning of the whole process. [applause] he want us to be able to address some of these questions so one of the ways in which i watched the accommodation occurred when i first sat on the public school board, a textbook companies would come in and was a relatively small district so money was tight. but what it meant is the textbook companies would come in and say we are going to get you all this stuff and they would lay all to this equipment and

resources. and i've watched the of administrator gloss over like they were a kid in a candy store. what struck me as a school board member then a is we have never bothered to ask what is in the textbook. we never bothered to value to look at what are the ideas that are foundational to the textbook. do we agree with them? does anybody bother to review this? the interesting part of it was every single one of those people -- and this is the sort of mantra of the education enterprise especially from the federal government era, the mantra was you need to do this because it is new and improved. the reality that i come to find out in my years of education is new and improved and is rarely either of those. i don't think that we need new and improved pyrrophyte think that we need to return to the tried and true to the [applause]

>> thanks so much. we are about to go to the text and questions and continue to text those in and we will move quickly through a number of them in the time we have remaining. i want first however to ask president armstrong to tell you about something -- is part of the ccu distinctive -- and i think i have one here. a laminated card that contains 12413 strategic objectives in the colorado christian university. if you're interested kawlija out the website and there is a strategic objective tab. when president armstrong came to the office in 2006, one of the advances and the challenges that he made to the administration and every student was the focus on the strategic objectives and particularly one about how we would impact the culture. think of lots of colleges and universities and perhaps one that you would attend and wish

you hadn't you wouldn't be able to write down what they stand for on the two sides of a pocket card or if they could write down what they would be afraid and embarrassed because they know the trustees and parents would run to the exit. so how refreshing that colorado christian university cares about what we are about to say a thing about the strategic objective. >> it is a fact that we have adopted a series of strategic objectives both for purposes of giving a compass by which the institution and for the truth in packaging so that anybody come inside or outside of the university knows who we are and what we stand for. the first of these objectives is to honor christ and share the loved and around the world. and second is like on doing. teach students to trust the bible and the evangelist these objectives of course are exactly the opposite of what the students will get from television and the general

culture, the movies and so on. we are in that sense counter cultural. other objectives have to do with academic achievement, with teaching students to learn, to think for themselves. i have been the key to happen to be convinced we don't need another generation of men and women who get most of their thinking and ideas about religion, sex, money and politics from oprah winfrey and jay leno. then we have objectives on culture as john pointed out. is it our intention explicitly to impact our culture in support of traditional family values, the sanctity of life, the biblical understanding of human nature and therefore the larger government for the free markets rather than the regimented markets or the average of all intent of the constitution and compassion for the poor and support for the western civilization which was basically drummed out of the high your education in the 1980's, but it

is coming back and we are willing to bring it back. we are excited about the opportunity to be clear about who we are and it's interesting that in the era when most private colleges and universities are declining enrollment, that our enrollment is rising and rising quite rapidly to the and we believe it is because we are frank to say we are not for everybody. but we want every single student that god is calling to come and be with us and they are coming in greater numbers. the traditional program is up about 8% this year in the year when most schools are down 2% and the adel and a graduate program as of in a moment about 25% and we think it will be again of about 25% next year, because people know what you're getting, we are not misleading them and we are rallying people to return to the ideals that are the greatness of western

civilization and of our beloved country. .. >> to make it better. start with peter. >> set real admissions standards that show the students that you care about the content of their education and not just picking their pockets for tuition dollars.

[applause] >> admission standards. how about chris? >> i want parents to engage. i think we sort of drop kids off at orientation, and we don't ask critical questions about what it is. i mean, i will hear things about things that are read by my sons, that type of thing. it's worth a phone call. i love that as an administrator, being able to talk to parents whether we agree or disagree, be able to engage. >> britney, i bet working in washington you encounter your contemporaries who had a very different and often less gratifying undergraduate experience than you've had. maybe this question comes particularly to you by way of contrast. what are you hearing that makes you feel awful good about your ccu degree? >> well, i think it's everything president armstrong just said about talking about western civilization, a different type of education and what the true education ought to be, not being purely to create

information-driven robots as was spoken about before. but, rather, to be knowledgeable citizens. but if i could answer, also, the other question, i think from a congressional stand point we need a switch to fair value accounting as far as interest rates are concerned. because part of the reason we're going to be shoveling money into higher ed is we are not having an accurate understanding of the risk for student loan debt. >> jim, how practical would it be that people who love what they heard that you and your fellow regents are accomplishing or setting in motion with the survey and perhaps ultimately voting in that strong statement of principle, how realistic would it be that they could go back to particularly other taxpayer-funded state schools and say how about follow in the lead of ccu? >> if we can get it done up there, i think that will happen. i think there will be a change in the standard of the quality of education on our campuses. >> when does the survey come in? >> we hope to get it by our spring -- excuse me, our winter

retreat, in january. >> and what is the outlook for passing the strong statement of principle into the laws of the regents to make intellectual and political discrimination as unacceptable as racial? >> i think it's, essentially, 100%. it's just being massaged a little bit by the laws and policies. we'll come back this fall and i expect and anticipate a unanimous vote of adoption. >> so, president armstrong, as you talk at a peer level with the heads of other colleges, universities, christian or otherwise, taxpayer funded, do you have a sense that we could be part of a positive contagion from ccu to other institutions? >> absolutely. i agree shoveling money at the problem is not the answer. to the extent that public funds are involved, i think it's time to de-emphasize the massive public subsidies to institutions and whatever funds that legislators wish to make available for higher education, give them to the students as vouchers and then let the market sort out the outcome.

[applause] and with respect to private institutions and public institutions like ours where tuitions are likely to rise, everything in the world is going up in cost. that is likely to happen. and to make it possible for students to bear that expense without going into debt, we believe in working your way through college. so we've created at ccu, and i commend to every college and university in america, a program to get students jobs in areas of their vocational interest so that if they're taking an accounting major, they get a job in an accounting firm. if they're taking biology or a health sciences major, a job in a hospital. what we have in the last two and a half years, found 300 students real jobs. not internships, paying jobs that pay about $12 an hour, gives a better educational experience, gives these students the inside track to get a job when they graduate, and gives them the money that makes it possible for them to graduate with little or at least much

less student debt than they'd otherwise have. [applause] >> all right. for our last topic, let's get in the time machine and look ahead 15 or 20 years, and it may happen even faster than that. last night as we heard from ron packard of the k-12 online education innovator and as the name implies, they operate from kindergarten through high school, but two of you at least have texted questions about the potential of the internet and the web. i think this one is very well phrased. is there a potential for lower cost and better quality college education that also teaches american values using more internet and less brick and mortar? what do you think, peter wood, as far as the online education not just changing some of the economics, but perhaps favorably impacting the content of

education to values and to learning and also the diversity, the political openness that jim is working on? >> well, i'm conflicted on this one. i think that 10, 15 years from now there may be as few as half as many colleges and universities that we have right now. a great wave of destruction, creative destruction is going to come through, and we will find ourselves faced with the task of figuring out how to do college education that preserves and transmits values and civilization in a medium that is not really friendly to that. eliminating the personal relationship between a well educated teacher who cares individually about his students and replacing that with the mechanisms that online education provides seems to me to be both inevitable and somewhat scary.

