required, that they are smart and be efficient and coordinated and helping global payment takeoff. this is another example where, if we do not get it right, we will see the leading innovators in mobile payments developed in other countries. >> right now, you have a lot of proceedings in front of the fcc. you want to be as technologically efficient as possible. why do you not say no more paper filings and that everything has to be electronic? >> it is a question we wrestled with last year. we put together a strategic plan for the country on broadband, put it on line, made it interactive, and ran the process online for input. we did print books -- a couple of hundred pages. how many was it? 267 pages.

people ask, it is a broad band plan. why are you printing it? the answer is that the percentage of americans that are on line is much lower than in needs to be. colic the broadband adoption rate -- 67%. one-third of americans are not online. 67% compares to 90% in singapore and south korea. we need to pursue a set of strategies to increase broadband adoption in the u.s., but the thing that we realized, as your question pointed out, once we move to full e-government, it will save a tremendous amount of money for taxpayers and ron government more efficiently. the problem is, until we do that, the government has to run two infrastructures. until the government serves all of its citizens, and until we

get all citizens online, we have to do paper and electronic. it is crazy. it is why taking real measures has a double payoff. >> 20% to not have access to broadband at all. >> a little less. >> what percentage? >> it is under 10%. 25 million people live in areas there have no broadband infrastructure at all. >> what are you doing about that? >> all of these topics that under the heading universal service. we did a good job in the 20th- century doing universal service for telephone service. the problem is, our universal service programs are still telephone programs. they have also become inefficient, wasteful, and they're not allocating funds very wisely. this is a core recommendation of the broadband plan, as long --

along with incentive options and other spectrum issues. we need to transform this $9 billion a year fund for universal service into one that is efficiently focused on the next generation of infrastructure that is using market-based mechanisms to disburse funds. it is efficient, fiscally responsible, accountable, and i think we will get there. predecessors have tried, and i understand why it is so hard. it is complicating and challenging. schematically, why these issues are so challenging and what i think we are wrestling with a high level -- many of the people here probably read a book called "innovators dilemma." it analyzes why market-leading companies -- reading companies can sometimes succeed and

sometimes fail when faced with destructive technologies and competitors. it is a good framework for thinking about where we are when it comes to technology. we are the market leaders. we do the great job. like some of the market leading companies of the trouble adjusting, the reason they have trouble adjusting is they are not operating on a blank slate. they have to make transfers -- transitions from legacy his infrastructure, older policies and processes, and this is what we have to do in number of areas. spectrum, universal service -- we have to recognize that we have real issues. it is actually coming out of a series of positives for the u.s., whether it is but broadcasting -- so many successes have made this harder. that is a good thing, but also a

challenge. the same thing with universal service. if we do not tackle these in the way that the great companies tackle their disruptive competitors and technologies, the risk we face as a country is we will end up what the companies that do not make the turn and compete in a new era. >> why should the government not do the same? the fcc was set up in 1934, five members. why not have one administrator, and met him or her decide the policies without going through votes. >> i will tell you one thing that is interesting historically. it is an accident, but it gives us a competitive advantage if we get our job right. in most competitive countries there are multiple agencies that do with the fcc does. there is an agency that does wired communications. if there's one that does wireless, another for international and satellite. thanks to the accident of

history and herbert hoover, we have had from the beginning what are around the world they call a converged agency. for many years you would wonder why these things were put together, but now it makes a lot of sense. all of these different means of communication are basically different mechanisms for transmitting digital bits. it should give the u.s. advantage am looking holistic lead at policies that relate to each other. there are global competitors that want to move to a converged agency. one of the things we focus on is taking advantage of this competitive advantage, making sure we are adopting rules and policies that make sense across multiple platforms. >> you think this is more efficient than other countries? >> i think a converged agency makes sense absolutely. >> traditionally, i would guess fcc commissioners would say it is competitive, not

