the eviction of families in east jerusalem by israel's government. after that, an update on the affairs department on the new gi bill. the reporters asked the white house about health care and taxes. we will also hear from senate republicans lamar alexander and jon kyl on that topic, later. . .

>> this is about 20 minutes. >> let me start by a welcoming minister judeh to the state department. our partnership is based on mutual respect and interest and our work together enhances the security and prosperity of both carnations, and we hope, the larger region and the world. today the foreign minister and i discussed a wide range of issues. i think the foreign minister -- i thank the foreign minister for jordan's help. the vision and courage of the late king hussein, and now under

the courageous leadership of his majesty king of go up -- abdullah, jordan continues to plague of vital role. we're working with the israelis to help the palestinian authorities to take steps to make that policy. the foreign minister and i discuss this effort and i appreciated -- i expressed our deep appreciation of the jordan state working with other states in deeds as well as work. i also thanked the foreign minister for jordan's help in building a strong iraq and the assistance that they had given to iraqi refugees. we are assisting the government of iraq with the return of refugees who wish to come home and be part of a new or rock.

we are a principal for -- we are thankful for jordan's hospitality. our partnership has proved both durable and dynamic. we will continue to work together in areas ranging from assistance with education, health care, and water programs to border security, a good governance, and regional security. i look forward particularly to continuing to working with minister judeh on that partnership, continuing to demonstrate the way forward on a comprehensive two-state solution for the israelis and palestinians. >>, thank you very much, madame secretary, for your gracious welcome, for your kind words. it is truly a pleasure to be here. and speaking of the year -- of being here in the state department, you welcomed a few

other guest a few days ago. may i please say that i spent a long time and firing this building from outside when i was a young students at georgetown. i was wondering when day if i would be standing here and who i would be standing next to. it is truly an honor standing next to mrs. clinton, today at dedicated servant and secretary of state. madam secretary, when i was here with his majesty the king here in april we had excellent discussions. but that was not the first time i met you. i met you on the 26th of october, 1994. it was a hot day full of promise and hope, the signing of a jordanian-israeli peace treaty. there have been raised hopes and

shattered hopes, and many of us and downs since that day. it reminds me of our discussion today. the issues between ed jordan and u.s. been beyond friendship but rather a true partnership, a commonality of vision. this has been put to the trust -- test many time, but we have been stronger for it. if you allow me, we discussed a whole range of issues today, at heart of which is the u.s.-led effort to launch -- relaunch peace discussions. conflict is a u.s. and international interest as well as an arab and israeli interests. this is the only gateway that we can collectively address and meet other challenges in the broader region. the kiev jordan has tartly work

for their realization of comprehensive peace in the middle east, guaranteed by palestinian statehood, the return of arab territory occupied since 1967, and other goals. this will bring about a normal relationships and 57 arab and muslim nations. -- between israel and 57 arab and muslim nations. we thank all of our friends in the united states for your serious focus an intensive early engagement from day one. we support these efforts and we're committed to do everything that we can. the u.s.'s leadership and demonstrated commitment presents are rare opportunity to cross the finish line once and for all. we all have our responsibility to assist in work, in action, and demonstrating leadership, and to ensure its success. our mission is not to move forward to get where we were.

we must move forward to where we should have been in the late 1990's as envisioned and even beyond. the shape of the future palestinian state are quite clear. the adoption of all the arab countries and the merc -- an arab world of the peace treaty of 2002 emanates from collective recognition of those parameters. many would say that it is time for israel to reciprocate. in the middle east there has been in the past and over investment by the parties in pursuing confidence-building measures, including transitional arrangements. and over emphasis on gestures. as his majesty but said, there has spent too much process and too little piece. that is no longer sustainable and what is required and needed more than ever is to achieve

peace. what we need is confidence- building measures, confidence- rebuilding measures, i should say, and create a conducive environment for those initiatives. we need to ensure stopping detrimental actions more than just bold gestures. in this context, the continuation of settlement activities is not only illegal and illegitimate, but does not help generate this needed and firemen. equally other measures of the occupied west bank and in east jerusalem, such as home to immolations, demolitions, excavations near the holy sites is not acceptable. by the same token, inflammatory rhetoric on both sides is equally counterproductive debt -- counter under debt -- counterproductive. as has been discussed in april, that should be avoided,

including piecemeal approaches that never lead to peace and have proven repeatedly to be a confidence-your writing. the restoration of faith and the appropriate environment can only be achieved by clearly highlighting be in game. president obama's statements regarding peace in our region in his speech in cairo last june, and your article police support regarding the need to stop all settlement activities, are resonating very well and are restoring faith in the impartiality of the u.s. and a great level that is values system represents. this is a change that we can all believe in, reflect upon, and build upon. serious and committed benchmarks must be launched on all sides and at the point at all would be willing to make the next

concurrence doubt -- the next concurrent step. i wish to express gratitude of your support provided to jordan. this is facilitated our drive forward in experimenting -- expediting the transformative agenda of his majesty. thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to have this discussion with you. i assure you that you will find in jordan has always a reliable, sincere, and steadfast partner, ally, and friend. >> bank is so much, minister judeh -- thank you so much, minister judeh. >> deal have an update on the americans being held? and it is not officially confirmed by the iranian government. what would be your opinion of

having strong sanctions, including sanctions on gasoline and other refined petroleum products? >> as of a few hours ago, we did not yet have of official confirmation that the iranian government or an instrument of the iranian government were holding the three missing americans. we asked our swiss partner's which represent our interests in iran to please pursue our inquiries to determine the status of the three missing americans. obviously we are concerned. we want this matter brought to a resolution as soon as possible. we call on the iranian government to help us determine the whereabouts of the three missing americans, and return them as quickly as possible.

with respect to the potential actions that might be taken by the international community, we're not going to be commenting on what might or might not be done. we have made it very clear that we wish to engage with the iranians in accordance with president obama's policy to discuss a broad range of issues. that would be a bilateral channel which we have communicated to the iranians, and we continue to engage in multilateral challenges -- channels, most importantly the p5 + 1 channels. that represented to put forth a proposal some months ago but we have not received a response to it. we are working closely with developments and run. i held a videoconference this morning with a number of our diplomats around the world who

have expertise, with respect to iran, and we discussed what they saw happening, what they thought would be the responses coming from the iranian government, what was going on inside iran. so we're not prepared to talk about any specific steps. but i have said repeatedly that in the absence of some positive response from the iranian government, the international community will consult about next steps, and certainly next steps can include certain sanctions. >> alike ask you both about the issue of evictions from east jerusalem. these are steps that are taken to force the states as " in the territories that are disputed. the occupation continues to lose

some many arabs. it is emotional and a time when arabs are asked to take confidence-building measures. how much to actions like that disrupt what the u.s. is doing? and if i can ask minister judeh how that leaves arab nations and arab politicians trying to push forward to peace? what can be done for condemnation? >> these actions are deeply regrettable. i have said before that the affection of family and demolition of homes in east jerusalem is not in keeping with israeli obligations. i urge the government of israel and municipal officials to refrain from such provocative actions. both sides have responsibilities to refrain from provocative actions. back a block the path toward a comprehensive peace agreement --

back to block the path toward a comprehensive peace agreement. uniroyal -- unilateral actions will not be recognized as changing the status quo. >> let me thank the secretary for the clear position that the administration has taken on this issue, particularly when we talk about jerusalem and the evictions and demolitions and home excavations, anything that that change the status quo in the city. that is an emphasis on changing the demographics, thus threatening the outcome of the efforts that we're currently launching in negotiations. let me just say that the position is very clear. east jerusalem is occupied - militarily since 1967 and it is important to keep that mine. this is part and parcel of the

discussions on the negotiations to be launched. any action on the ground that presents obstacles in this endeavor are on -- are not only unwelcome and condemned, but we hope that they will stop and stop immediately. >> minister judeh, it was set on friday that the question is not what the arab world will offer israel, but what israel will get in exchange said the arab nations. how did you view his comments? what jordan take some steps to push the peace process? >> let me start from the second part of your question. jordan and israel have a peace treaty. this was signed in 1994. it has had its ups and downs. in order -- the relation

between jordan and israel, to make regional and international sense, what we need is a comprehensive solution to the as rhett -- the arab-israeli conflict, that two-state solution being a part of that solution. i think that it was clearly articulating arab peace initiative, which played a key role in launching in 2002 and subsequent arab summits have been reconfirmed as recently as the last summit in march. the arab peace initiative is very clear. it is an end of occupation, establishment of an independent palestinian state, after which there will be normal relations between israel, and not only the arab world but also the muslim world. i think prince saud was very

clear. i think we all agree that we need to create a conducive environment to write a solution to the conflict threatened it -- through direct negotiation. >> madam secretary, how much damage does it do to your damage to -- your efforts to build confidence among states like jordan tap the israeli prime minister rejected u.s. calls to stop the development of new settlements in east jerusalem? this is not something that seriously damages to u.s. efforts to instilled confidence? >> i think everyone understands that there has to be sequential actions taken. we're working very hard under senator mitchell's leadership and guidance to get to the

negotiating table. once there, everything concerning a comprehensive peace agreement is on the table. nothing is off the table. we have been down this road because -- before. we came close in 2000. there were renewed efforts in the last several years between the then-prime minister olmert and the palestinian president abbas. the parties will know what the outlines of this comprehensive two-state solution are. what is different in two ways now is the united states, beginning from the first day of our administration, to say that it is among our highest priorities, and a commitment through the arab peace initiative, which did not exist in the 1990's, has been reaffirmed, as the minister

said, several times. so that the arab countries are at the table in effect, as well. we will but sides to refrain from any actions that might make it -- we want both sides to refrain from any actions that might make it difficult to negotiate through all issues that have to be resolved. that our final status issues. everybody knows what they are and everybody knows that neither side is going to get everything that it was. negotiations do not work that way. but working in good faith and being committed to the two-state solution and with the support of the arab leaders as well as the united states and other interested actors, i think it holds out great promise. that is why we are working so hard and why we believe that this time we had a very strong chance at achieving a goal that has long been sought. thank you.