>> what's happening with online at cu and its peer institutions, dr. gettis? >> well, there's a lot of activity in that arena. so-called mooks -- >> massive open online course. >> thank you, because i don't think i could have done that. [laughter] but there's a lot of interest. and i, for one, don't know how that's going to play out. i would like to say that i certainly support, if you won't tell the other regents or anybody else, what senator armstrong just said about the state should award what monies they have in the form of a voucher to their in-state college students and let them decide which university or college is best suited for them. >> here, here. [applause] >> you know, the toughest job of the board of regents, in my opinion, is to control the bureaucracy of the university of colorado. think for a minute, as i do, that it's very analogous to a large government bureaucracy.

it's made up of employees who are lifetime employees of the university. naturally, they want to embellish their own salaries and benefits, and they want to see the university advance. in their minds, sometimes that advancement is simply telephone aggrandizement of the university. it's a real challenge for us, and there's tremendous pressures placed on us. but over the last few years, we've had some, brought some pressure to bear, and our hope is that we can hold down these tuition increases, and we have some strategies in play to do that. >> thank you, doctor. i made the analogy earlier specifically in introducing to you peter wood of the national association of scholars the wilbur force analogy. i want to conclude on that. you've seen, most of you, the movie "amazing grace." walden media marvelously brought it to the big screen, the heroic

wife of the christian statesman, liberator. and think of how lonely it was at first. but he would not relent, and things moved his way, and the compelling logic and moral force of his vision prevailed. and something happened across the atlantic and the united states partly as a result of what wilbur force accomplished in the british parliament against all odds. as we thank now these education reformers in the best wilbur force tradition to turn around what's not only tragic and wrong, but very dangerous to the survival of our nation and our very civilization, in the wilbur force spirit, we thank regent jim gettis, peter wood of nas, national association of scholars, the heritage foundation young rising star and

ccu graduate, britney britney k, chris leland and the originator of western conservative summit, you ain't seen nothing yet and president of colorado christian university, bill armstrong. panel, thank you so much. [applause] >> and looking ahead tonight here on c-span2, on "q and a" at 7 p.m. eastern, we'll hear from crystal wright, the editor of the conservative black chick log, she talks about how her parents became her inspiration. and then at 8:00 on booktv we'll hear about the u.s. supreme court and some of its historic cases. the first book, "chasing gideon." then martin clancy and tim o'brien talk about their book, "murder at the supreme court: lethal crimes and landmark

cases." and we'll finish up tonight at 9:45 p.m. eastern with sarah garreland and her "divided we fail: the story of an african-american community that ended the era of school segregation." all those tonight here on booktv in prime time on c-span2. expecting a white house briefing here any moment. starting shortly with deputy spokesman josh earnest. and while we're waiting, want to let you know that on friday we'll be covering a new hampshire event with texas senator ted cruz expected to attend, part of our road to the white house 2016 coverage. and the host of that event will be new hampshire's republican party. we talked recently to a reporter about questions about texas senator ted cruz's citizenship. we'll take a look at that now. >> aaron blake covers national politics for "the washington post". texas republican senator ted cruz is making news regarding his citizenship.

what is he saying? >> guest: well, basically, ted cruz released his birth certificate in a story in the "dallas morning news" that was posted late sunday night that talks about an issue that we've been looking at for a little while which is can ted cruz run for president and serve as president? he was born in canada to a u.s. citizen mother and a cuban father, and there has never been a president who has been foreign-born like that. so legal experts generally agree that he probably can serve as president, but it remains somewhat uncertain whether or not that's the case. >> host: so legal experts are claiming that he is a canadian citizen. beyond acknowledging that news, what is he doing in response? >> guest: well, you know, i think this is all part of a rollout for him. he's certainly sticking his toes into the presidential process. he was in iowa earlier this month, and he's going to new hampshire on friday for another event. those are, obviously, two very important states in the presidential process. so i think this was an effort by

his team to get this issue out of the way and have this debate at a time when the heat of the campaign is not being waged and when they can kind of work their way through it without the distractions that are involved in a campaign. >> host: so is he officially renouncing, then, his canadian citizenship, and if he does that, how public can we expect that to be? >> guest: well, yes. about 24 hours after the "dallas morning news" story was published, cruz's office put out a statement saying that, basically, he did not know that he was a canadian citizen, he never actively sought that out, and his mother told him that he had to do something in order to obtain that. they basically have said that if, indeed, he is a canadian citizen, he will renounce that citizenship in order to kind of put this issue behind him and reinforce the fact that he is an american citizen and a united states senator. >> host: will that be a public event or something done quietly? >> guest: i doubt it will be a

public event. i think they would rather just get past this issue, and i don't think anybody's going to necessarily doubt that he has renounced it if he says he has. it's not something that he's laid claim to and promoted in any way. so i think he's just as happy to put this behind him. >> host: so now he could still run for president in 2016 without changing that status, and he could have dual citizenship, or am i wrong about that? >> guest: you know, it's -- i don't think that there is anything that prevents him from running for president if he had dual citizenship. i do think it might be somewhat of an impediment if people know he's also a canadian citizen. i'm sure that there are voters out there for which that would be an issue. but the bigger issue and the one that people are focusing on is the tact that he was -- the fact that he was born in canada and whether or not that qualifies him as a natural born citizen under the u.s. constitution. >> host: is anyone drawing parallels between senator cruz and president obama's citizenship question? is he facing the same kind of

heat as the president? >> guest: yeah, you know, republicans and people who adhere to the so-called birther movement who have questioned the president's legitimacy to serve as president say that the media basically is engaging in the same kind of treatment of ted cruz that it has denounced when it comes to president obama. the situations are different though. with ted cruz there's not really a dispute over the underlying facts. it's more of a legal question about whether somebody born abroad can be a u.s. president. with president obama much of the controversy, and i think the reason the birther movement has been denounced by the media and other people, is because there was a disagreement over the underlying facts and whether or not the president was, in fact, lying about being born in the united states. so, you know, insofar as they both involve eligibility for being a president and questions about where somebody was born, they are similar. but really the underlying issue is different in each case. >> host: as you mentioned, senator cruz has a political event this friday in new hampshire. c-span will be covering that, by the way.

should we expect to see some hubbub about this topic during that event? >> guest: of course. you know, this has been the kind of focus of the political community at the beginning of this week. it's a slow news week. it's august recess, obviously, so there's a lot of focus on presidential politics. and ted cruz is a very buzzy politician these days. he's out front on the defund obamacare movement which is very topical right now and, you know, going to states like new hampshire and iowa is just going to further the idea that he's giving it a hard look at running for president, and i think he's really going to be a big part of this dialogue going forward because he is so popular among the conservative base. >> host: aaron blake is the national politics reporter for "the washington post". we thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you. >> and talking about senator ted cruz there. reportedly considering a presidential run for 2016. and, again, we'll bring you that friday event from new hampshire. it'll be held at the home of

former ambassador joseph patron. we'll have coverage on the c-span networks. senator ted cruz will be attending that event. and in "the hill" newspaper while we're waiting in the white house briefing room for the briefing to start, want to let you know that the white house has been denying that it quietly suspended u.s. military aid to egypt, that it's actually just evaluating its aid and that the administration would reach out to congress once a decision was made on how to move forward we egypt. again, some of that reporting from "the hill" newspaper, and we may hear more during today's white house briefing. we'll take a look at the daily beast reporter who first talked about this issue and the controversy about u.s. aid to egypt. >> host: josh rogin who broke the story for the daily beast, senior correspondent. the headline on your piece is from a senator, obama