competitive, the pro-technology, or not, but do you weigh in what the impact is another country's from the globe? >> absolutely. we cannot disentangle what happens with our economy from what happens in the global economy. 25 years ago, when congress authorized the fcc to conduct auctions, at that point there was a delay. there should not have been, but there was pure the cost of the delay was much lower than now. back then, countries for not waking up every day and saying we want to take the lead in innovation and have identified spectrum mobile as an opportunity. today, the fact is that all of the major economies around the world, as i said before, they understand the. which can now look at our own economy, what we need to do to make sure the u.s. takes

advantage without paying attention to global competitors. >> since we started selling spectrum, the u.s. government has brought in $50 billion. how much more money is there to be broad index is in another 50 billion, or is that too high? >> -- broadband -- brought in yet another $50 billion, or is that too high? >> it is something we should move forward on and do as a bipartisan, strategic issue. >> do you think you have to be a lawyer to be the chairman of the fcc? >> no. it gets at another thing that i try to focus on in running the agency. there are very few issues that we work on where you would want only lawyers to work on them. i am a lawyer.

i was trained as a lawyer. i've nothing against lawyers. the best work that is done by the agency his work that is multi-disciplinary -- where we get in a room and talk about an issue. it will sound like a joke, but i do not mean it this way. a lawyer, an economist, an engineer, people with real world investing experience, or people with experience in education or health care -- this is the most fun i have. we get people from multiple backgrounds together and have been tense, vibrant discussions about what the right thing is for the country. this is where i learned from the people you mentioned at the beginning -- encouraging those kinds of conversations and the intense back-and-forth, but also respect for multiple disciplines. it is important that the fcc has all of them represented. >> are you influence by grass- roots letters? are you in france by members of congress when they sent letters?

-- influence by members of congress when they send letters? how you treat the letters? the members of congress lobby you? >> we spend a lot time talking to members of congress. it is very important on issues like broadband, which is sold important to our economy. public safety, spectrum -- the fcc has a real obligation to be a resource to congress, the administration, and it is incredibly important. we run open processes. we are required. we pay all lot of attention to the input we get from all stakeholders. when i tell the scene is, again, this is where i started. great ideas can come from anywhere. bad ideas can come from anywhere. let's make sure we know what we are trying to accomplish, what the shortest distance is to get there, in the sensitive about

the different perspectives that we have coming in. >> the white house does not call up and say what their position is on net neutrality and other things? >> we are an independent agency. we do what we believe is the right thing for the country, and almost everybody you could mention, we have agreed and this with them. >> there was a story where a former chairman of the fcc was doing something under the reagan administration that president reagan did not like, or some of his advisers did not, so they brought in all of the movie studio heads who did not like the proposed regulation, and all were in the oval office. the president says if i could've gotten a meeting with you if -- when i was an actor, i would not have to go into the political world against the fcc chairman was not in that meeting. -- world. i guess the fcc chairman was not

in that meeting. you cannot have that kind of situation now? now the you know that it is -- what it is like to be the chairman of the fcc, knowing very thing you know, would to a taken the job again? [laughter] >> yes. the issues that we have talked about, they're very, very important for the country. they're both interesting, exciting, and if we get the right, they will really matter to the economy and ordinary americans. they're things like digital text books that we did not talk about triplex digital text books -- the idea is that -- talk about. >> digital text books, is that going to happen or not? >> i think it will happen. anything we can do to accelerate it will be a good thing. it is not just about heading off shoulder problems for young people. it is that technology here can

be a real opportunity equalizer for students all over the country, and a force multiplier for teachers. when you think about the power of these devices to help on an individualized basis students wherever they are, learn geometry fester, science, math, all of these subjects -- i think the opportunities are immense. we should be the first country in the world to move from paper textbooks to digital text books, and i think we should lead the world in innovation. i think we of the chance to do it, but there are obstacles to overcome. >> there have been some rumors you would take another position in this administration. are you planning to stay as chairman of the fcc for the foreseeable future? >> i am very focused on what i'm doing every day. the agenda, the things i have described to you, i will keep

waking up every day working on that, and i enjoyed. >> we have some time for some questions from the audience. raise your hand. i think there should be a microphone. you can identify yourself if you are not afraid to do so. no lobbying bill. questions? there is one right here. >> thank you i am with -- thank you. i'm with bank of america, mr. chairman. as we all know, our computer and communications instructor nationally is under constant threat of cyber attacks. just about one year ago, the fcc issued a notice of inquiry about the possibility of developing a cyber security standards and certification for communications service providers. what'd you learn through the process, and what is the status? >> i am glad you mentioned that.