>> many they say this -- many times they say this is an issue of good faith. are there examples of not working in good faith? >> everyone needs to refrain from provocative actions. i was a lawyer and a prior life. very often people try to stake out even more strongly and difficult positions going into negotiations. we understand all that. we intend to continue on the path that we are on and we have a lot of support in achieving what will be a two-state solution. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. >> maybe some government grants. >> i would say donations. >> advertising for products. >> public money, i am short. >> by taxes? >> america's cable companies created c-span is a public service, a private business initiative -- note government mandate, no government money. >> the department has begun sending out the first tuition payments to universities but dissipating indeed post 9/11 g.i. bill -- participating in the post 9/11 g.i. bill program. more on that from jim webb, a co-sponsor the bill. we'll also hear from eric shinseki and president obama.

this is about 40 minutes. >> it is an honored have you with us today and is an honor for us to host this important celebration. earlier this year, george mason was privileged to be one of the many colleges and universities across the nations to commit itself to the yellow ribbon enhancement program. a provision of the post 9/11 g.i. bill of 2008, this initiative is designed to extend higher education funding for servicemen and women who served after the september 11, 2001 attacks. i know that members of that day still remain in all of our hearts. shock, horror, a tragedy. from the dust and debris of that attack emerged men and women we honor today with this important legislation. each year are military and

veterans' office serves 1000 active duty, reserve, national guard, and veteran students. provides them with assistance in academic counseling. just as important, this office tells our military men and women adapt for military life to collegiate life, connect with other veterans, and establish a sense of community in what too many is a new environment. we take much pride in the work of this office. today's celebration would not be possible without the leadership and vision of virginia's senior senator, jim webb. he introduced the new gi bill on his very first day in the senate, and worked tirelessly from date for to enact this truly important bill. senator webb's work on the g.i. bill is the latest achievements in a truly remarkable public

career. jim has maintained a lifelong commitment to our protecting american national security interest, promoting economic fairness and social justice at home, and increasing the accountability of government. we -- i --are indeed grateful to him for his public service. jim webb is one of our nation's finest. it is an honor and privilege to introduce the senator jim webb. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. it is a great day for our country. it is a great day for everyone

who has served. i would start by saying it is a rare thing in public service when you can get something good time that you can feel good about, for the good of the country, for the good that people who ever really stepped forward to serve it, and that you're going to be able to watch for the next 10 to 30 years in terms of the benefit it will bring to our society. i like to start by saying what a great thing is that our president is going to come and speak to us later on. we are deeply appreciative of george mason university and the doctor particularly for having ousted this event, which is symbolic in many ways for the celebrations that those of us who have worked on these issues are going to be feeling throughout the country. we have a number of people

attending here who have given great service to our country. i would like to mention germany, -- chairman akaka, the chairman of our veterans committee, hill has given long years of service to those who have served. the center of alaska has come with us today. -- senator begich of alaska has come to us today. congressman jim grant, a longtime friend. we have many other representatives from the veterans' organizations, the organized veterans and organizations that were so instrumental in getting this legislation done.

if he would stand, we like to see recognized. -- if you would stand, we would like to see you recognized. [applause] as many of you know, i've spent my entire life in and around the united states military. my father was a career military officer, of world war ii veteran, flew in the berlin airlift. later he became something of a pioneer in our missile program. i grew up on military faces watching the sacrifices of people who were serving away from their families, giving dedicated service to the country. i had the honor of serving our country during the vietnam war as a marine, as did my brother who is a marine helicopter pilot. i was proud of both my son and my son-in-law who have served as marine infantryman in iraq during this latest period of natural -- national service.

and for a long time, before i ever decided to run for political office, i kept saying to myself, this new generation, this group of people who had been serving since 9/11, which keep calling them the next greatest generation. at a minimum, what we can do is provide them with the same educational opportunities and the same chance at a first-class future that the greatest generation had. very simple formula. when people came back from world war ii, they had a tuition paid for, they get their votes blocked, at a monthly stipend. for every dollar in tax for many haitians -- in cash for many haitians -- and tax renew relatimunerations, we got back n benefits.

i it is this in my first days in office and it was quite a journey. i will not recount that journey in detail this morning. i will say this. there were two very key components, from our perspective, in terms of making this happen. the first was my own staff, my senate staff. we took this on collectively and worked on it from day one, no matter what else was going on or what ever hearings were going down or whatever crisis might be happening, all of my staff work together through a long and difficult process in order to make this happen. those members of my staff that are here, i would ask that they stand and be recognized. we have several of them who worked on it. [applause]

when the past -- when the bill was passed, i called my staff together. i said that this is not something that we did for political reasons. how or reward is coin to be 20 years from now, when we can look around and see the successes that have been able to happen to people who were serving now because of this g.i. bill. secondly, this legislation would not have happened if it were not for veterans taking care of their own. early on for the organized veterans groups started meeting with us. we listen to them. we worked with him. we not only got their endorsement but their ideas. we perfected this legislation as it went along. we did this also for a special group of veterans other than the organized veterans, people working directly with me. i like to recognize four of

them, actually, today. the first flew in for this event. mac served under my command in vietnam. we were wounded 10 days apart in the same place of frequent combat called the arizona valley. he left his job as the night manager of the number one honky- tonks and national, tennessee to work with me when i ran for the senate. he began the journey of this g.i. bill before he decided that washington really was not exactly the place he wanted to live. mack, please stand up here. [applause] the sec is phillip thompson, another marine who served in desert storm. he spent a good time with us while we were in the campaign,

and then took over on this veterans issue and pushed it along. philip is now working in the pentagon, but philip, we appreciate all your work. [applause] the third is william edwards, who was in iraq veteran. he tell lot of the final fine- tuning in negotiations. william right now is in training cycle to return to iraq. you'll see something in this pattern. the vietnam veterans, and desert storm veterans, the iraq veterans, taking care of the people who are serving now. and there is one other. his name is john warner. john warner, when he came on to this bill, he brought a lot of people from the republican side with them. he brought credibility. he was a sailor in world war ii, and marine -- of marine and career. he had six years in the

pentagon. a secretary of the navy. 30 years as senator from virginia. he was a great partner for us. he completed the cycle in putting this legislation through. we had people from world war ii, from vietnam, from desert storm, and people who serve in iraq and afghanistan saying that this is our duty. this is our stewardship. we're going to make this happen. and we did make it happen. i am very proud to introduce an call to the microphone, senator john warner. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. i will be brief.

i have worked with dr. m urton for many years. there are 30 institutions in the commonwealth of virginia. each of the president's tried to come see us once a year. not doctor murton. high -- three times, four times, five times -- i have never spent some time with the president. it is a testimony to your hard work. thank you. [applause] jim webb -- i was secretary of the navy in 1972, and a confidant of the marine corps team and to see me. he said, i have an outstanding young marine, rehabilitating

from serious injuries, having received america's second highest decoration. i think he would be a credit to the secretary's staff. i said, send him in. i interviewed jim and get him in uniform for about five minutes. you that signed on, mr.. get back into your ranks. that he went into the office. i am not sure where we bury you. [laughter] but what does around, comes around. we reunited in the united states senate together. he talked about this piece of legislation. well, ladies and gentlemen, my speech is entitled thank you. thank you, america, for what they did for this one individual and hundreds of thousands like him. 16 million men and women were enrolled war ii. i left high school and 17 and

went and, we all did, all the guys on the block. what he doing still here? get in there. eight trains in america, together with its allies, and brought about the rescue of freedom. when it came time to be discharged, they were discharged very quickly. i remember 63 years ago, from this summer, it was in july 1946, i had one little red stripe, petty officer third class, radio technician. i stood and of long line -- i stood in a long line. we had a quick physical. we stood in line again and then there was that final officer who signed the discharge papers. and he talked to us a little bit, and he said, now look here. here is your ticket home, one way, the balance of your pay,

and here is a little emblem to put on your uniform so if anyone stop you, you are not under orders. that says you have been honorably discharged and you are on your way home. there is that and i got 63 years ago that summer. -- there is that pin that i 63 years ago that summer. [applause] i n, 16 million at this. then he handed us a little book and he said, are you interested in education? i said, i guess. i did not finish high school. he said, don't worry. look into it. this is the g.i. bill. i stuck that little book somewhere in my back and went home. the rest is history. that g.i. bill gave me an engineering degree, and later, service and the marines, none of that service of active duty in

any way matched jim webb or our next speaker, eric shinseki. but i did my part as did others in their generation. but those two g.i. bill gave me the ability to develop my career. i would never have made it. i would not be standing here today. like jim webb, in my 30 years on the senate armed services committee, i fought hard to prove that he's of legislation, signed by roosevelt in 1944. and bit by bit we worked around the edges. but we recognize that massive reorganization and writing and updating had to be done to this piece of legislation. i tried it when i was chairman of the armed services committee. i succeeded in getting a test case to what we would call transfer ability of your rights to your wife and family. but it was never really executed. it was not until jim webb came

along that this legislation moved through the congress. he rallied s. as a matter fact, it was some tough times, and had not been for several -- i would mention chairman akaka and the congressional medal of honor winner -- we got that thing through. but jim webb -- and i was a corporal in its ranks -- he gave us their order, a fix bayonets. this legislation is going over. and we got that through, despite the pentagon resisting that, despite the administration resisting it, it became law because of jim webb's of leadership. [applause] jim and i worked on feature we felt very strongly about. i kept recounting to him that my

generation could go to any university and college of their choice. he respected of tuition. i will go into the mathematics but it was there. but through the passage of time, all those doors were quietly closed. i was particularly concerned with some of the major universities and colleges in our country who really would not let recruiting take place on the campuses, who did not understand that academic freedom is derivative of the basic freedom that has been guaranteed from generations since 1776 by those wearing the uniform of their country marching forward. i thought it would be a good idea to have our veterans from this conflict go on to those campuses. that was one of the driving motivations for this senator to make sure that that option was there. jim, we want to think a lot of the presidents of the

university that came down and work for as, because we passed on sharing basis the cost of those major colleges. their tuition fees. so we did it. and i thank you, because it was for you -- those that serve on the arms services committee, a bipartisan, hard-working committee, we tried to make certain that the current generation of veterans and their families are given the benefits and everything that we had, soldiers, sailors, and a range of our generation. because you deserve it. the country wants you to have it. i finish with a little thing that always goes through my mind when we sing the "star spangled banner." that phrase that says, "oh, yet

that banner yet waves o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." you wearing the uniform are the ones that made the home of the brave possible. i salute you. good luck. [applause] >> it does always expiring to listen to senator john warner speak -- it is always inspiring to listen to the senator speak. the quality of his oratory and intellect. it is no accident that he was able to get our country 30 years of unmeasurable service in the united states senate. we remember him well on the senate floor these days, senator warner.