administration secretly suspended military aid to egypt. how did you find this out? >> guest: well, thanks for having me on this morning. actually, the primary source of this article was senator patrick leahy. he's the chairman of the state and foreign ops appropriation subcommittee. i basically just asked a lot of people what was going on with this $1.3 billion of u.s. annual military aid to egypt, and senator leahy's office said very clearly that their understanding was that the aid has been halted. i investigated a bit further, and what i found was that despite the fact that the administration's review of military aid is ongoing, in fact, the obama administration's going through a broad review of the entire u.s./egypt relationship, while that review is ongoing, they've decided not to disperse any, most forms of the military aid with some exceptions. this was a decision made to observe the restrictions in law that would be applied if the administration had determined

that there was a coup in egypt desite the fact -- despite the fact that the administration has determined that. that's a mouthful. >> host: yeah. so temporarily suspends, what does that mean? where is the money in the process, and what impact will it have? >> guest: right. now, we should note here that the administration public line, they're disputing the term "suspended." so they are saying that this is under review, that no final decisions have been made, and that is, of course, true because no final decisions have been made. but at the same time, as senator leahy's office told me and several administration officials told our publication, while that review is going on, the aid has been suspended. so what are we talking about? we're talking about out of $1.3 billion in military aid to the egyptian government, $585 billion -- million dollars, rather, has not yet been delivered. it's due by the end of the fiscal year, which is september 30th. so that's foreign military

financing money that has not, that is not flowing. most people inside the system see that as an aid suspension. the administration will say, well, it's not suspended, we're just not giving it out. to senator leahy, that's a distinction without a difference. we're also talking about delivery of some military items that the egyptian military's already paid for indeluding some -- including some apache helicopters and f-16 fighters. and then we're talking about economic support funds, and there are lots of different types of economic support funds, it's a really come toly candidated account. but basically, some of them -- the ones that will directly benefit the egyptian government -- are not being programmed. they're, in effect, being suspended. meanwhile, a couple of items still are flowing; spare parts for the or egyptian military, some economic support funds that go to american ngos in the country can still continue. although there really aren't that many american ngos doing many of the things in the middle

of the egyptian crisis. >> host: so does that mean then that the administration has effectively defined this as a coup? >> guest: so what i think the best quote i got was we've decided to act as if there was a coup but not saying publicly that it was a coup. in other words, they don't know what their final decision is going to be. so they're going to act as if there was a coup and enforce the law as if there was a coup, but once they say there was a coup or if if they were to say there was a coup, then the law would actually kick in, and that would place even more restrictions on them, restrictions that they don't want to deal with, restrictions they don't want to have to answer to if they want to restore the aid at some point in the future. so they're basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. and what they're trying to do is say, oh, we're being -- we're being on the safe side by acting as if there was a coup, but we're not actually going to say a coup, because we don't want to be hampered by congress and by

the law in the case that we might want to reverse our decision later. and, you know, in a sense they're trying to preserve the flexibility on implementing their foreign policy, but at the same time tear trying to protect -- they're trying to protect their credibility in egypt. a very delicate balancing act that most people inside the system don't think that they're striking quite perfectly. >> host: all right. so who are the critics, and what are they saying? >> guest: well, the main critic is senator patrick leahy. he's a democrat. he's a human rights advocate. he started something called the leahy law which is supposed to stop the administration from funding militaries that are currently engaged in gross human rights violation. i mean, most observers, not all, would say that what the egyptian military's doing on the streets of cairo and other cities is not something that we want to support by directly giving them hundreds of millions of dollars. there are also a lot of critics not just in congress, but also in the community, in the human

rights community and also inside the administration. i mean, there are a lot of seem who feel very bad about what's going on in egypt and believe that the aid should be suspended not just because we don't want to have the blood of the egyptian people on our hands, but also because, you know, this could be used as a piece of leverage, a piece of pressure along with other pressures to try to get the egyptian military to stop its sort of policy of arresting islamists, killing protesters on the street and rolling back democratic reforms throughout the country. >> host: so, josh rogin, i mean, what role would congress play in this, if any? can the administration do this without consulting congress? they have control of the pursestrings. >> guest: right. so, you know, the problem here, of course, is that, you know, congress has not been passing appropriations bills in a timely manner for quite some time now, and they're not very effective in coalescing around any policy

in congress. so the administration here is calculating, perhaps correctly, that they. [audio difficulty] >> guest: they can't agree, nothing really gets passed, and the administration always has sort of a national security waiver which they've used to sort of just set aside congressional restrictions on u.s. aid to egypt. the bottom line here is that foreign policy is the administration's progress ty. congress does play a role but not the key role. you know, congress also plays the role of sort of being a sounding board and airing pressures in the public space that the administration does respond to. but in the end, it's president obama's foreign policy, and he's

going to do what he wants with it. and what he wants to do right now is sort of take a pause, stop the flow of aid largely to egypt while his administration looks over the whole relationship. but it seems clear that they don't have a policy that they're ready to commit to, so this is why they're sort of taking issue with this notion that they're suspending the aid because, you know, they want to preserve the flexibility so that if they want the aid to flow in a couple of weeks or a couple of months or a couple of years that they can go ahead and do that and not be accused of reversing themselves. >> host: all right. well, it would appear that the polls might be on the side of the president. in the pew research poll released yesterday shows that 51% of americans think the united states should cut off military aid to egypt, put pressure on the government there. >> guest: right. so, you know, foreign aid never really polls well. you know, not a particularly popular thing. there's not a huge constituency for foreign aid, and that's usually the case. you know, typically foreign

policy decisions are based on polls for that very reason. what i would say here is most experts that i've talked to don't believe that cutting the foreign aid even if the administration were to do it on a more permanent basis would be enough to pressure the egyptian government to change the calculus as they're engaged in an existential struggle for their own survival. let's keep the countries have pledged $13 billion to the new government, more than ten times what the u.s. is holding over their heads. so, again, it's not ever going to be enough to hold the aid to pressure the egyptian military to stop doing what it's doing. on the other hand, there is the issue of u.s. culpability in u.s. assistance to military government doing bad things. and perhaps people believe, especially experts, that a if we're to take these steps publicly in conjunction with

other countries, it could have some mitigating effect. the bottom line is we just don't know how much influence we have. it's probably not that much, and the egyptian military doesn't really seem to be listening to us, especially right at this point. >> host: all right. well, with all that on the table, we'll turn to our viewers. josh rogin with "newsweek"'s daily beast, senior correspondent. go to thedailybeast.com. thank you, sir, for your time. appreciate it. >> guest: of course. >> host: josh rogin for the daily beast breaking that story this morning. we turn to all of you. republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3882, and independents, all others, 202-585-3882 for ip dependents, democrats, 3880. numbers are on your screen. about that pew research poll, here's some more numbers for you from it. it said when polled americans, the poll found that 50% think that president obama has not

been tough enough on the egyptian military. below that, though, who would provide better leadership for the egypt, 45% said the military. 11% of americans said the muslim brotherhood would provide better leadership for egypt. 19% said neither, 25% said don't know. what is your take on this? u.s. temporarily suspending most military aid to egypt, the administration doing it quietly, and josh rogin reporting on it as well as other news outlet'ses this morning. let's hear from lawrence in washington d.c. thanks for hanging on the line, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i want to make it brief, but i just think that it's pitiful that after supporting mubarak for over 30 years, the united states is continuing to give aid to the military. i think many americans misunderstand what the muslim brotherhood is all about. they have this mistaken notion that it's some sort of terrorist

organization. it was a coup, they should have said it was a coup. they did the same thing in honduras by refusing to admit that it was a coup, and i just think it's a sad situation, and i am definitely part of that 51%. thank you. >> host: all right, lawrence. on facebook here are some thoughts for you. make it permanent, and xavier smith says we need to suspend all foreign aid, and christian bryant says that as well. we need to permanently suspend all aid to everyone. if you want to post your comments on facebook, go to our page, facebook.com/c-span. march sell in columbia, south carolina, republican caller. hi there. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i'm an egyptian-american citizen, and i haven't been in egypt for 19 years, but i saw everything online, and i listen to all the tv and everything, and i still have family over there. i'm a coptic christian.