the security of our broadband and structure is vital for our economy, from large possesses to small. people need to be able to trust their information is secure and protected. debris will points in response -- 1 -- two point in response -- one is there are agencies that have some expertise and resolute -- relevance to the solution. it is important in this area, as was the other one, the government as a whole act in a smart, coordinated, efficient way. that is why a cyber security advisor was appointed in the white house. it was the right thing to do. the inter-agency task efforts to tackle this our on going, very important, and they're not easy. there are some steps that we could take. i'll give you one example.

there is an incredible opportunity in small businesses going on line, taking advantage of the opportunities the internet, wired-to-wireless allows to expand market, and lower-cost its. -- costs. broadband adoption around small businesses is not as high as it should be to fully take advantage of these opportunities, and we looked to why that is. there are number of different reasons, but part of it is concerned about the infrastructure. next month, we will launch an initiative together with other agencies and companies in the private sector to increase the level of education, knowledge, and awareness among small businesses of the basic steps that could be taken to protect themselves. there are a lot of things i suspect many people in this room

take for granted. did not click on a link in an e- mail from people that you do not know. is not common knowledge, but it should be. we will launch an initiative to focus on small business and security. as we continue to work on the note that you mentioned, and is a part of the process to make sure the country gets this record >> other questions? -- gets this right. >> other questions? identify yourself. >> mr. chairman, i am which j.p. morgan. with the low usage of internet technology in the united states relative to appear countries, how much is driven by the cost of the individual consumer? >> we figure in our work that there were several different contributing reasons. in some cases, they are independent, and in some cases

they relate to each other. affordability is a reason. for some people, it is the dominant reason. we also found that relevance was an issue. there are some people that do not appreciate the value of been online. if there are steps we could take to accelerate that. digital literacy is an issue. there are some people that do not have the skills to be online. there are steps we could take to address digital illiteracy. trust is the fourth step. we need to work on all of these. here is something that people -- well people, should know this. the cost of digital exclusion is much higher than it used to be, and it is getting higher. i will give you one example. think about jobs. it used to be if you were looking for a job, you would get the newspaper, a look at the

help wanted ads, and if you saw something, you would call up, and maybe schedule an appointment or an interview, where you would fax over an application or a rise in may. we know that is not our works anymore. overwhelmingly, the job postings are moving online. in fact, more than three- quarters of fortune 500 companies do all of their job postings on line. if you are not online today, you cannot even find the job. i also talked to a lot of people on the other side that say that we need to create a lot more jobs in this country, obviously, but there are also jobs that do exist that require basic digital scales, and some employers are having trouble finding people with basic digital skills to fill jobs that are available. in both respects, the cost of digital exclusion is much higher than it used to be. it is why it is such an imperative to bring up these

numbers. >> speaking of new technology, president obama recently said that he found that the telephone system in the white house was kind of antiquated and he was surprised compared to what he expected. have you been asked for any advice of how to improve the telephone system there? >> unfortunately, the fcc is not in that business spread across the board, i would say this -- >> are you happy with your phone service at the fcc? >> we've taken a number of steps over the last year to take -- to make better and more efficient use of communications technology. it is really important, not only to lower the cost of government, because we could lower the cost by using cloud computing smartly, and other new technologies. we could generate more efficiency. to come back to the adoption point, there is the double bottom line that by accelerating the move to e-government and

generating the use of new technologies across government, it will help increase our adoption rate because it is often the people that most interact with government that are the ones that are, the least. thinking creatively about bringing these things together, we can get the government to operate more efficiently and do it in a way that brings more people online. it is like incentive options, if i could -- auctions, if i could plug them again. we need to do some of these things, and we are doing a lot. there are terrific examples in the space where we could do things that have wins on multiple levels -- for our economy, education, raising revenue, and a boring costs. >> we have time for one more question -- lowering costs.