it is my great pleasure to introduce to you general shinseki. i don't think that there is another individual in the united states that could have come to the position of secretary of veterans affairs with respect, the quality of his background, and the immeasurable dedication to those who serve as general shinseki. as most of you know he is a west point graduate, class of 1965. he served two tours in vietnam in combat. he lost a portion of one of his feet in combat. and incredibly, he fought to stay on active duty with an imputation. very unusual at that time.

he rose all the way to become chief of staff of the army, an enormous inspiration to anyone who has served in combat and been wounded to can see that there is a future in uniform. i like to look at general shinseki as being from the omar bradley mold. he is unflappable, he is serious, he came to the department veterans affairs at a critical time in our history. i would be proud to serve with him. ladies and gentlemen, may i please introduce to you general shinseki. [applause] >> good morning and thank you. thank you very much. that is very kind of you and good morning. senator webb, senator warner, it

is good to see both of you again. i am honored to be sharing the stage with you. especially today. let me also acknowledged president murton's hospitality and hosting this event at george mason. i also will acknowledge that there are other distinguished members of congress here had been so intimate -- instrumental in enacting this historic piece of legislation, and thanks to all of you as well. to the representatives of several veteran service organizations, and to their representatives of some of our participating colleges and universities, good at here. but most importantly, let me just acknowledge the folks that other reason we are all here, and those are our young veterans who are going to protect of this opportunity. thanks for your service.

you carry with this opportunity such great potential for the country. we are all very excited about it. and finally, any other distinguished guest i may have missed, ladies and gentleman -- history is about to repeat itself. that is what this is about. and we are all privileged to have this opportunity to witness said. and for that reason, i am personally thrilled to be here. and i personally thank senator jim webb for his vision, for his determination, and for his leadership, including that of his colleagues in the congress, including, by the way, then- senator barack obama as one of the sponsors. they provided this opportunity for young veterans today. a magnificent opportunity. as we all know, following world war ii, we referred to as

several times, returning veterans leverage their educational opportunities -- that original g.i. bill of 1944, they leverage that into sustained economic growth for the united states. that along catapulted our economy into being the world's largest and us into the leadership of the free world over time. historian milton greenberg wrote about that piece of legislation. by that time the initial it belt -- g.i. bill eligibility expired in 1956, the united states was richard by 450,000 trained engineers. 240,000 accountants. 238,000 teachers. 91,000 scientist. 67,000 doctors. 22,000 dentist. and a million other college educated individuals.

there are members of the great generation here today. that but benefited from the educational opportunity and also gave back so much more in terms of leadership for our nation. this post 9/11 g.i. bill has every potential to the equally impact the united states in resound in positive ways in this new century. by 2011, we expect to have placed to under 50,000 people and colleges and universities through this most comprehensive veterans education package with the most advantage since the original g.i. bill. the courageous men and women in uniform have shouldered significant responsibilities for the last years for our country. this new gi bill clearly the demonstrates -- clearly

demonstrates the nation's respect and appreciation for your service in your sacrifice. it is also our commitment to them that they are our best hope for future leadership in this country. the maximum benefit allows every eligible service member the opportunity to receive a fully funded undergraduate education at any state college and university anywhere in the united states or its territories. it includes a monthly housing allowance an annual allowance. tutorial assistance, educational tuition and fees, and eligible service members can also feel like to transfer their benefits to their spouse or their children. what a tribute to the importance of families of military service. in addition to public institutions, more than 1100

private institutions have agreed to participate in something called the yellow ribbon program. this program permits eligible veterans and service members to attend private colleges and universities who cost exceeds the highest in-state rates at public undergraduate institution. the d.a. will match what ever is contributed by the private colleges and universities, up to 50% of those total cost. we are grateful that so many schools have joined this effort and we thank them for their support of our veterans. says the bill was giant -- since the bill was signed, the employees -- va employees have worked under incredibly demanding time pressures to meet this august deadline. i am very proud of them for pulling together what many worried when i arrived in january was not possible in such

a short time. there are proof that we can take those difficult task and the liver. their dedication has been outstanding in their hard work will continue over the decade that paid dividends for veterans who go back to school. to those of you who will be taking advantage of this educational opportunity, make the count. a camp for all of us. make it count for our country. redeem that dream that occurred after the original g.i. bill of 1944, and do for us in that 21st century but that generation of greta's americans did in the 20th-century. god bless our men and women in uniform. god bless our wonderful country. thank you very much. [applause]

>> hello. thank you, thank you. please have a seat. please have a seat. good morning, everybody. it is wonderful to see all of you, and wonderful to have one of the best partners that anyone could have any elected office, our vice president, joe biden. thrilled have been here. -- thrilled to have him here. i want to thank staff sgt miller for the gracious introduction. i want to thank president murton for his hospitality.

are a couple of people here who deserve all the credit because they got a very tough bill done. part of the reason they were able to get it done was because of their extraordinary personal credibility. one is new to the senate and one had been there awhile. and get together, they formed an incredibly formidable team. they are both class acts. please give a big round of applause to virginia zone john warner and jim webb -- virginia 's own john warner and jim webb. [applause] i know that we have got another

members of congress who are here. on the think the mall for their outstanding work. i won a point out that senator mark warner could not be here but we appreciate him. we have got the secretary of veterans affairs, a hero in his own right, general eric shinseki. i want everybody to please a knowledge him. -- please acknowledge him. [applause] and that the original bill sponsors to could not be here, senator chuck hagel, frank rothenberg -- lumber, and representative peter king -- all of them worked hard all along with that delegation present. we're very grateful to all of them. i want to join all today's speakers in thanking those of you who worked so hard to make this occasion possible. but above all i want to make

tribute to the veterans who are now advancing their dreams by pursuing an education. i am honored to be here and to renew our commitment to ensure that the men and women who wear the uniform of the united states of america and get the opportunities that they have burned. i was a proud co-sponsor of the post 9/11 g.i. bill as senator. i am committed to working with secretary shinseki to make sure that it is successfully implemented as president. we do this not just to meet our moral obligation to those who sacrificed greatly on our behalf and on behalf of the country, but we do it because these men and women must now be prepared to lead our nation in the peaceful pursuit of economic leadership in the 21st century. this generation of servicemen and women has already earned a

place of honor in american history. each of them signed up to serve, many after they knew that they would be sent into harm's way. over the last eight years they have endured too are after a tour of duty in dangerous and distant places. they experienced curling combat -- growing combat. they have adapted to a complex insurgencies, protected local populations, and train for and security forces. by any measure, they are the authors of one of the most extraordinary chapters in military service in the history of our nation. i do not make that statement lightly. we know that anyone who puts on the uniform joins an unbroken line of selfless patriots that stretches back to lexington and concord. freedom and prosperity that we

enjoy it would not exist without the service of generations of americans who were willing to bear the heaviest and most dangerous burden. we also know this -- a contribution that our servicemen and women can make to this nation do not end when they take off that uniform. we owe a debt to all who serve. when we repay that debt to those in greatest americans among us, then we are investing in our future. not just their future, but also the future of our own country. this was the lesson that america was sometimes too slow to learn. after the civil war and world war grummai, we saw far too many veterans who were denied the chance to live their dream. fdr knew this. in 1943, but for the beaches of normandy were stormed and a

treacherous terrain of it would you know was taken -- of iwo jima were taken, he said that they should not be demobilized to a place on a bread line or on a corner selling apples. he said that the american people will insist on for filling this american obligation to the men and women in the armed forces who are winning this war for us. that is precisely what the american people did. the g.i. bill was approved just weeks after d-day and carried a simple process to all who had served. you pick the school, we will help pick up the bill. and what followed was not simply an opportunity for our veterans but a transformation for our country. by 1947, half of all americans enrolled in college were

veterans. ultimately this will lead to three presidents, three supreme court justices, 14 nobel prize winners, and two dozen pulitzer prize winners. but more importantly, it produce hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers, doctors and nurses, the backbone of the largest middle-class in history. all told, nearly 8 million americans were educated under the original g.i. bill. including my grandfather. . >> going to college was no

longer a novelty. one of the man who went to college on the g.i. bill was my grandfather. i would not be standing here today if that had not led him west in search of opportunity. we owe the same obligations to this generation of men and women. that is the promise of the post- 1911 g.i. bill. you pick the school, we will pick up the bill. i am proud to see so many veterans who will be able to pursue their education with this and the support of the american people. this is even more important that it was -- this is even more important than it was in 1944. the economy has been transformed by revolutions in education and technology and that is why the

post 9/11 jihad bill must give the veterans -- -- gi bill must give the veterans what they need to fill the jobs of tomorrow. this is the currency that will purchase success in this generation and this is what our soldiers have owned. -- earned. i am happy that all of the soldiers will have access to this opportunity, including people in the reserves and national guard members, because they have carried out unprecedented deployments in afghanistan. we will include the military families who have sacrificed so much, and we will transfer the unused benefits to the families. and we will include the people who made the ultimate price, making the benefit available to the children of those lost in service to their country. this is not simply a debt that we will repaid to remarkable men

and women, this is an investment in our own country. the first g.i. bill came from the revenue of the men and women who needed -- to receive the skills and education that they needed to create wealth. the veterans here are the post 911 veterans, and they can lead the way to -- 9/11 veterans, and they can lead the way to a growing american middle-class. even as we help the americans learned the skills that they need to succeed, we can learn something from the men and women who served our country. many people in these institutions have acted irresponsibly. services of an attack -- take a backseat to short-term profits, and hard choices were put aside until some other time.

this is a time when ec distractions became normal, and the trivial has been taken too seriously. men and women who have served since 9/11 telos a different story. as so many people reach for the quick buck, the discourse creates more heat than light. they have put their lives on the line for america and borne the responsibility of war. we are making it clear that the u.s.a. will reward responsibility. those who have had the heaviest burden will lead into the 21st century. we look to the america that they will help build tomorrow. the post 9/11 gi bill will tap

their creativity and increase their talents and they will be [unintelligible] as responsible citizens. god bless the troops and the veterans, and god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] ♪

♪ >> you are watching public affairs programming on c-span. coming up in a moment, reporters asked the white house about health care and taxes and we will hear from john kyl and lamar alexander. then a conversation on race in america naand the meeting of obama, gates, and crowley. then a hearing on contractor performance bonuses by the federal government.

>> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal" we will speak to tammy darvish about cash for clunkers, then burt folsom on "new deal or raw d eal," and then bill adair joins us. >> starting tuesday, the senate debates the nomination of sotomayor. and this fall, tour the home of the highest court. the supreme court. >> robert gibbs says the president will not tax the middle class to pay for health care and bring down the deficit. summers and geithner were asked

about this on sunday morning talk shows over the weekend. this is about 40 minutes. >> it's not -- it's sort of polka dot. uh, just a couple of quick announcements.. today's scheduled event to honor nascar champion -- it had to be redscheduled be -- rescheduled because the race was rained out. the second announcement is the senate democrats will have lunch with the president tomorrow. all of them. [unintelligible] >> unclear.

>> we are all invited? >> did you get your invite? >> why are they? >> to talk about their priorities and what has been accomplished in the first six months of the administration and to talk about -- and it's the president's birthday and chuckie cheese was booked. >> i got it. >> it didn't cause you to laugh though. who celebrated a few weeks ago at chucky cheese. >> your birthday -- >> the president has been clear he wants to cut the deficit in half and wants a health care

overhaul, and he promised not to tax the middle class. do you say, two out of three ain't bad. can you get this done? >> the president is committed to doing these things. he was clear during the campaign about this. in some ways, those goals are overlapping. we will not make progress in the deficit without dealing with health care. some of those goals actually worked in tandem. we will not get the deficit -- we will not begin to get this under better control until we get the economy under control to lay the foundation, and understand that health care reform is important. the president was clear about his commitment, about not raising taxes on the middle class families.

i do not think any economist would believe that in the environment where we are, that this would make any sense. >> why did tim geithner and and dr. summers say that they would not raise taxes? >> they were getting into a little bit of a hypothetical. i will say this, we have spoken about this issue and throughout the time that we have been here, we do have a large structural deficit that will have to be dealt with in order to meet the president's commitment to cutting the deficit in half. there is no question about this. what both of them spoke about was, they are not going to have -- but will not be able to

sustain any kind of economic recovery unless we have a pathway to fiscal responsibility. but they also said this should not be done to burden the middle-class families. the commitment is clear. we have a lot of major challenges. we're trying to cut wasteful spending. the president has identified a half trillion dollars in spending that he thinks can be cut, just in the last two weeks on a partisan basis, to look at a program like the f-22 and cut the wasteful spending out of the budget. >> is the united states -- are they discussing with their allies the possibility of sanctions for iran, on gasoline and other refined petroleum products. >> the p5 + 1 has an outstanding

opening for them to come to the table. many believe that we should not allow them to acquire this and this invitation has not been responded to. the president said that we will about the way this as part of the process, but i did not want to get into discussions among the allies, or the hypothetical situations. >> what do you mean by this? >> we think that it is important to do what has to be done, to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

there is a host of things, by engaging directly with them so that they can live up to their own responsibilities. in not pursuing the technology. >> in terms of what they had to say yesterday, there was not much about the hypothetical back-and-forth. do they think that it is possible to do deficit reduction? >> we can talk about whether the word possible or hypothetical is there. >> is it possible to do everything that the president wants to do for the middle class? >> i just want to say again, that the president has made a clear commitment, to not raise taxes on middle-class families. >> but if the economists do not necessarily believe that it is possible to do something without raising taxes on the middle

class, what will this do for the american people? >> you will hear an announcement from the president this afternoon, about how much money will have to be borrowed, how much will have to be barred as a result of financial stabilization. this is with cutting the amount -- again, i think that the president has been clear on this, the first thing that we can do and the most important thing to do right now is get the economy growing again. we know that part of the reason that the deficit is up right now is because the economy is up -- lower right now and this has regressed allot. and i think that the president -- we will have to make some

decisions down the road, on some of the president's legislative priorities and the things that congress is wanting to do, to move to fiscal sustainability. >> so did tim geithner and lawrence summers ago of script? -- go of script? -- off script? >> so there is no issue with middle-class taxpayers? there is no scenario right now? >> can i make that a little more precise right now? this is not just the middle class, but he has been very precise. >> is clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those with less than $250,000 a year.

>> is there any implication that this was flatly wrong? >> it was not that long ago, -- >> you understand why people say that what they said yesterday, they were trying to open the door a little bit. >> i hope you take this -- >> so the door is closed. >> i will say this in the clearest terms possible. he does not want to raise the taxes. >> they did raise this? >> we spoke about these issues as part of the daily briefing. >> the said absolutely no tax cuts for families -- >> this may be too hard for me to leap over.

>> the goal is to get the economy -- to get the government back on a path to fiscal sustainability, and to lay the long-term foundation for economic growth. and one thing that is important, is that within the first month of the president taking office, 95% of americans received a tax cut. that is everyone in the middle class. for eight long years, the middle class was buried -- have the brunt of the bad economic policies. even when the jobs were created and we saw positive economic growth, for the very first time in our history we saw the major is up -- the wages in the middle class -- this is what made the president want to run for president of the united states.

to cut taxes, and to make certain that the voices were heard it in the economic policy. >> this is not open? - >> they have an update from -- do you have an update from sen. baucus? >> there were not any phone calls over the weekend. >> it seems like every time that there is a revised #, this has been revised downward and do you believe that the gdp numbers -- do you believe that this is a positive step forward? >> obviously, one thing that was done and one of the things that was released on friday, was

based on the new economic model. i could ask if we assume that -- but i do not believe at this time. the number is not more than one weekend old. the one thing that we do know right now, that we did not have a clear and a long, and that we see in the economic provisions is the depth of what we were facing economically. the growth of -- the positive growth that we saw was revised in the first quarter of 2008, the sweat from supposed economic growth to economic contraction, and the depth of the third

quarter in 2008. this was showing you just how deep a recession that we were in. we take some heart from the numbers, and this is part of the recovery plan that we believe is having an impact. this is creating jobs. we understand that we will be getting new jobs, on friday. and there is no one who doesn't believe that we will see several hundred more jobs lost in this economy. >> this is something that they were caught in, -- >> this was a confluence of some of that stuff.

>> is the administration looking at fort leavenworth as a possible site for the detainee's from guantanamo bay? >> i do not know if they have gotten into a specific siding, and i think that we have made progress on dealing with a number of the issues with the executive order that needed to be dealt with. in giving the case files and deciding who can and should be transferred. but there is no final decision. >> on another issue, the 10 letters that are given from the correspondence office, does he get letters that are critical of his policy? >> he gets critical letters for his policy and i would characterize most of them as --

what i think he wanted to see was he was wanting to get some representative sample of what people are concerned about, but also this is a way of stepping outside of the bubble, to hear from the challenges that people face. they have small businesses and they deal with the ability to get credit. to be able to borrow money to reach the payroll. you get the family members who are serving overseas in the military, and the president speaks about this a lot. this is having a profound impact on what he hears and what he sees and if he reads a letter that we should be aware of, he is not shy of making copies and

making certain that we see those letters as well. >> is there the extension of the benefits? >> i do not know, i would not get into what to call this, except to understand that you have two different scenarios. over the course of the next few months, these people will exhaust the benefits cycle, and on december 31 you will have an exploration of the recovery act, that is extending the -- that we are dealing with the recession long before washington became aware. the president and the economic team believe that extending these benefits, and making

certain that the unemployed and getting them work is tremendously important. we are making certain that we take care of those who are falling on hard times. >> are you worried about the job numbers? >> i think that i have said this,, we have said this a number of times. the expectation is that there will be a job loss, because barring something unforeseen, there is the chance -- there is more than 1 million chance that you will have several jobs lost. i think that the president remains concerned, that we get the economy moving again, creating jobs for the millions

who have lost their jobs in this recession. welcome back. >> >> were you in the morning meeting? >> they were there, -- >> did the economy discussed -- did the president discussed this, or did they have the hypothetical back-and-forth? >> i made that up. >> that is how you interpreted this? >> i read the transcript -- transcript a few times. there were -- >> did the president look into this with mr. summers? >> this was not a school is in

kind of thing. >> why are there no republicans at the meeting tomorrow, and since health care is the dominant issue, do you believe that they will be dealing with this considerably, and that health care will be the major topic? >> there will be a number of topics. i do not know if there will be a fall in trust, but i think that -- i am just not getting this today. i am trying. >> we are with you. >> one thing that i would say is that, i will get this as the scent -- the president speaking to the democratic caucus. they have a meeting that happens every tuesday.

we're having this meeting at the white house instead of capitol hill. >> but the topic is health care. >> i think that you will hear a number -- i do not doubt that health care will be discussed, i believe that there will also discuss the economy, and the numbers that we will see throughout the week, on employment and manufacturing reports, just in general where the economy is. i believe that they will go through and they will discuss the energy legislation and i think that in some ways, one thing that will be discussed is the continuation, of the cash for clunkers program, which without help from the senate, in terms of moving $2 billion from the investment plans will

likely mean that the program will have to be stopped, by the end of the week. i also think that the president will use this as an opportunity to talk about the benefits of what the program has been doing. the group of the applications shows that the transactions are generating an increase in fuel efficiency, and that these vehicles -- this is 24.5 mpg and the average fuel economy is 15.8. in gasoline alone, this will save 700-$1,000 and this is good for consumers, this is good for the automobile manufacturers and the consumers, as they talk

about their sales being up. >> how long is this good for. the incentivizing of the acquisition -- how long is this a good idea? >> the original proposal was that this was for $4 billion. and again, we have seen the benefits of what this means with the savings for consumers and how this was decreasing -- and this is good for the environment. congress appropriated to $1 billion and i think that another $2 billion can take this through september. >> what is the guidance from the senate on the likelihood of this? >> we were very hopeful because

of this does not happen this week, it is unlikely that we will make to the weekend. >> and your message for those who are contemplating doing this this week, they should believe that they will get the money some way or another? >> if they meet the requirements of the program, the certificate will be honored. at a certain time, we will get what we have to do with the program. at this time -- i would not give people the same assurance. >> you expect that you will get this filled out and the rebate? >> what is the benefit of the meeting with harkin?