if president obama wants to us pend the aid, that's fine with egyptians because that's already -- [inaudible] give egypt already -- [inaudible] all egypt needs is to come from saudi arabia and russia and china already moving into egypt. originally given to egypt since 1979 for the -- [inaudible] camp david treaty was israel. so the aid was given under condition egypt would keep the peace treaty we egypt -- with israel so i think it would be fine with egyptians right now. it's not a coup. how it could be a coup when

three months -- [inaudible] 33 million people went to the streets, christians and muslims, modern muslims. and the muslim brotherhood have been burning the churches. right now over 70 churches and businesses were burned. >> host: let me stop you there. the los angeles times this morning below the fold on the front page has this story, egypt's sectarian subplot. and they report this, that the assault of a coptic organized church was one of scores of attacks on egypt's churches, monostairs and other institutions this week since the coup that overthrew islamist president mohamed morsi have become an incendiary subplot to the intensifying nature being waged between morsi's muslim brother hood movement and the military-backed government.

have you talked to friends in egypt, and you speak to this a little bit? [inaudible] i'm talking to -- [inaudible] i have all of -- [inaudible] i'm listening to the tv. they have been saying it is a coup, not a coup. we are going to have an election over there, they have got to have the new, what do you call it -- anyway, the law on everything got to be -- they end up having an election. egypt needs some time. right now all the muslim brotherhood are just -- [inaudible] and kill -- [inaudible] >> host: so do you support what the military is doing right now

in egypt? >> guest: yes, i am. we are supporting the military, okay? all the christians are -- [inaudible] show the american people that the military over there. >> host: okay. >> caller: a lot of educated seem -- [inaudible] >> host: okay. all right. i'm going to leave it there, thank you for the call. north of boston tweets in this: u.s./egyptian policy could be to wait on the sidelines and wait for a winner to emerge, then buy in with the winners. yesterday defense secretary was asked about, chuck hagel, was asked about egyptian aid and the violence there. here's what his response was to the question. >> there's not a consistent call for capitol hill one way or the

other, as you know, on this issue. but more to the point, we have serious interests in egypt and that part of the world. this is a very complicated problem. we continue to work with all the parties to try to help as much as we can. facilitate a reconciliation, a stop of the violence. our ability to influence the outcome in egypt is limited. it's up to the egyptian people. and they are a large, great sovereign nation, and it will be their responsibility to sort, to sort this out. >> host: defense secretary chuck hagel when asked yesterday at the briefing about egyptian aid. that was his response. front page of the miami herald

this morning, this headline on egypt. mubarak may leave prison soon. a judge set aside some charges tbeps the former dictator who was ousted in the rebellion that led to the recently-overthrown islamic government. reporting from cairo, former egyptian president hosni mubarak who is on trial for the deaths of hundreds of protesters in 2011 may soon be released from prison after a judge set aside a corruption case against him. mubarak, 85, faces another legal challenge, and there's the possibility that prosecutors could file new case against him to continue holding him. that's in the miami herald this morning. and then the front page of the washington post, saudi leads efforts to back egypt's military leaders, a forceful effort by persian gulf monarchies to back egyptians. egypt's new military leaders exasperating a fierce be struggle for influence in the inegg creasingly leaderless arab world.

on monday saudi arabia promised to compensate egypt for any aid that western countries might withdraw in response to the harsh tactics employed by egypt's leaders to quell protests by supporters of the deposed president in which nearly a thousand people and nearly 100 police officers are reported to have been killed. saudi arabia is the largest contributor to a $12 billion aid package pledged by gulf countries since the july 3rd coup that ousted mohamed morsi dwarfing the $1.5 billion that leaders are pressuring the obama administration to us pend. but the unusual bold foray into policy represents a big risk, jeopardizing its reputation as leader of the muslim world and potentially harming its relationship with washington. that story by liz sly on "the washington post." next to that, security forces

arrested the spiritual leader of the muslim brotherhood on honed night in an escalating showdown with the influential islamist movement that has led to the ouster of egypt's first democratically-elected president and some of the bloodiest urban violence in its modern history. so those two headlines as we get your take on the united states temporarily suspending most military aid to egypt. here's a tweet from joy who says: military aid is only part. need to cut economic aid off as well. and this from joseph ramirez, the egyptian military has been a friend to america. tough deal for us, but other arab countries will make up the loss. mike, vermont, republican caller. mike, what do you think? >> caller: well, thank you for having me on. >> host: good morning. >> caller: on your show. i think that egypt has been a steadfast ally for 30-plus years, and i think we should continue the aid.

i think the united states would have much more influence in the long term if we continued the aid versus not continuing the aid. who knows, maybe the russians, mr. putin might just step right in on it, you know? i think the united states needs to back its allies even when it's difficult at times. that seems to be a leadership issue in that regard. >> host: hey, mike, can i get your response to steven simon, he's the executive director of the international institute for strategic studies, and he writes today in "the new york times": america has no leverage in e egypt. he goes through the history of past administrations trying to

influence mubarak or whoever it was that led egypt to no avail and continues on, with the current obama administration, $1.3 billion won't buy democracy, it never has. >> caller: well, we're not trying to buy democracy. i think the last evening i watched the ambassador from egypt speaking on the television, and the aid that we give egypt is more of a contract that we have in providing stability to the whole middle east. and i think that's an important issue. you know, we're not trying to buy democracy. we've been trying to do that for 0 years, right? -- 30 years, right? so i think it's apples and oranges. the aid has a -- as the ambassador from egypt said -- [inaudible conversations] >> that actually would be fun.

you were all about fun yesterday. >> i know, i know. >> nice to see you. packed house today. i'm sure you're all here to see me. um, i actually have little announcement at the top for you. i wanted to talk to you a little bit more this afternoon about the president's upcoming bus tour through new york and pennsylvania. he is going to talk about his vision for insuring a better bargain for the middle class. he's given -- [inaudible] [audio difficulty] insuring middle class families have access to economic opportunity. so there are some pretty compelling statistics that you can see behind me about what a

problem this is. average tuition at a public four-year college has more than tripled, tripled over the last three decades while family incomes have barely increased. the average student today graduates with more than $26,000 in student debt. now, what we do know is that americans who are able to get a college education, those who graduate from college, have the power and capacity to earn more, and they have a lower unemployment rate. so the kind of investment that you make in a college education pays off in real economic terms. now, there is also a study that was published today that shows that the federal government is doing more than ever to open up the door to a college education to middle class families, that the federal government is providing more assistance than ever before. but government assistance can't keep up with skyrocketing costs.

so what the president believes that we need to do is we need to fundamentally rethink and reshape the college, the higher education system, and we need to find a way to build on innovation. so the president on this pus tour will -- on this bus tour will lay out some fundamental reforms that would bring real change to the way we pay for college education in this country. now, the proposals that the president's going to lay out are not going to be popular with everybody, but they are going to be in the best interests of middle class families, and the president is looking forward to having that discussion over the course of thursday and friday in addition to riding on a bus. so with that -- >> you tell us what the reforms are? >> well, you'll have to wait til thursday. i don't want to give away the secret now. [laughter] >> josh -- [inaudible] sometime before thursday? >> there's a possibility we may do that. >> can you give us a sense of --