>> we a time for one more question. anyone else? i will ask the last question then my question is today, when somebody wants to influence the fcc, an average citizen, what is the best way? write a letter, send an e-mail, come to washington? how can an average citizen actually effect with the fcc does? >> for people that live outside of washington, online is the best way. we have made it very easy for people outside of washington, whether you are an ordinary citizen, a teacher, a small- business person, an engineer, an economist and a large company, someone at the university, and you did not have to hire a lawyer to present your facts, data, and ideas, but to do it directly online. we changed our rules so that online submissions count as a part of the record, which imposes an obligation on us to

take into account as we make a decision. i would encourage everyone to go to the fcc.gov. where are in the process of relaunch in our site to make it more helpful to stakeholders in terms of providing information and also getting input. so, that is the way to do it, but for people that do not have on-line access, we will look at other information that comes in as well. >> all right. thank you, chairman, and on behalf of the economic club of washington, i want to thank you for an inch in conversation. i will give you a gift. it is a little map of the district of columbia. i hope you are allowed to take a gift. >> i am not sure. josh? [laughter] >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you all.

thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> president obama will be at facebook headquarters in california this afternoon to take part in a town hall meeting where he is expected to talk about the upcoming vote to raise the federal debt ceiling. you can see live coverage starting at 4:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight, a look at government transparency and the access to information. you will hear from wikileaks founder julian assange as he debates on whether whistle- blowers' make the world a safer place and at what risk. >> i think it is obvious that whistle-blowers make the world a safer place, and when we tried to the counter arguments, it does not mean that everything in government should be exposed. what it does mean is that the system of breaking the alleged

laws is working, and it must be kept going that way, otherwise wars cannot reflect the reality that we are in. >> watch this debate from the front line club in london, tonight, did o'clock p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight, on c-span two, a discussion on what defines corruption. he will hear from law professors and a high-ranking just department official -- justice department official. >> charles rangel would argue that he was not correct. he then on the last day when he was censured, he was arguing he had not received any personal enrichments, no money had gone into his pocket, which was his definition of corruption. i think there are very few regular americans that would look at the host of conduct that

he was ultimately found to have engaged in an think it was not corrupt. in that way, i might differ from our keynote speaker if to say it is not all about the money. sometimes, it is about the prestige. >> watch this event from new york university law school tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> coming up, a discussion of minorities in the news media and popular culture. we will hear comments from will griffin and spike lee. his part of an all-day conference on race in america hosted by the aspen institute. it lasts about one hour and a half. to start inbout a mine. urging people to kind of move up front. take a seat. [inaudible conversations]

okay, and just to remind you, we've looked at different contexts for our look at racial questions, and we've gone through the home and family, politics, and them the last session, the institutions, # and now basicly a public sphere, the media andpopular cultur and i turn it back over to richard lui. >> thank you, charlie. what a great panel today to talk about this. donna byrd here, thank you for being here today. will griffin, thank you, present ceo of hip hop on demand as well as spike lee, founder of 40 acres and film works that everybody knows. what a great panel to talk about the subject today. as you know, the entire subject

we look today in the state of race in america. i want to start by asking you what the state of race in media is. if you could give me your thoughts, and spike, by the way, i forgot to mention, he has to leave at 4 for a plane to catch heading up to new york, and there's a reason for this, and you can explain what you have to be there for. >> well, i have to be there for my man. tonight, chris rock is making his debut on broadway. the name of the play is -- please excuse me for leaving early, and i thought i would be in the earlier panel, but i have to leave, so please excuse me, thank you. >> i wanted him to announce the name of that play. [laughter] spike, you're doing that. why don't you start then for us, how about that?