>> this was a courtesy call, he wanted to see the president. >> that is what i am talking about. how does the president celebrate his birthday? >> i can try to get more information on that. he was trying to spend some time with his friends over the weekend, playing basketball, having dinner and bowling, -- >> what was the bowling? >> 144. the machine was keeping score. >> are you a good bowler? you seem to doubt the president.

the last fourth rose, three strikes of nine. -- throws, three strikes out of nine. i told them if he had done this at pennsylvania, my life would be easier. >> how do you know the scores? >> if this was in front of me -- there are a lot of people on the mid-session review. this is not easy for computer programming. >> he had a speech about the gi bill, and he went on about the age of irresponsibility, talking about the ec distractions and he said, so many people were reaching for the quick buck. who is the talking about here? he is talking about the age of irresponsibility. >> i think that -- i did not

speak to him a spot -- i did not speak to him personally about this. i think that if you juxtapose the service that men and women in uniform in this country and overseas who are protecting the freedom, if you contrast this with the irresponsibility that we saw in the past few years on wall street, i think that you can get a very different vision, and i think that one of the important things about the new gi bill is that this will reward an investment in the human capital that is so important for the security of the country, and the economic growth. the president's grandfather to the advantage of the gi bill many years ago. what this has done is this

updates the program, for the 21st century. this is worthwhile but this also underscores the commitment that we should feel when we invest in those who have selflessly help us. >> is also talking about washington? >> you probably did not have to go far into the newspaper, to find candidates for -- irresponsibility, trying to make a quick dollar, and the change in the economic fortunes, in the economic security of everyone. this has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. >> this is democrats as well as

republicans? >> one of the reasons that we talk about deficits, and what to do about this, is because for far too long, we have basically been trying to sustain something that is unsustainable. that is when the decisions are made. >> when the president was talking he said that this was -- the u.s. open and this should have been clear. >> he spoke about the national manufacturing. >> the president reiterated this. -- >> to all of us. >> to make certain that there was no confusion. >> welcome back.

>> the source of the information on the mpg, is the president satisfied that enough of this is going to the american manufacturing, -- >> we will get you an analysis that was done by our people, that was done pretty late in the weekend. nearly half of the new vehicles that were purchased are from the big three auto makers. 47% which is more than 45% of the recent market share, so this is slightly larger -- the top- selling vehicle in the program is the fourth focus -- ford

focus. this is something that will be a big benefit. >> why not just concentrate the next few vehicles -- >> we have trade issues that would make this illegal. >> what does the president have? >> when they let him drive, the president has a ford escape hybrid. >> you offered assurances to the buyers who may go into the showroom, and many of them are wondering how long this will take. >> the transaction is on them. we feel confident right now, that this program is working quite well. and i think that for this

program to be extended, and for me to give an assurance later on in the week, we will need to see the senate. >> this is on health care, there were a number of opinion polls that came out, and the general interpretation has been that overall, the approval rating is drifting down, and that the public approval for the main elements is also sliding down. the first general question is, is this from a different lesson? >> there were probably -- i do not know how many different polls, i think that you can look at the conflicting numbers

within the opinion polls. you see a broad description of the costs and what this means for the american people -- this is a winner. obviously we are in an environment where we are not focused on the process of health care reform. i do not think that this has been the most popular thing when people are watching this on television. they are looking at the aspect of this. i think that's what the president takes away from this is that we have to continue to redouble the efforts to see that people are getting all of the information to reach a conclusion about the fact that this will help families and this will give health insurance to

families who do not have this, and this will help the businesses that they were before and this will put an end to some discriminations for those who are sick with pre-existing conditions. they need to be delivered -- >> i do have a question. they may have no priorities with the health care. >> he has his priorities and he thinks congress should focus on. i think that what we are dealing with is misinformation. that is what the president has been trying to deal with over the past few days. >> i would like this

conversation recorded for the next time that you say this. >> you did not ask me what the president was looking over this poll. >> you guys have noticed a downard drift in these -- downward drift in these numbers. is this the main reason? >> there are competing goals. teh he president has been trying to make his case. he will continue to do it. we will talk to the american people about the benefits of this legislation and the chance for long-term economic growth. we have to talk about what may happen that health care reform does not happen.

what is the status quo? we know this. we know that in the next nine years the premiums will be affected. if we fail to act, thousands will lose their health insurance and the costs will go up, people will be discriminated against, because the insurance company has decided that they have a pre-existing condition. these are the things that will happen if we do not act. >> two foreign policy questions and president clinton will be going to africa. she will talk to the head of the government there in kenya. can you talk about the mission for somalia, as we have many of the extremists for the border

who are going through there and the other lawlessness that is happening? >> we have seen people like osama bin laden setting up camp and the president has spoken even before running for president about going to africa. even in august 2006. we have the breeding ground for terrorism, in places where there is not a government structure, where there is not someone who is making certain that the law is followed. to make certain that people have the basic necessities, to survive. and if this -- this can read the worst in extremism.

this is obviously a very important thing. kenya is a very important ally, and when the president spoke about the strength -- as we strengthen those relationships, people in kenya and all of africa have a responsibility about corruption, and as he has said before, if someone is wanting to start a business -- >> is there a thought that the u.s. military presence is needed. >> i do not have a determination one way or the other on this. we have taken steps around this region, particularly as it

relates to pirating, and the safety of the vessels that are traveling. >> and the hiker situation. is this a common sense kind of thing? americans going to countries and crossing the borders by mistake? what is the warning from the of ministration to people who are going close to the borders? collects all but i want to say is, we have seen the reports, in the media of the iran and we are working with the swiss ambassador, to confirm the information that we have seen. >> the white house spoke about the border of north korea and iraq. >> i think that -- on this

case, obviously we have to take great care. >> it to close this, is there any time element? >> i thought that i did this at the end. >> is there any time limit, -- >> this is the hypothetical game. >> i will do this one more time. he made a commitment in the campaign and the stands. >> said he will never raise taxes on the middle class? >> >> what else are you going to ask me? i say that the president has a commitment. >> this is not completely closing the door. >> ignore everything that i have

said in the last few minutes. >> if you don't trust what i'm going to tell you i do not know why we do this. >> if somebody says yes or no -- >> the president is clear about his commitment. i do not know how much more clear that i can be. >> why did she not have something to say? >> the left this to me. >> john mccain complained that the the administration is not open enough -- has the president spoken to mccain about health care? >> they spoke about many issues in chicago -- but i do not know if they spoke specifically about health care. i do not know if i would do this

as a whole for several reasons. the president has spent quite a bit of time working with members of both parties for a solution, particularly in the finance committee. it is not making sense that they are doing this on a bipartisan basis, something that was not able to happen in the past. that is working in the past with democrats and republicans, to not add to the program. this was a vote that was had all my strong bipartisan basis a few weeks ago, not to add another $2 billion to the program. lastly, i would say that this is a two way street. the president has made offers,

and has been working with republicans. is it related to this question -- is there something that we will see in the next couple of days from the supreme court? we will see this. >> now lamar alexander and john kyle react to the -- kyl react to the discussion about health care. >> a few minutes ago i was getting ready to do an interview with msnbc and robert gibbs was on. he said he was there for a press conference, to correct what i thought was a truthful impression that was left by the members of the obama administration. both lawrence summers and tim geithner did not rule out the possibility of a tax increase

for the middle income. that was reported across the country today. they were taken to the woodshed this morning. gibbs said that they would not raise taxes on the middle income. but that is misleading at best to the american people. most people know that, an article in the new york times said that the pledge to tax the risk cannot pay for it -- the rich cannot pay for everything. among the people who were quoted include another veteran of the clinton administration, the director of the tax policy center, they said that the government should be paid for the top 5%. there has been -- the senator

remembers sawhill's service. she says that there is no way to pay for health care and get the deficit under control simply by raising the taxes on the wealthy. this is what was said by a former clinton budget official. the middle class will have to contribute as well. i wonder if the senator from arizona is surprised to see, first, that the finance people for the obama administration would say that we are not going to rule out a middle class tax increase, and suddenly, they will be rolling this out again. >> i have the same impression yesterday, when i saw them on television. they were just talking about the reality of the situation. i did not think much of this, because the fact of the matter is that the people that were

just quoted are absolutely right. you cannot do all of the things that he wants to do without raising taxes and this will inevitably be on the middle class. just to put this on the record, what he said, this is as it was reported by george stephanopoulos. he said, to get the economy on track, will president obama have to break his pledge not to raise taxes. tim geithner told me, we will have to do what is necessary. and george stephanopoulos continues, but i gave him opportunities to rule out the tax side, he would not do this. he said we have to bring this down dramatically and this will result in hard choices. he is right. this is very hard to deny.