[inaudible] >> we'll have more on that this week. it'll be good. stay tuned. all right? julie, i'll give you the first one. >> thank you. turning to egypt. >> >> yes. >> senator leahy's office told the ap earlier today that the administration informed the subcommittee on foreign operations that the u.s. has stopped military aid to egypt. the daily beast had a similar report. is this what the administration has told lawmakers? >> julie, what i said to you yesterday and what i -- let me start over. what i said yesterday is true today. in the early july the president of the united states directed his national security team to conduct a review of the assistance in aid that we provide to egypt. this is part of a complex and broad relationship that we have with the egyptians. that review that the president ordered in early july has not concluded, and reports to the contrary that -- published reports to the contrary that

suggest that assistance to egypt has been cut off are not accurate. >> but while you're conducting this review, has the aid stopped? >> well, let's back up and do two things here. the first is there are some things that we have announced that affect the aid and assistance relationship that we have with egypt. for example, the administration about a month ago announced that the scheduled delivery of f-16s had been delayed. the president announced in a statement yesterday -- last week that the joint military operation known as bright star had been canceled. so there have been some steps that this administration has taken. but it's important for you and your readers to understand that providing foreign assistance is not like a spigot. you don't turn it off and on or turn it up and down like a faucet. assistance is provided end sodically. it's provided in -- >> i get that. >> those tranches are under an ongoing review. >> but while you're undergoing this review, we do know that

there is about half a billion dollars in military aid that's scheduled to go to the egyptians by september 30th. that hasn't gone to them yet. is the policy of the administration that while the aid's under review, you're going to be holding that back, stopping it and waiting until this review finishes before deciding to send it? >> there's a, an ongoing review of our aid and assistance relationship with egypt. >> so you're not saying what senator leahy's wrong, he's saying that the aid has stopped, and one of his aides says this is not official policy. i'm just trying to understand, is what senator leahy said correct? >> well, i haven't seen the swirety of senator leahy's remarks. >> he said u.s. military -- [inaudible] not necessarily official policy, and there's no indication of how long it would last. >> the aid, our aid and assistance relationship with egypt is under a review, but it has not been cut off. a decision to cut off aid, a decision to cut off aid would be

announced if it were to be announced after that review had been completed. that review -- >> he's not saying it's been cut off, he's just saying currently stopped. >> right. well, i think if i were trying to make the same case that you are making here, you would be suggesting that i was engaged in a game of semantics here. >> we are kind of -- >> and i'm trying to be as candid as possible with you about what exactly our policy has been. we have been pretty forthcoming about what our policy has been here. we announced publicly the delay in the f-16s, we -- the president himself announced publicly the cancellation of the joint military exercises. the president himself publicly directed his administration to conduct a broader review of our aid and assistance to egypt. and that aid and assistance is ongoing, and no determination or conclusion of that review has been, has been reached at this point. >> the aid and assistance is ongoing, it's being set, it has not stopped. >> well, again, it's not like

a -- this is not a faucet in which you just turn the spigot and assistance continues to flow. assistance is provided end sodically in tranches, and that is the way that this works. so this is not a matter of turning the dial one way or the other. this is a matter of taking a close and careful look at the assistance that the united states provides to our partners in egypt. and that evaluation is based on a few things. it's based on insuring we're in compliance with the law. it's based on an analysis of the national security interests of the united states of america. that's the focal point of every foreign policy decision that the president makes. it's certainly an important part of this calculation. but it's also affected by the actions taken by the interim egyptian government. this interim egyptian government has made promises to transition back to a

democratically-elected, civilian government. the violence that they perpetrated last week has continued at least into the weekend and the early parts of this week are contrary to that promise. and that factors into our review of this aid and assistance relationship. but to suggest that a decision has been made about that aid and assistance is just not accurate. >> [inaudible] >> maybe it's not. i haven't seen his statements, but if you're asking me what our policy is, i think i've just tried to explain it to you. >> quickly then, speaking of the egyptian military and their actions, they've detained the religious leader of the muslim brotherhood s there any reaction to that? >> we've spoken out pretty forcefully about politically-motivated detentions. that is not in line with the standard that we expect other governments to uphold in terms of respecting human rights. it's certainly not the standard that the egyptian people expect of their government in terms of upholding basic human rights. so this is just the latest in a

series of actions the egyptian government has taken that doesn't reflect their commitment to an inclusive political process, to respect for basic human rights like the right to protest peacefully, and it certainly is an act that's contrary to a legal system that's insulated from politics. okay? thank you, julie. roberta? >> in -- [inaudible] the united states was able to make the determination to turn off the spigot of aid -- [inaudible] [laughter] president made a statement today about the election and the outcome. i'm wondering, i guess, how close the united states is to resuming, to making the decision to terminate -- [inaudible] >> i know this is something that's currently being evaluated by the state department, by the state department and i think at the department of defense. so in terms of the logistics

that are required there, i'd encourage you to check with them. >> okay. so the white house has no comment on whether the president or the white house would like to see -- >> this is something that's being reviewed by the state department and department of defense, so i'd encourage you to check with them. >> okay. the other question i have is as you know the -- [inaudible] president faces the challenge of working, finding a way to work with congress to keep the government running and make sure the united states can continue to repay its debt. so under -- [inaudible] using his time leading up to that e do bait to focus on issues like higher education, jobs and infrastructure rather than using it to find a way to move forward on those immediate fiscal issues -- [inaudible] >> when i say that i genuinely appreciate question, i genuinely do appreciate question because i do think that it will provide some insight into you how the president, provide some insight for you about how the president considers these broader issues

that will be the subject of some debate in the fall. be -- about how are we going to make sure that the congress takes the kinds of steps they should take and put in place the kinds of policies they should put in place to support our economic recovery that's gaining traction. too often we see congress put in place policies that actually undermine that economic recoveriment -- recovery. and threatening a government shutdown or threatening to default on the full faith and credit of the united states of america would undermine the economic recovery that's starting to gain some traction. the way that the president considers these policy questions is through the prism of what's in the best interests of middle class families all across the country. and he believes that we need to offer up a better bargain for middle class families. and that means expanding

opportunity for middle class families by looking for policies that will create jobs, but also making sure we put in place policies that will open up the doors to a high quality college education for more middle class families. that is a, that should be a domestic priority. that is a domestic priority of the president's. and our ability to make progress on expanding economic opportunity for the middle class is the president's top domestic priority. and so when we're dealing with these larger budget and economic issues that are related to the fiscal year 2014 budget and the debt ceiling, the president's going to evaluate agreements that we can reach with congress on those things by what impact they have on the middle class. so i think it is entirely appropriate that in the leadup to those debates that the president make clear to the american public and make the case to the american public about why the priorities that he's identified for the middle class are also going to be the priorities that he uses to

evaluate policy decisions that are contemplated by congress. all right? jessica. >> josh, an effort to clarify the state of u.s. assistance to -- >> that's why i'm here. [laughter] >> would you just view the following statement. >> okay. >> aid is not currently flowing to egypt, so there is no aid to turn off. >> i would dispute that statement. it's my understanding, i'm not steeped in all the details here, but it is my understanding -- >> military aid. >> -- there are tranches of assistance that have gone to egypt. so, again, this is not part of -- there are also some that have been stopped. the biggest ones have been stopped. this is the delay in the delivery of the f-16s and the cancellation of the, of the joint military exercise known as bright star. i think the department of defense talked about this a little bit today, that there have been -- >> military aid. >> -- in comparison, rell