your feelings about the state of race and media. >> to be honest, it seems like there's panels like this forever. we're discussing the same thing over and over, oveh, over and again, and you know, what is really -- i mean, we have, i mean, what's been done is magnificent, but if you look at the -- i'm really talking about hollywood and networks and cable television, you know, the -- it's kind of -- >> are we in a better place you think in >> than what? >> than before because you said we've been talking about this over and over and over again. >> look what's on television,

and i mean, is there a cosby show now? i think that this reality show is going to bring about the down fall of western civilization. [laughter] these realit shows are unbelievable to me, but i just think that -- and it's something i said before. we can do a lot of stuff up dependently, but we're -- independently, but we're talking about the institutions, hollywood, and television you can break that down into network and broadcast. unless we become the gate keepers of, it's not going to change. the gate keepers are the people who are a very select few, again, in hollywood and in television, radio, and television is broadcast network, these select few decide what's

going on and what's not going on, and there's not one person of color that i know of that is a gate keeper, and what i just said, and you cannot use will smith and denzel becau even when will wants to do a film, he still has to call amy pascoe and say i want to do this fill. . of course wi him the biggest star in hollywood, of course they say yes, but he still has to go to anyone and say this is what i want to do. we're not in a room. quick analogy. when "master minds" and an unnamed studio decided they wanted to do a film called "soul

plane" thereas no one in the room saying wait a minute, can we just talk about this? ask american airlines, they go put rims that spin on the plane, hydraulic wheels, snoop's the captain, there's a pole in the back, and we serve fried check and malt liquor. no one in the room to say wtf, wait a minute, that's not a good idea. [laughter] we're not in those decision making -- these studios every quarter, they sit around a room and people have green light votes, and they look at the budget. they look at the script, they

look at how much money they think they can make overseas, and they vote on what film they're going to make and which film they're not going to make, and we're not in those positions yet. >> how do you get there? >> well, the thing about film is there is no one way to anything. i mean, you could be a hostess at a restaurant and working at being a head of a studio so it's not like you do this, this, this, this. it's like it's this and that, ani think the number one, we have to delegate. i think the time has to come where african-american artists can't be making art and also be

raised in the film too. there's enough african-americans and hispanics coming out of business, staff ford, howard, nyu, coming out of warton school at penn, and i mean, that's not my -- i don't know how to do that business. i just try to do art, and as the artist to also raise the money and come up with a business plan, and if they said, spike, i want you to give me a business plan for x amount of dollars for slater films. i can't do that. i just think we have to get people -- your jobs to do this, leave the art to the artists, and just get together. >> all right. great way to kick it off. will, what would you say? >> i think a, hollywood in trouble; right?

and hollywood is in trouble and the black artists within llywood are caught up. it's just a dead end to what that system is. we talk quite a bitbout this. they have to deal with technology, changes, they have to deal with competition for the consumer and bootlegging and they what are focused on is films and that's about what happens at the studio. now, there is an example, and we didn't talk about this, of somebody when you are a black filmmaker they expect you to be the artist and the entrepreneur at the same time. you have to produce the movie and make the money. that's the green light. in the real world that's almost superman; righ you got to have it or woody allen before that, these are

amazing filmmakers because they can raise the money. they'll bring us a film ready to go, and we just have to put it in theaters. that's the expectation of african-american filmmakers. today, it's just too big. we did a show called a reality cosby show. >> i love that show. >> thank you. there's only a companies that buy it, abc family would have bought it, and then mtv ultimately bought it. it's not like a huge market. the wb didn't want it, abc, nbc, they were not trying to do it. i think the biggest issue is there are no standards now for the content, and especially as it relates to african-american content, and one of the things it was -- we need the apollo

project if african-american media which is a total rethink to say 10 years from now which is what president kennedy looked at yrs from now is we're going to be on the moon, reaching these points, and the best thinking towards having that goal. i think if we thought 10 years from now or 20 years from now when we look back and said first african-american president, a real life cosbyhow in the white house; right? i mean, a reality has outstripped imagination of the possibilities, and i think rethink of the media industry would say how do we -- how do we extend our imaginations beyond, you know, the reality of our society. if people look back 20 yes from now, what would we want to say we were about? what did we record on television? what did we put out on film? how did we represent ourselves

in our times, you know? when you look at news, where is the new ed bradley; right? he left a few years ago. we lost something. i think about the investigative journalism show. i remember abc and food lion thing and remember that where abc undercover reporters go in the food line and realize that the meat was bad, the way it was prepared was hoosh, they dropped it on the floor and washed it off, and i look at today's society and i look at the tea party in the way it's covered. people cover play by play. i was like who is going to go out there and tell us the meat is bad? right? the ed bradley who is going to do that for our culture and go out there and cover it, and i think at the end of the day to ask somebody to go raise money and say do the job that the state is suppod.