and the national economic council -- passed if taxes to be raised for the americans and he said that there is a lot that could happen over time. they may rule these things out, no matter what. what is clear is that the president will not be pursuing health care in a way that is primarily burdening the middle class families. there is a switch to never say never, and also to say that the tax burden will not primarily fall on middle-class americans. i would say that when you look at some of the provisions that are in the bill from the house of representatives, and the committee on health care, and some of the things that are considered by the finance

committee, in all of these situations you have taxes on the working american families. what the secretary and lawrence summers said on sunday is actually more true, then the press secretary tried to make this out to be. this is the recognition of reality. you cannot have all of this and avoid the taxes on middle americans -- normal merit -- regular americans. >> the question is not whether there will be a tax increase, we already see this in the medical care. in the payroll tax, on the employees, to pay for the proposed health care plan coming out of the house of representatives there is a very large tax. this may be 8% of the payroll. according to the "wall street

journal, " who is going to bear the burden? it is clear that this is shoulder to almost entirely by the workers. there is a tax increase that is proposed. and there is another that is bothering me, the current governor in tennessee said that this was the mother of all unfunded mandates. this is opposed by both of the bills, with more people affected by medicaid. this is 400,000 more people. the estimates that we have received from the department of medicaid in tennessee, is that this would be enough money to equal the amount and if we actually pay the doctors a significant amount so they could see the people in medicaid, this

is a 10% increase. >> i would also ask my colleague, if he is aware that there are other proposals because all individuals would be required to buy medical insurance. this is not a new tax but there would be a penalty if they refused to do this. this would be a penalty that is applied to you. if there is a young man or woman who just graduated from college and they are no longer on the insurance policy of their parents. they will go into the risk pool, and they have a large amount of insurance through their college.

what is likely to happen if they are thrown into the pool of americans who are required to get this insurance -- >> if you are young in america, and you are forced into the health plan that is passing in the house, your costs are going to go up. and that is a tax that will absolutely go up. for every young person in america who is in this plan, his health care plans are going to go up to pay for the older americans, whose benefits are going to go down because half of the health care plan is going to be paid for by medicare cuts,

this will be paid -- the benefits will be cut to pay for the new program. whether this is a benefit cuts or a tax increase, this -- these are the americans who are already looking at a big change in the economic circle. >> you are watching public affairs programming on c-span. coming up in a moment, a conversation on race in america and the recent meeting between president obama, james crowley, and henry louis gates. then a review of contractor bonuses by the federal government. >> i was c-span funded? >> i have no clue. >> may be a government grant?

>> i would say donations? >> advertising? >> my taxes? >> house c-span funded? the american cable companies created c-span as a public service. no government mandate, no government money. . [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> welcome, everybody.

i am going to begin by welcoming our esteemed panelists. we have a book signing that is going to be directly after this panel and also we are going to do questions and answers up here for about 30 minutes and then opened it up for questions on the floor. if you have a question, you are going to let me know who the question is for and they're not. let me begin with my introductions. we begin with dr. john jackson who has been an adviser on education matters for president clinton and the obama/joe biden transition team. please help me in welcoming him. [applause] stephanie jones is the executive director of the national urban league policy institute and editor in chief of the civil

rights attorney. she has counseled senator john edwards and president clinton. please join me in welcoming her. [applause] michelle bernard is the president and ceo, political analyst, attorney, and political strategist. she has served on the bush- cheney and inaugural committee. [applause] melissa harris-lacewell, the award winning author who's next book is a text for colored girls who have considered politics when being a strong was not enough. nice to have you. [applause] jeff johnson is a political motivator and commentator for bet.

he has penned a senior adviser for the people of the american way and has a book coming out soon. please welcome him. [applause] gwendolyn grant is president and ceo, first female leader focusing on issues including improvement of education, corporate diversity, and she is a graduate of the fbi is citizen academy. please welcome her. [applause] dr. michael dyson, author of many books. we have worked together many times. he was on cnn in 2008. please join me in welcoming him. [applause]

nice to have you. let's start with a beer, shall we? that is what everyone else is watching. the president, sergeant, and a professor are supposed to sit down and enjoy a beer together, to talk about what has been leading the news for a little while. let's begin with you, michael. what should be said over this beer? >> it is a significant brew- haha so to speak. [laughter] >> this is going to be a long panel. >> we have a sustained argument

between professor gates, the sergeant, and the president, but we all know is bigger than that. at the end of the day after day engage in polite conversation, the real problem is still on the streets where black and latino men and women are subject to arbitrary forms of police power. [applause] if we are going to have a real conversation about race, we have to open up and be honest about it on all sides. it took the president of the united states of america and a professor with a harvard pedigree just to argue against the word of a white policeman who was a sergeant. [applause] what that says to me is that the everyday, ordinary, average person who is subject to these kinds of dishes forces may not actually be talked about so we must refocus the conversation about putting a personal face on

a structural problem. >> is it symbolic then, this meeting today? >> i think it is structural only in the sense that the goal is to move us back toward a policy conversation and back to a conversation about henry gates and the police. i think it is symbolic and the part that is most interesting about the symbolism is that it is two powerful black man and a less powerful white man based on rank. as the professor suggested, it takes an in enormity of power, the most important black professor in the country and the president of the united states against a sgt. it is interesting that the

meeting is in fact -- when you think about policing, it is normally a roomful of white and black police officers and a few community folks who are deeply disempowered in that conversation. the question of race and power is a helluva lot more complicated. it is structural only in the attempt to move as back to the conversation about health care. the issue immediately hijacked it. instead, we are talking about the beer at the white house. >> i think this meeting at the white house is going to be interesting for a lot of reasons, one of which i learned today. some one of the jamaican

heritage, i hope he enjoys his red stripe beer very much. one of the most important things that i think needs to come out of this meeting between the three to date is an understanding of where each person was coming from. that is what is missing from the debate. we kept hearing that henry gates was either crazy or a subject of racial profiling. one of the things that i immediately thought of and the first conclusion i jumped to i immediately thought that skip gates was being persecuted and racially profiled. one of the things that we are not hearing in the conversation is, what is it that happens to black males of a certain age group? what psychologically caused skip gates to open the door, if i

have the facts straight, but to open the door and immediately say are you asking me for my identification because i am a black man in america? what has happened that so many of us jumped to the conclusion that we are being persecuted. i don't think that other races have a fundamental understanding of why sometimes we feel the way we do. i also think that we do not have in understanding of why somebody in the position of the sergeant did what he did. part of it is because we do not have all the facts. i also think if we are going to talk about a post-racial america and continue to have this discussion of what does america mean, it is not just talking about history. it is talking about what it is that people feel when a white man shows up at your door and

you have worked very hard to get to where you are, and they say, "show me your i.d.." what was he thinking? >> one of the things that was interesting to me after reading the comments of the sergeant, he couldn't understand why the professor -- he said he did not seem grateful that i was there. [laughter] this is a man who is an expert in racial profiling. to me, i guess, -- two things he said. the first was, he did not understand why he was so angry. no. 2, he did not seem grateful that the police had come to his home. where does this conversation have to go? i am not trying to be funny. i am completely serious. where does the conversation have to go, that you have the expert

in the history of african american culture and the guy who is the expert in racial profiling for the police department, and they are not completely at odds with each other? >> ago to speak to miss bernard. she is such -- i have to speak to miss bernard. sean bell -- [applause] we could name like 50, 60, 70 other names. oscar grant who is begging for his life in oklahoma. i have a child, please don't kill me. a policeman dislodged a selling jerkily shape bullet in his back and murdered him in broad like. my point is, the history of poor

relations between police people and black communities is what the predicate. we can't miss the structural reality here. it is the reality that in american society -- >> how long have you been waiting for that? [laughter] >> i am saying that the reality is should be known by a man who teaches racial profiling as a cop. black people are sensitive to the assertion of police power in the face of obvious innocence. professor gates is at his crib. intellectually, you know that he is connected to harvard and yet you still call on a 8 150 lb cane-wielding black man. did he see professor gates as an

uppity negro that you should never speak back to police people? to me, yes, for people that disagree with colin powell who said professor gates over responded white men do not have to police themselves in the same way. i have seen white people get out of the car and cost the police out. -- and cuss the police out. [applause] that does not mean every example of black people misbehaving should be excused. it does suggest that you are living in an era that you know police brutality has existed, the stereotypes of black men have prevailed to set their conscience of america, if you are is a the to get it policeperson, you understand his inability to comprehend that says more about the police force and its inability to see where

black men are and the other way around. [applause] >> the only thing i wanted to disagree with is that we do not know what might be going on in his mind. harvard is the brain trust for a project called "project implicit." it is about implicit attitudes. this is what i think has happened. he can't be a racist because he has never shown any explicitly negative racial opinions towards black people. he even gave mouth to mouth to a black man. [laughter] skip had a white wife. what we actually know -- it is not that we don't know. we in fact do. we know quite well part of what

happens is a set of opinions and understandings about race that operate on what we would call the preconscious level. for most of us, that does not matter most of the time because we do not have to make decisions during a pre-conscious moment. the one group that this matters a lot is with police. they make split-second choices. project implicit, harvard university, it tells us a lot about what was going on in his mind. as much as that history should have set the stage for the officer, it is should have better informed professor gates who said he is surprised that this happened. had you called me and said that michael dyson was getting out with the police, i would have

said, "wright." [laughter] >> abso-damn-lutely. >> win a professor gates well enough. i just really want to tell him, president obama and professor gates, [unintelligible] [laughter] we are giving you all the best we have on the embrace and a love of white people. it is like the very best we have, both intellectually, personally, and the sense of wanting to bridge the socially, personally, and intellectually. if they get labeled as militant or radicals or racists, there is

no hope. >> like michael jackson. >> on the streets, but what i note though, i knew my role than. if that is what you think, "yes, sir." i am raising a finger at him. not the first to, not the last two. you have to tell your kids not to behave like professor gates. you do not have a harvard pedigree. you be quiet and silent until you can assert your manhood later on. not testosterone, but black survival. [applause] >> i do think we are trying to look at a macro situation through a micro lens. at the macro level, yes, professor gates knew.