thetively small packages of assistance that have gone to egypt. >> military aid. >> you'd have to talk to the department of defense about the nature of that assistance. but we're talking about assistance to egypt and whether or not it's stopped. and while you're right, it's not like a faucet, you can't just twist the dial off and on or turn it occupy up or down, hotter, warmer or colder, but it is evaluated in tranches. and while that, while those, that broader package of assistance is under review, there are some smaller packages that have moved forward. >> so, and would you dispute the assertion that aid has been reprogrammed while this review is underway so that it's in a position to be turned off officially if the review decides -- if administration officials decide that's where the u.s. should be? >> i'm not sure i understand every word of your question, but relate me take a couple -- let me take a couple pieces. it's my understanding that the

use of reprogramming is not accurate. i know it's in some of the reporting, but that's not accurate. others have suggested one of the things the administration's is doing is trying to preserve some flexibility so that the outcome of that review can present the president with a range of options. that, i think that would probably be maybe a more accurate way of describing this than what you have posed in your question. >> would it be accurate to say that the u.s. as we speak continues to flow military aid to egypt? >> well, again, you've used the word flow, and i've said that -- >> provide military aid to egypt as we speak? >> well, that's the same thing as saying we haven't cut -- it's inaccurate to suggest that we've cut off aid to egypt. i mean, we can go round and round on this. i'm trying to be as clear and candid as i can. >> but you're not confirming that we're currently providing military aid to -- >> again, because it's not like the faucet is turned on, right? it's not. >> we understand that. >> it's not a faucet.

what we are doing on a regular basis is we are concerning individual tranches of assistance. >> and i just asked if it's currently going there, if there's currently aid being provided, and you said, yes. >> no, no, i think what i said -- well, we can go to the transcript a little later. what i'm trying to suggest to you is that there is a broader review that's underway of our assistance and aid relationship we egypt, and that aid and assistance is not a faucet that's turned on or turned off. what it is is a package of tranches, a series of tranches, and each of those things is evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on the criteria i laid out, the actions of the law and the actions of the egyptian government. so this is a review that is ongoing, and it is done on a case-by-case basis as we need to evaluate each of these tranches, so it's hard for me to say whether or not -- >> -- that aid is not, you're

not stating that aid is currently going to egypt. you want to label it -- you will not affirmatively state that. >> the reason is, the reason i will -- the reason i think that is the wrong way to describe our position is because it's not a situation, it's not a question of whether or not it's happening right now, right? >> [inaudible] >> well -- [laughter] maybe that's the question for wolf blitzer, it's not the question for me. the question for me is, is the united states reviewing our aid to egypt? we are. is that assistance, does that mean that you are no longer going to provide assistance to the egyptians? it does not mean that. >> officially. >> officially, what do you mean? [laughter] i don't understand your question. >> you're saying that there'll be an ultimate determination made. >> there will. >> right. we're asking what's happening in the interim period. >> okay. and i think that's a legitimate question. the fact that we're in an

interim period should make that you're acknowledging it should make you skeptical of reports that we've cut off aid to egypt. that's what the reports indicate right now, and i would encourage you to be skeptical of that. >> that's a straw man, josh. >> no, it's not. that's exactly what the reports say, they say aid's been cut off to egypt, and that's not what our posture is. >> >> but nobody in this room has posed the question that way. i think the question that most people are trying to ask is has there been instances in this sewer rim period, during the period of review, have there been instances and will there be instances in which tranches of aid that would have been gone out -- would have gone out without a review are being held back or delayed or put on pause or whatever phrase you want to put be so that -- [inaudible] the president of whatever flexibility he may wallet. is that part of what's happening? >> i think you're being a

helpful contributor to the conversation, so -- [laughter] >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> turn the spigot on. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> deposit them there. what i would say to you is this: as i mentioned in answer to jessica's question, what are -- where tranches of aid have gone out since this review, the department of defense said today the answer to that question is, yes. i don't know the nature of that, you should ask them about that. so if you want to know what's happening in this interim period, at least some assistance has gone out. the other thing i can confirm for you is because we have not made a decision -- [inaudible] it is possible that additional tranches of aid could go out. but that's being evaluated on a case-by-case basis. and, again, it's hard for me to say that we're switching it on and off because, again, it's not like a a few faucet. -- a fauce.

but it is an ongoing review of specific tranches of aid, and that's where we stand. is that clarifying? at least a little? >> josh, can you answer -- try it this way. senator leahy's aide says, quote: the transfer of military aide was stopped. >> and i said that that's not true. that we've not -- >> so senator leahy's wrong. >> it's under view. i'm not going to make a declaration like that. what i'll tell you is that our aid is under review, and to suggest that that aid has been cut off is inaccurate because that review has not been concluded. >> where why won't the administration say there was a coup? he was running it, people were not happy with what he was doing, but he had been elected. military came in and knocked him out of office and put him in prison. why is that not a coup. >> >> what we have said, ed, is that it is the view of this administration that a determination about a coup, about whether it occurred or not

is not a determination that is in the best interests of the united states. that what we are going to do is we're going to set aside this decision about whether or not a coup occurred and evaluate our ongoing relationship with with t in a way that maximizes the national security interests of the united states of america. >> this administration prides itself on transparency. >> i'm being transparent with you, ed. >> you are now. >> and i have been for a week. >> but why won't the administration be transparent with the citizens writ large -- [inaudible] >> and what i'm saying to you is something that is available to anybody who seeks an answer to this question which is that we have made the determination that making a decision about whether or not a coup occurred is not in the best interests of the united states. we've been with very candid about that. we've been candid about our posture related to a aid and assistance. we delayed the delivery of f-16s. that was a decision that was announced publicly.

we canceled a joint military exercise known as bright star. that is an announcement that the president himself made in martha's vineyard last week at the beginning of july, the president announced publicly that our review, that our aid and assistance relationship with egypt was under review. we have made these announcements and these decisions public, and we've explained to them, to you and your viewers why these decisions were made and why these actions were taken. >> a couple other quick ones. what do you say to our allies like israel and saudi arabia that are saying they are backing the military government and that the u.s. should be backing the military government in egypt because they're going to bring stability maybe not today, but in the long run, they're bringing stability. what do you say to our allies? >> well, what i would say to anybody who asks is that we have expressed our strong concerns, in fact, our condemnation about the failure of the interim government in egypt, the one you're referring to, to respect

basic human rights. in fact, they went beyond just disrespecting those rights and perpetrated terrible violence against many be peaceful protesters. that is something that this administration and the president himself is deeply concerned by. there are a range of reasons why we're deepliened, but one of them is this is a government that took power promising a prompt transition back to a democratically-elected civilian government through an inclusive political process. the killing of peaceful protesters is not in line with a promise to transition back to a democratically-elected civilian government. so our concerns are that this interim government is not living up to the promises that they made just six or eight weeks ago. >> last one on the nsa. regarding a newspaper following on everything that was discussed yesterday, the guardian is saying that british authorities destroyed several hard drives

that -- because they wanted to keep secrets that edward snowden had leaked from actually getting out. they were stored in the guardian's -- they had some hard drives. british authorities went in there and destroyed these hard drives. did the american government get a heads up about that the way you did about the person being detained? >> i've seen those, the published reports of those accusations, but i don't have any information for you on that. >> does the u.s. government think it's appropriate for a government, especially one of our allies, to go in and destroy hard drives? >> the only thing i know about this, you know, are the public reports about this, so it's hard for me to evaluate the propriety of what they did -- >> would not do that, would not go into a an american media company and destroy hard drives even if it meant trying to protect national security. >> that's very difficult to imagine a scenario in which that would be be appropriate. okay? major. i am going to the get back to the back row still. so stay on your toes back there.