no, the state is supposed to do it. that's the responsibility of the news media. that's your obligation to the electorat. i feel the same way towards television. there's a responsibility to produce things that will uplift the civilization, that match the values in the society overall, and i think we have to demand that, and i think it's good business. the first studio that stands up and says, you know what? i'm not going to be in just like the last five movies business. i put in half a billion dollars over ten years or a billion over five if you want to get crazy aggressive. you got to bring me along because spike already said he can't give the money. [laughter] come on. [laughter] >> a billion dollars, and you say we are going to be committed to films for this audience and this market and we are going to

make them work. it would capture the united states as a community and would be successful in the market. >> real quickly -- >> yeah. >> the thing that we're forgetting is that the united states census bureau has said by the year 2035, and some states it might be quicker, white amerans are going to be minority in this country. any business in this country that does not take that into account starting today or last month and wait to 2035 is going to be extipght. this country is becoming brown, and if you continue to operate with leave it to beaver and audrey and harry, it's not going to work. 2035 white americans, and i

don't make this up, the united states census bureau, white americans are going to be the minority in the country, so that's reflecting not just dealing with media, not just how you portray the media, but also the decision makers. you just can't have -- you got to give th people who make the country give them jobs in meaningful positions too. >> a part of that fabric you bring up here spike and mona is middle americans. >> i'm glad he touched on both entertainment and news because when it comes to both and the many hats, to rip off the hat -- >> his hat was different. >> very different. [laughter] >> for people like me who wear many hats and i'm of arab dissent and here in the u.s., when it comes to the news media, it's lazy. first of all, as a white american, you can talk about

everythingment you are an expert on everything, and i'm fresh off talking about the egyptian revolution on various media outlets, but also talking about that because i was born in egypt. ask me to talk about the libya revolution even though i'm tennessee expert in both countries. they go to the white academics who said this would never happen, and as it was happening, they said it's not going to work out. they continue to tell you these arabs love dictators. i don't think they are going hello, can i talk? nobody is listening. they go to white experts. it's frustrating on that level. when it comes to my muslim hat, where do i start? muslims were not invented on 9/11. everybody acts like we were. the muslim experience goes back centuries in this country. never talk to a black muslim in the country because they want

the foreign muslim experience. my citizenship is official tomorrow. [applause] >> we should have waited a day. [laughter] >> should have waited. [laughter] >> but you know, to me, there's a bunch of other muslims of foreign dissent because it's easy to make that connection. with a muslim experience in the u.s., it was the voice of pakistan. what is it about americans who have been in this country for centuries. i'm relieved that the muslim congressman in this country was representative keith alison. he's african-american and his family has been here for centuries. you cannot say he's a foreigner. this is a muslim experience on media, and when they go to the

foreign muslim, it's the elam, the most conservative example of the muslim experience. hell lee, talk to -- hello, talk to me. 20% of muslims in this country go to mosque and identify with this conservativism at you see on tv, and yet they go to the very conservative man or a woman in a head scarf. on every count i lose when it's to talk about international news issues i lo because the white analyst knows more than i do. when it's my muslim experience and the muslim experience of, you know, you tell people that the documentation, muslim tradesmen in the country centuries ago and say islam came from slave ships, people go what? all they want to know is that 9/11, islam, what does that mean because it's very comfortable to keep islam the foreign element in the country. it's0 years after 9/11, have

we learned nothing about the muslim experience in this country? when it comes to news media, they are lazy, white centric, and we can talk about this forever and ever and will continue to talk about this forever and ever as long as my voice is not considered an authority, and only an authority -- you know, like i why being enterer intiewed about the budget cuts, why am i not interviewed about planned parenthood. i'm a feminist and have strong opinions, but they don't come to me. unless we push it and point out its laziness, it will not change and comet to be above my ahead regardless if i'm an american citizen or not. >> it was great to have you on msnbc i must say. [applause] we'll see more of you based on what you just said. gr you tell them. >> i'm going to take it home.