on the micro level, the sergeant knew that he should have least ask the question, what is disorderly conduct? is he a threat to anyone and why am i arresting him? at the macro level, we still have to deal with the racial profiling issue. if you look at longitudinal data, there is a consistent trend of incarceration until you get to 1980. what happened? if you look at the micro analogy, you could say that all black men got together and made a decision they were going to react differently to the police department. in 1980, the reagan administration institutionalized new criminal justice policies where you began to see a 70% spike in incarceration of black males. we cannot have this conversation without -- you are not going to solve that macro

challenge by tipping back a few beers at the white house. [applause] >> there was a boston police officer responding to what he had been reading in the paper who called professor gates banana-eating, jungle monkey several times in a mass e-mail that he sent out to his colleagues many times. his lawyer said he was taken out of context. [laughter] he also said he is not racist. is this conversation, the and national -- the initial voices that way in, does this signify progress? there seems to be a bunch of people on one hand who knows about racial profiling and another bunch of people who seem to be learning about it.

or does it seem to highlight not enough progress? >> i think it highlights that we have lied about progress. i think it is highlighting the need to have discussion. i am offended by the discussion at the white house. i am offended by it because if we were serious about dealing with the issue, gates would be there, crowley would be there, but many others would be there, too. they are ignored in this conversation because we failed to deal with the micro level and we are only dealing with the personalities, as opposed to the real issues. i think what is happening is, we are seeing an issue that continues to throw back in our face and we are hypocrites about progress in the name of being

comfortable. i just wish some people would say, yes, i and racist. "i do not like black people." i would have so much more respect for them. he was taken out of context because he meant "chicken- eating and not banana-eating." these police officers who are experts in racial profiling are experts in what john was talking about, which is police department's being taught how to continue to disenfranchise as a modus operandi and then claiming that this is about decrease in crime. he is an expert in manipulating the process of policing to be down on one group and what you would allow another group to get away with.

in closing, i think at the end of the day, if we are going to be serious, it is not president obama's job. it is the job of organizations like the urban league, the naacp, and groups that have been doing work for decades but has not got the proper resources, the proper support. until we began to ship this to a local conversation to people that have been doing the work and challenging police department -- i would love to see president obama honestly speaking about that the only way to change police brutality is holding accountable through federal dollars of police departments who have a history of this activity. you are not going to get rid of racist police officers. there are going to be people who do not understand what it means to be a person of color. my issue is, i don't care if you are racist or not.

what i am concerned with is how you do your job. how you do your job needs to translate to consider the rights that i have and hold that stuff at bay. if you present that racism and use that power to discriminate against me, i want to make sure your department is held accountable through federal dollars. i want to make sure there are review boards that have power that does not give these people paid leave. we need to have -- that is not the conversation that we are having. sir to your initial question -- [laughter] i know this might be the only time i have an opportunity to talk with dr. dyson. [laughter] >> i yield the balance of my time. >> i agree with jeff.

but so often, we talk about the institutions that are oppressing us and the need for groups that all of us very much appreciate like the national urban league. but what we felt to do as african americans is also talk about the need for us as individuals, not just to rely on the national urban league or any other groups that her out there to speak on our behalf but the other as individuals raising hell. when you say somebody is a racist, yes. but saying somebody is a racist is not going to get anybody out of poverty. what is going to do that is black people taking it upon themselves -- every single person in this room should be demanding your tax dollars back from police departments that do not police, from school teachers who do not teach, from education departments who do not teach

your children the fundamentals of what they need to become barack obama will become like anyone else in this room. get your money back. >> let's pose that question to the panel. racial profiling is one of those issues. education, police protection, financial wherewithal. what is the number one most important issue? people cannot be running in the streets every day. they have to work and what not. what should be the number-one issue? >> my personal opinion is, it is education. i am working on a project. i have been going out in some of the poorest neighborhoods in washington d.c. and interviewing people about what they see every day when you go to the barber shop, when you get up in the morning, get on the metro, or don't leave your home. what do you see and what do you need? it is disheartening because a lot of people to not like to

talk about the truth. there are women everywhere, which is a beautiful sight, but there are no men. that is the truth. they are gone. i have interviewed women -- one woman that looked at me and said had you ever heard about the women that kill all of their children? i thought i was going to pass out. do you feel like you would do that? cracks she said, no, but i know why they do it. they don't want their children to suffer. these are women whose children cannot get a proper education in the district of columbia, who can't get help for special needs kids. it is every single person i have talked to that said all they want is for their children to get a proper education. i think education is the great equalizer and one of the things that we should be beating the street for and demanding. >> what is the take away?

what is the number one issue? >> i don think we can say there is one that number one issue because so many of them are interrelated. education is tied in with economics, which is tied in with health, which is tied in with the criminal justice system. all of these must be dealt with in a very comprehensive way. that is what i think is overwhelming for people. i agree with michelle that we all have to be out there pushing on these issues. whatever issue you think is the most important to you is what you should be fighting for and not get overwhelmed. we can't buy a little pieces off, but we really can make a difference. with the education work you are doing, with everybody here in the room is doing in the communities does make a difference at chipping away at

this. when you are talking about pushing on these issues and making your voices heard, i think the media plays a very important role in this. i am so glad so many media people are on this panel because you are already doing this. so much of what we are talking about and so many of the misconceptions that we are seeing and talking about are based on a distortion in the media. i think it is up to us that anything that we are watching and think is not right, we need to start putting pressure on the media outlets. they are hoping to frame these stories. that is why we are surprised with what you are doing, soledad, with your special and what michelle is doing. [applause] it takes those of you who are high-profile who can help from these issues so people start talking about them.

>> after the -- after we reported on some of the really terrible dropout figures, the graduation rate for black men, dire. i had people call me and tell me why would you want to show that. this said it was an embarrassment. my feeling is, you should go and march in front of the school where 29% of black boys is graduating. that is an in say no.. when you get pushed back like that, people get very angry at some of those images. anybody in the media will say -- we did a story on professor dyon's brother who is in prison. why would you want to show a black brother in prison? but if you are going to have an honest debate, it is very hard to not talk about the issues. >> i think you are right.

it is important to show those things but there are positive images. >> no question, there is a balance. >> there is a false equivalency. where in this balance do we even begin to build this paradigm? when we are talking about -- going back to the gates case, what constitutes as disorderly, that is from a very narrow perspective. there is this false equivalency between professor gates officer crowley and polls being conducted about who was at fault without recognizing that the officer is a police officer with a gun and a badge and power and the professor, while he may seem to some who are not the mayor

with african american intellectuals might seem he is bigger than life, he is an ordinary man who was standing in his house with a police officer in his house. there is not an equivalency there to start with. we have seen this idea in so many other things, that if it is from a white american perspective, that is the norm. it is unbiased, color blind, fare from the beginning, and anything that deviates from that, it is suspect. [applause] >> i want to invite people to come up to the microphones. >> i just wanted to ask, i have not seen anyone black ask this question about what happened with the sergeant and the oppressor, but with a black police officer standing in front of him doing? there was a black police officer. >> that was the second tier of

police officers called. the soldier responded alone, went to the door alone. -- the sergeant responded alone and went to the door alone. that was a police officer who came to the door later. >> i appreciate the point that you just made about crowley and gates. i think it takes to the idea that education is the complete key. the professor and i spent some time pushing back against this respectability idea, that somehow if we would just all be sufficiently respectable, pull up your pants, stop listening to hip-hop, name your kid tina, whatever, then youa re safe. you just have to stop

squandering the work of the civil-rights generation with the mass that is the hip-hop generation. if it does nothing else, if it does no other thing, with the arrest does it is proved a line that is the cause be the says. [applause] -- coxbsby thesis. the outcome for gates is no different than the outcome for a person in the position of particular economic inequality. it demonstrates that the point is not the level of respectability of the individual black body but the way black bodies are a part of this larger system. i hear you on education and everyone taking to the street. i am particularly concerned that as taxpaying citizens who

served in the military, who meet the responsibilities of citizenship, we also have a second burglar to not only me citizenship but also this other added burden of being super citizens who also don't just get the education that our taxes pay for and the policing that our taxes pay for and the national security that our bodies pay for, but we also have to do all these other things. obama should represent the fulfillment of the black citizenship reality, that we are full citizens. it instead becomes the very question of whether or not a black man could either be a citizen, that when they ask is barack obama born in the united states, they are saying no black people are truly citizens. [applause] >> i am not sure they are saying that. i and my sure the argument is that deep.