>> is the administration also reviewing, because this is a longstanding relationship with egypt which has a dollar amount that's been relatively -- [inaudible] for many years, about $1.5 billion. as it puts together and looks toward an appropriation bill for the next if fiscal year, do you want less money to go to egypt? not just existing law, but it may come to the president for his signature in the next three to four months. >> i can tell you that part of this review involves careful and close consultation with members of congress. we've heard a variety of opinions about how best to manage the ongoing situation in egypt, and certainly, some of those opinions have been communicated forcefully. but certainly it's appropriate for them to do so given the role congress has to play here. so -- >> question going forward because there's a lot more money in months as opposed to what little remains this fiscal year? ..

>> i to receive imf votes which the united states -- >> the united states is the largest donor to the imf. i believe we exercise some veto authority or decisions that are made because of that status. i know that -- yet to talk to imf about the valuation of the political climate and what impact that would have on aid

they provide to egypt. even a novice like me would observe that what's happening there right now is probably not good for the evaluation that's ongoing. i think the same would be true of foreign investments. that is a critical part of the strength of the egyptian economy. and they depend on foreign companies making a decision to invest in that country. i'm the last person to get investment advice, but again, companies are going to evaluate the political climate of the country when they're making these investment decisions. the impact of those decisions could have on the egyptian economy are significant. >> because i'm going to take the bait on the student loan thing, the president made some references to that in the state of union. will be go beyond the statements he gave and will this require additional expense? >> i don't want to get too far ahead of his announcements, and we will have at some point some of our policy experts who can --

[inaudible] >> what i would tell you is that there will be proposals he on what the president -- it will be included in the president's remarks this week. >> the president believes one reason college tuition is going up is because there's sort of an arms race. there's more federal assistance,. [inaudible] and for parents are trying to keep up, they continuously fall behind. >> you are debt identifying something the president has talked about before publicly which is this idea we need to rearrange the incentives a little bit. maybe we need to align the incentives with colleges focusing on reducing costs per student, or at least limiting the rapid growth of these calls. the president has mike is how we can better align federal assistance with a commitment on behalf of colleges to keep costs low for students. and that will be part of something that the president will talk about.

>> also addressed some reason audit evaluations that the federal government has now replaced the banks and a collector of a lot of interest and profits, if you will, from student loan operations. >> one of the chief accomplishments the president first term was finally getting, eliminating subsidies that were paid to the banks that they would provide a student loans. what they did was that freed up a lot of additional money to expand educational assistance our students all across the country. that is a significant accomplishment and some he campaigned on and delivered in his first term. i don't know if, i'll encourage you to stay tuned about whether not the president has more to say about that later this week. i'm going to move around. let's see here, steve? >> before going to martha's vineyard, an interesting column about marijuana. [inaudible]

wondering if the white house has any reaction to that column? and also, if the president has been personally looking at that issue, given that the polls on marijuana have changed quite a bit since he took office in favor of legalization. is there any change, his outlook on a? >> steve, when i called on you i don't think i ever could've predicted that this was the question you're going to ask. [laughter] that was really in the potpourri category of questions but i have to confess i did not see the column you are referring to so it's hard for me to comment on it at this point. peter? >> the egyptian prime minister said he doesn't fear civil war. does the president year civil war in egypt? >> the president is very concerned about the violence that we've seen in egypt, and seems to be particularly the

violence that is emanating from government sources, from government soldiers and government security officials. that is something the president is very concerned about, and he talked about in his statement on thursday about the responsibility the government has to protect its citizens and to protect the basic human rights of its citizens that they are there to govern. so that is the violence the president is concerned about, and he and other senior administration officials are concerned about the violence spreading and a destabilizing impact it could have not just within egypt but within the region. >> this will conclude the conversation about tranches. we know we've discussed bright star and the cancellation or the delay in terms of delivery. are there any tranches had nothing like what's presently taking place in egypt taken place? would anything have happened differently?

would anything have happened different in terms of the tranches either being delayed or held for separate of time? >> i hesitate to evaluate the counterfactual you've set up. only because my detailed knowledge of these tranches is limited. so i guess i would encourage you to check with the state department and defense department on that because they'll have a little more detailed knowledge of what kind of tranches are under consideration right now. >> industry, 35 refugees were described by committing aid workers on the ground there as one of the biggest waves of the last five days. the joint about i think it's like approaching 2 million syrians who have fled. is the u.s. getting any closer to removing assad from power speak as well, let me set couple things about this. the first is the president himself has talked about, about

his concern about the refugee situation in countries that neighbor syria. he has talked about the humanitarian condition, some of these reviews are living in very difficult conditions there, either often women and children that we're talking a. the united states government has provided to other countries in the region significant financial assistance to kind of meet some of those humanitarian medical needs that the refugees many. the president talked about this when he was standing next to the king of jordan earlier in the spring, earlier in the month. he's also talked about destabilizing impact that these refugee populations could have on other countries. this is an has been increasing years a a pretty volatile region. and adding this broader shift in refugee population to that mix only makes the situation more complicated and maybe even more volatile. so we're certainly concerned about the impact of these refugee populations, and it is a

direct result of the violence that the assad regime has perpetrated against the syrian people. >> arpeople. >> are we closer to getting assad out of our? >> that is first and foremost, that is the goal of the syrian people to have a government that reflects there will. that is also, we are providing assistance. that's also the goal of other, of our allies around the world and other countries within the region. and that remains the goal and we continue to provide assistance try to reach it. in terms of evaluating sort of where we are on that scale -- [inaudible] >> well, i think there's no doubt that there is pretty broad international intent there about, about exercising this regime and it needs to leave power, and the way in which, and how and the way in which he conducted himself as delegitimize his authority. so i think on that front, yes, the progress has been made but there's no doubt whatsoever going continues to be a terrible situation.

>> one other topic if i can. in the eighth largest city in the united states, san diego, the mayor there is facing a recall effort, and mediation that we have heard through cities of reports right now. even the mayor of the city has conceal what he did was quote inappropriate and wrong. does the president have any opinion about whether bob filner should remain -- >> i haven't talking about. >> why wouldn't the president choose to weigh in on this issue as many other leading democrats have come as he is a leading democrat in a major american city, given the ax that he concedes to you and the president has spoken out against? >> i haven't spoken to the president about this here. [inaudible] we strongly condemn the

statements that were made by prime minister erdogan today. suggesting that israel is somehow responsible for recent events in egypt is offensive, unsubstantiated and wrong. statements like these only distract from the urgent need for all countries in the region, and, frankly, many leading countries around the world, to work together through constructive dialogue to address the food and dangerous situation. jim? >> also on egypt, and interview with the prime minister, he said that the goal of the authority -- returned the detroit to democratic settlement, that judgment. [inaudible] six and nine months when the election. is that a timetable the united states supports? >> i haven't seen the full text of interview so it's hard for me to wait and. other than to observe that the actions that we saw from the erdogan government at the end of

last week and over the weekend are entirely inconsistent with any democratic reelected government. you would expect a democratically elected government to respect the basic human rights of the people that they are elected to govern. and this interim government, egregiously and grievously violated the human rights of innocent protesters, peaceful protesters in egypt. and that's something that the president himself has personally condemned, and is something that continues to be a subject of concern you at the white house and across the administration. administration. >> understanding that is your position on the violence, is there any encouragement in these words, again, egyptian government saying that they tend to hold elections within six to nine months. is that an encouraging sign? >> i think at this point we're going to evaluate the position of the interim government when

it comes to democracy based on their actions, not on their words. and that would include as a very first preliminary step beginning to respect the basic human rights of the egyptian people, and to at least signal a transition to an inclusive political process. [inaudible] >> that would include ending the detention. >> on the other end, is he said the egyptian army would survive without the united states support, and reminded the world that at one point the egyptian people went with the russian military. what is the response of the american government on that? >> i did see part of that interview, that section of the interview. i think he made a reference to the impact of canceling u.s. aid being bad in a military.