donna? >> i have to agree with the pommists thus far. if you look at the statistics, of the 815 executive producers in broadcast media, 64 of them are african-american -- >> out of how many? >> 815. >> wow. >> 64 are african-american, 24 his painic, 13 are asian, 1 native american. >> whatield is that? >> that's television broadcast executive producers. looking at print, there's a survey with 900 papers across the cotry answer the survey. 50% of those had zero minorities in any management role in the companies. you look at that, i mean, we have an issue, i think everybody noted it already, it's a representation. when you don't have anyone in the room to bring up different viewpoints, different ways of looking at a story, stories that

may not be uncovered, then you miss this. ma times behind the scenes, you have someone who is producing a show, and they are asking who do you know? right? they are looking for panelists, experts to come on a show, and they may not know that mona has expertise in a specific area. they they, she's egyptian, she can be on for this, but they don't know what she can represent. the probm is they're not people -- there's not representation in the room that can say i know someone who can fill this role and that role and this sort of group of individuals looks diverse. that also has to do with the stories that are told too; right? so once you have the representation, it has a significant influence on the actual content. that's shown on air, and i work for the root, and we are an online publication written, and most of the writers are

african-american. we write about news and politics and culture through an african-american ls, and it's interesting how many people come to our site that are hungry for the stories that are not being covered in the mass media. that's what we get day in and day out, andnterestingly engh, we also get many -- nonminority people coming to the site that are looking at, looking for the same thing. they are like, oh, when the story hits that's big on the news, occasionally people come to the site because they want to hear what the black perspective is. we have to sort of move past where we have been. we've been tking about this story for years and years and years, and we have to begin to effect change. i'm on the business side of this industry, and when i look at it, you know, it's unfortunate when we look at some of what's going on in media today, it has a business implication; right?

so when you look at -- i'll move quickly to your glenn becks, the rush limbaugh's of the world -- >> donald trump. [laughter] >> the list is expansive. [laughter] >> let's put hion the list though. [laughter] >> when you look at this, you find unfortunately, racism sells; right? when you have people who are race baiting racism, however you frame up, at the end of the day it actually does have, it does sell, and it's going to take us standing up and saying this is wrong. standing up to the advertisers plaicessing advertisements on the stations say we will not watch yo programming, and we'll be vocal about what's going on in your programecause it's toxic, not only to the individuals that are watching this, but more broadly to our entire community. >> launch of what you said as well as the other panelists. back to you, spike.

the idea of an apollo project will brought up and weaving in what was mentioned. what does that look like from your mind? >> not just one, b i think there should be many -- it's all about the money, and, again, we had discussions again and again and again, and it always comes down to money, and now there are enough people of color who have the capital to do it because there comes a point where, you know, matt morris talked about self-reliance, self-determination, and that -- i mean we got to have a multifacets program, so we should have apollo projects, independent stuff, but that

dpunt mean we -- doesn't mean we let hollywood and tv get off too. we have to work in all the different levels. speaking of hollywood and the muslims, hollywood is very, you say it in a little less degree, tv, a little bit, you' always goingto have the bad guy. who was the first great so-called film, griffin's "birth of a nation," who was the bad guy? the blacks in the reconstruction, and then you go to the western. who was the bad guy? the -- that's why there's john ford and the great directors because all the hateful images he did of native american law and john wayne trying to fix up the last film, i forgot the name of it, but so then there's world war ii book out, it's the

nazis. we kick the nazi's ass, who is next? the russians. the union blows up. we need a b guy. 9/11 happens, and boom. you look at every film out since 9/11, it's not the russians anymore, it's the terrorists. it's like muslim equals terrorist. you look at all these hollywood films, it comes down the new boogeyman is the muslim. >> this describes our culture what you described over time in >> no. the american people are being fed this stuff. they are being fed this stuff. i was thinking when france want to come in, the idiots say no longer french fries or french toast? freedom fries, freedom toast, and they are crazy.