-- i am not sayinure the argumes that deep. let's start over here. >> thank you, panel. how do we avoid what is going on in washington, from just being a beer, and make it real? in chicago, we had a similar situation where we had a rev. who was a state senator. he was driving with his bodyguard. he got out of the car. the sergeant knew who he was the sergeant drew his weapon and told the rev. to get the f back in the car. that following sunday, elise superintendent came to the church, hugged him, but nothing changed.

how do we systemically fix the issue? >> that is a great point. you could reduce it to what michelle said about individuals. it is great for the reverend, the state senator, he certainly mobilized all political urgency in his congregation to speak out against it. i think individual response is critical. the most important thing to say that this is a collective problem. the point that he was making is that black people, besides being poorer and less educated, we have to take our less educated, or cells and do what other people do not do every day. it is hard enough for them to make ends meet. now we have to do state sedition

ship work? we have to articulate a legitimate american identity? even though it was intentional that everyone else was implicated -- [unintelligible] let me say this. >> ago 1. [laughter] -- go on. >> this reality that can go on the today show and insult the president by calling him a racist, this is the machinery that is a raid against african american people and latino people it is not just individual if you behave right into the right thing we know that skip gates has done the right thing. he has over down the right thing. what you have to understand is that you are not an exception.

dome by the reality that your education exams you from being treated like a nigger. no. 2, what you should then understand, high middle-class, educated elites must never think they are -- on the wrong day, that could be your black ass, too. [laughter] instead of going to church and talking about prosperity, gospel, and getting jesus to bless us, get your blacked butt on your school board cannot talk to the teachers of your children, elect political figures who will represent your interests. other than that, it is sounding brass. by the way, president obama, you saw when the white police force

made you give a non-apology apology. he need to speak more about race and not less about race and educate in america. [cheers and applause] >> that was very rousing, but we have eight minutes. i want to lay down somewhat. you are going to keep it very tight for me, seriously. whoever you deliver it to to the panel is going to keep it tight. rousing, but short. >> my question is, how does racial profiling that could dominate a fax black men -- how does that affect our conversation when it is predominantly black officers or hispanic officers in some situations who are harassing our black men? is it appropriate to only focus

on white officers, because i think that is a serious issue? >> the issue is-based. at the end of the day, we don't have to deal with the personalities of the officers. the police department and the legislature supports that misconduct in the police department. >> i need to add to that the one to talk about dealing with the policies in the systems that persist in the area of racial profiling, you as an advocate need to challenge your state government and york attorney general's -- and your attorney general's and hold them accountable to their reporting. we need to have uniform reporting in order to track who is profiling city can hold them accountable when it comes to funding from the federal level. if you don't have documentation that they are actually

profiling in the way that we collect the data that nationally, it is very difficult to put forth sanctions against this various jurisdictions. you have the power to go into those jurisdictions and demand for uniform reporting guidelines so that every police jurisdiction is collecting the same data, and then you know there profiling and then you can begin to withhold funding to those institutions. >> next question. >> i wanted to ask you an issue that i would like president obama to address, which is legal discrimination. people that come out of jail and run to a restaurant owner who says i do not want to hire any ex-bank robbers. how do you balance the devastation of someone who cannot get a job and turn their life around? >> there are several areas of legal discrimination, certainly

one that president obama has been really particularly awful on is the legal discrimination against gays and lesbians both in our armed services. he could have dealt with it on day one. that is also legal forms of, in many state -- in many states, gays and lesbians can be kicked out of their housing, they can lose their jobs, lose the custody of their children simply because of their identity. i think president obama has not been strong enough on addressing that on a policy level. the other question is similar, about identity. what happens is that you serve time under a new criminal justice system that actually moved the law that is crime. i can make either a million more criminals tomorrow or a few were million criminals tomorrow by changing the definition of

crime. we increase the number of criminals by making more activities criminalize. and by policing and some communities and not others. it is not just about black men. black women of the fastest growing population of newly incarcerated people. the effect on communities is devastating. i agree with you. the idea that people lose their right to vote, in other words their role as citizens, to hold basic jobs, their ability to get housing, we have expanded the number of people who are criminals when they are highly identifiable by race and economic circumstances, we are generating that we will then need to police by providing jobs. it is delivered and policy

oriented and can be addressed through legislative action and to the action of the president. and it ought to be without question. [applause] >> a question right here. >> we have learned -- we have heard a lot of post-racial america. when you think about where this occurred. there is nothing post-racial about that area of the country. i felt like i was in south africa. no one in the media has even broached that. it has a lot to do about where you are. you are still going to be considered -- no one really has addressed that. >> is there a post-racial america? >> it is not opposed racial in d.c. let's keep their real.

i am not comfortable with some of the police officers in d.c., baltimore, or atlanta either. let's understand that the whole notion of post-ratio is ridiculous so when you stop saying it. it is as ridiculous conversation. [applause] more importantly, let's have the real conversation could let's be honest about the fact that many of us of all races are racist. how does that racism begin to manifest itself in people's power to be able to push that racism out on somebody through their job? whether that is hiring, education, or the police department, those of the conversations that we need to be having. i think attorneys general me to be engaged around this issue of what it means to be a previous in cursory the person. really, there are rules that each of us have to play. we keep playing checkers them

playing chess. the movement is, i won my organization to get to the end and king me. we are just sliding across the board as king's. instead of understanding is it as a chess board. figure out the role that you are. play that role and understand that either though i may move differently and look differently, those that are dealing with education are connected with those that dealing with criminal justice and economic development, dealing with the electoral college politics, if we start looking at ourselves as the kings of our own space as opposed to as a community of organizers, preachers, parents, and community members, would begin to create impact systemically across the board instead of having these small victories better standing in the way. >> thank you for the short

answer. [laughter] we have time for one more question. >> you have asked that there are lots of -- discriminatory practices about the housing authority. this question is to dr. dyson. i acknowledge the civil rights movement and everything that has been done. as soon as people start to recognize people as human beings first, [unintelligible] i think brother martin luther king jr. and brother malcolm x will start turning over in their graves. there is a great disrespect for that movement that started in the 1960's and that of sort of

slowdown. last year, an official visit came to america. we got no official publicity about it. he wondered how the world would perceive racism in america after barack obama was elected. this was in may 2008 before the election when he came. until we enforce, he said, the right to be recognized as human beings cannot they will never cede nothing civil about us. [applause] >> i will be very brief. malcolm x try to take america before the united nations, as you know, in the 1960's said that is the president that was already set. this human-rights era did not start in the 1960's.

in terms of recognition of each other, we have to do that in our own communities the refusal to recognize a brother or sister. we are not living in a post- racial world, but we should aim to live in a post-racism one. we elected barack obama, damn. we passed that test, let's get past that. i was on the front line before many black people stood for him. i am not a hater. i am a brother. you have to call him on the stuff that he is not doing right. he chose not to go to the u.n. conference on racism. when george bush did that, we had a hissy fit. you should expect more from the president of the united states. you have to say if you want human rights recognized, you

must recognize those rights yourself. barack obama has an important job. we can put everything on his back. he is one dude. it is a hell of a public house. what would you do to make sure you do not put everything on him? speakers to power, including barack obama. he is l.b.j. that is why we need preachers and social critics on the one side speaking truth to what barack obama and his presidency represent. eric holder talk about black history and he said we are a nation of cowards. too excited, president barack obama came out and said he would not say it that way. later on, have you listened to eric holder as opposed to say

shutdown the rays conversation, we might have a better way. black people have always been interested in the human rights of all people. we have to stop the shameful homophobia. you know damn well you have taken money from them. i have not seen one black church that has said i do not take money from gay people. >> thank you for being briefed. >> i think we have to change -- we need organizations like the urban league to get away from this new frame of identifying success as individual. yes, we have a black man from chicago in the white house. i grew up in chicago. 37% of black males are graduating. you have a black man on the mountaintop where the majority are living in the valley.

we perpetuate that. throughout a speech where he got the most applause was when he said blackmails me to pull up their pants. yes, that is important. but after a day public their pants, we send them to schools where they have less access to education, a highly effective teacher. it is the fact that their pants will sag in a visual proximity with those are that we are trying to impress. we need to build systems of success which involves legislation, which involves litigation, and sometimes it involves agitation. because the sag does not cause a 37% graduation rate in chicago.

if we are going to ask those young men to elevate their pant, we need to be willing to elevate our game and push the education, litigation, and agitation. >> a big thank you to our panel. thank you for joining us this afternoon. [applause] >> coming of next, at a hearing to examine the use of a contractor performance bonuses by the federal government. later, republican senator talks about the agriculture spending

bill. after that, secretary of state henry clinton meets with jordan's foreign minister. tomorrow morning, we will talk to the vice president tammy darvish about the cash for clunkers program. after that, burt folsom. later,, bill adair joins us. >> starting tuesday, the full senate debates the nomination of sonia sotomayor for supreme court justice. coming this fall, tour the home of america's highest court. >> now, a subcommittee examines the effectiveness of government agencies giving monetary

bonuses for contractor performance. in this first panel, he will hear testimony from officials in the white house and the government accountability office. nasa officials testify later. >> the hearing will come to order. we are glad you are here and finkel that you are still in your jobs -- we are glad they you are here and thankful that you are still in your jobs. i try to raise -- sometimes i like to come early and there raise my chair much higher than the other chairs and put them at the very lowest level. i look like a chairman then.

i am going to be joined by several of my colleagues. i think senator mccain is on the senate floor. i told my staff that we might be talking about the nominee for the supreme court as we speak. what we are going to be talking about today is really important. i am delighted that this panel is here. we look forward to your testimony is and look forward to having a chance to go back and forth and kick around some ideas with each of you. i think it was about a year ago when senator cockburn, senator sanders and i examined whether agencies were giving away what is known as award fees to contractors and whether or not those contractors really deserve them in many instances. in the private sector, those

payments would probably be called bonuses. they were introduced to help incentivize exceptional performance. it might be described as extra profit that the contractor might earn if they save our government money and deliver a superior product. the practice of of lending performance to properties is not a new concept as we now. it can lead to excellent results if used appropriately. however, recent controversies in the financial sector show that rewards and incentives that are not properly aligned with outcomes can sometimes lead to failure with dramatic consequences. unfortunately, government agencies have made some of the same mistakes that private firms we care about in the news have made over the years. much to my disappointment, it seems that a number of agencies, not all of them, continue to struggle and figure

out how to manage award fees properly. a number have taken steps to maybe show the way for the rest of our agencies. some agencies continue to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars to contractors for reasons that just to make a whole lot of sense. in one interview, i am told that as part of its analysis, and air force official reportedly said that a contractor would have to do "a pretty bad job" just to receive 85% of the potential bonus, meaning that a bad job might warrant 100% of a bonus. another case, a contra was cited for "agreed this behavior" this the received an award feet. even when agencies to hold contractor's fee to the fire,

they often give them second and third chances to earn a profit despite repeated shortcomings. this practice is meant to be used in limited situations when contractors are unable to deliver for reasons outside of their control and fortunately rollover seems to have become a rule instead of the exception. not always but in some instances. instead, agencies continue to hand out millions and billions of dollars in bonuses, assuming that they are getting the best result for our taxpayers. the department of defense in the partly paid a billion dollars in award fees in 2005 alone. only