i was a couple things about this to our relationship, the united states, the relationship between the united states in egypt is a deep and multifaceted one. they have been allies of the united states for quite some time, and our deep ties between american people and the egyptian people. that the our egyptian americans in this country today who are concerned about the safety and well being of the family members in egypt. so there's a lot at stake, that the united states has in this situation, particularly because we are genuinely interested in the success of egypt. that's one of the reasons that we have this deep aid and assistance relationship that we talked about so much today. the united states seeks a thriving, growing, stable of egypt. and some of the actions that we've seen from the interim government did not contribute to that stability, and to a nation that's thriving.

so, i think the other point that i would want to make here is that the relationship between the u.s. in egypt goes beyond just the aid and assistance that we are providing. that our actions here in the u.s. will have an impact on the foreign investment decisions that are made by countries around the world, that are looking, or at least better considering an investment in egypt. the relationship between the united states and egypt is going to have some bearing on those investment decisions. the me c be said of the imf decision and the decisions the imf to support the egyptian economy. the relationship between the united states and egypt will have some bearing on the outcome of that decision. tourism is a key component of the egyptian economy. the relationship between the united states and egypt is going to have some bearing on the decision of thousands of people who are considering whether not to travel to egypt to view the

antiquities there. so there's a whole range of ways in which the relationship between the united states and egypt will have an impact on the success of egypt, and what we are oriented towards is a set of policies and of relationship that will solidify the relationship between the united states and egypt, and the broader success of the nation and the people of egypt. >> one final thing on beau biden. the white house put out a rare statement on beau biden yesterday. i presume because the vice president traveled -- >> that's right. >> is the vice president has the vice president to change any schedules? is expected back in washington today? what can you give us about that's because i don't have any updates about the vice president's schedule. i know that his staff is committed to keeping you, all of

you updated on his travel arrangements and on his schedule for the remainder of the week. for example, i know that the vice president is partly scheduled to join the president in scranton, pennsylvania, for an event on the college tour. there's one other thing i can tell you about this, which is the president had the opportunity to speak on the telephone with the vice president over the weekend on this topic. in that telephone call, the president offered his good wishes to beau, and told the vice president that beau and the rest of the biden family would be in his thoughts and prayers. i can also do that a lot of people all across the country woke up with beau biden on the mind and in their prayers. and i can tell you that's true from the white house. >> switch to the miami dolphins. you took a question yesterday about how this team, what did you find that? >> i have to admit, roger, i'm not the other person is not exactly sure how this event came

to be. i would have to talk to a couple of other folks and didn't get an answer. but i'll do some more digging and see what i can come up with. >> did it come from the dolphins? >> again, i don't know exactly how this exactly started, but we're certainly excited about the potential. >> josh, since your type by the president and his college tour, and how college makes -- [inaudible] there's an issue right now where they are very concerned -- [inaudible] of something called the parents federal loan that has now -- where parents are now being rejected and many schools are losing money. apparently if you have a blemish on your credit report over the last five years you were not getting that loan. what is the president saying

about this? is he planning on meeting with university presidents? what is in the state department going to do? >> i'm not aware of the specific meeting request but i can certainly take a look into it. the president, and this administration, have been strong supporters historically black colleges and universities all across the country. funding for those colleges and universities -- the president was pleased to have the opportunity earlier this spring to speak at commencement at morehouse college down in atlanta. so the record, the present record on these issues, he has a bias in favor of the universities because of the service they provide and because of a quality education they provide to the student the entrance of this issue with the parents plus loan, i'm not familiar with his specific policy issue but we can try to find somebody here at the white house who can talk to you about.

[inaudible] we understand a million students from mainstream colleges are not able to go back to school because their parents have blemishes on the credit report and they're not getting this loan. at least a couple hundred thousand students. this is an across the board issue. >> let me have somebody in dpc get in touch with you and we can walk through where we are on that issue. spin there will be a cabinet level meeting this afternoon here in the white house to discuss this egyptian a digital is that true? >> the president will convene a national security council meeting with principals in, on his national security team to talk about this issue. the president convened these needs on a regular basis but that will be the topic. >> how pivotal, you said this has been under review for some time for the present to be involved with capital of officials. we're getting closer to a decision. where are we? >> well, what i would say is

that these kind of national security meetings are not uncommon, the president does share the money pretty regular basis and i'm sure it's not even the first one they've had on this topic. at this point i wouldn't anticipate any major announcements related in the immediate aftermath of this meeting. >> what time do? >> i believe it is at 2:30. i can doublecheck on that for you. >> switching topics a little to the looming fiscal issues next month. before congress left -- [inaudible] republican senators, the president told his folks briefly -- where are we? acid in progress or of these meetings ongoing? war only when they come back to? >> well, i don't know that there any meetings. members of congress are scattered across the country in the home district. so i don't have any specific meetings to read out to you.

i know that our position on this is something we've articulate to you in a variety of forums. i think it would suffice it to say that threaten to shut down the government would have a terrible impact on our economy. and the president is focused on putting in place policies that would be good for the middle class and be good for our economy. and you know, like i said, threats to shut down the government will only undermine what is starting to gain some traction. >> [inaudible] spent i don't have any specific calls to reach out to you, but the lives of many patients remain open. >> you said the biggest tranche, the aircraft is available. is it safe to say that any other large tranches of aid will be stopped going forward as they have over the past five, six

weeks of? >> i think what's? >> i think would say this is where evaluating these tranches based on, on a case-by-case basis but we will evaluate each one. i know it's been publicly reported that there isn't some point a scheduled delivery of apache helicopters coming at. that's something the department of defense knows more about than i do, but that is an example of the kind of aid that is currently under review. a decision about the delivery of those helicopters has not been made at this point, but when it is we will make an announcement about that in the same way that we announced a decision on the delay in the delivery of f-16s. >> what would have to change on the ground for those helicopters to be held? >> we are evaluating a case-by-case basis and is an ongoing review. the context of the review actions -- includes actions taken by the egyptian government. it's hard for me to let specific criteria, but i can observe for you generally that continued violations of basic human rights don't make the transfer of that

age more likely. >> last one. >> could you please, just to follow up, a as the president making the call seems got back from vacation day the lawmakers are other heads of state to discuss -- >> not that i'm prepared to read out at this time. >> is a fossil? >> of course it's possible but nothing i'm prepared to announce at this time. thanks everybody. enjoy the afternoon. enjoy the dolphins. >> as they mentioned early on and britain, president obama will be talking about making college affordable. he will be starting a two-day bus trip on thursday in upstate new york and pennsylvania. you can find coverage of the president's stops on the c-span networks as details become available. tonight on c-span c-span2 in pr, 17, q. and a. we'll hear from crystal right come the editor of the conservative blog. ..

>> well, i'm also worried about is, like, all the gay rights stuff, like, i'm thinking this