[laughter] we're gullible as a people, and you tell the lie long enough and loud enough, people believe it. that's this whole donald trump thing. you kw, he's going to keep pounding on it and pounding on it until you have half the country believing it that the president was not born as an more than citizen. >> why does he poll well? >> why what? >> why does trump poll well? >> that issue. it's gist on that issue alone. i mean, to thispoint, the birth issue is the father of the media, period. now,he media is reporting trump is a legitimate candidate. no, he can't be a legitimate candidate. they should have debunked a lot time ago. can you see walter reading

this? no. it's all play by play. that's news now. now in the poll, trump is second. it's just too much play by play. i think this is where the opportunity is, and i agree with spike's point. he did a film where you can't get on the bus, privately funded, and i worked with him on one. we can't privately fund the solution to this problem. that's part of it like he's saying. the apollo project has to be at the studio. a media company has the cut the tag. it's not a problem to throw money at. it's not poverty. we don't have the money to tell the stories, and you can't throw money at it and make a difference, but in the news, they are just on these standards. if there's an enterprising within the media companies if an

african-american doesn't say, hey, i'll be the standard for my cull cheer andeport the nws the way they did. you don't have that voice on television now, and i think there's an opportunity or would be an opportunity for african-americans to stand up or muslims. james, the right winger with planned parenthood, acorn, he's dismantling progressive organizations with a $600 camera and some access, and i think there's the same opportunity. you are telng me you can't go to ten tea party express stops to make the case this is a racist organization? you think there's not a time among those 100,000 people that say i don't care whether the birth thing is true or not? you don't think you can capture that on tape. they don't qair whether it's true or not and the news media on the birth issue should say that's a dead issue.

anybody who brings it up is ridiculous. [laughter] if you get a phone call and say hey, do you support donald trump, yo answer should be no, you're anidiot. he's trying to hustle me out of the boat with a dead issue. no, i don't support him. somebody in the media should be saying that that as a journalist with the responsibility, i can't tell them this. >> you know, one person who has been saying it, and that's john stuart, and speaks to the state of just how miserable news has been. this is a dead word now. we think it means something, and it doesn't mean anything because the way that -- it's basically been so used that you can have donald trump speak this nonsense with the issue of park 51 and the community center and mosque near ground zero and john stuart said it's not on ground zero. it was a nonissue until people

campaigned forhe elections. it was -- pamela geller was a nobody who had a lunatic blog that nobody read, and they came out of nowhere and put on news shows with serious people to start the rubbish of the islamization of the united states. somebody said you speak nonsense, this is ridiculous, she would be deflated, but now she's an expert on hate. she's consistently one after another news show. she was -- she was speaking of fox news about a year and a half ago talking about the islamic community center and fox said it was a great idea, and pam speers this idea of the blood dripping mosque and t muslims are coming to take over and how

babies and this community center and it was taken seriously. what happened between what fox news had daisy on and it was a great idea to last summer and america goes crazy during the summer because you have nothing to think about. it's like forest fires everywhere, and last time it was muslims everywhere. you care about park 51 and this pam lunatic became this huge megastar. i do not understand, and then she invites people over from the netherlands, another hate monger, and she has this congregation of hate in new york whereas in the beginning if it was nipped in the bud, and she was ld you are talkin hate. she's free to talk hate, do it on your blog, but to talk with an expert to the fact, i was outside park 51 last summer doing sidewalk activism, and the people here for three weeks tell americans what they should know,

and what i'm learning from my citizenship examine is which the first amendment allows you the freedom of worship and expression. outside park 51, all these americans watching fox news and watching pam come to the community center and yell obscenities at us. somebody left a bag of dog poop outside the community center, and another nut case, this evangelist comes outside with a news crew to say he's there to save muse lism women because we need saving. outside the center is six muslim women shouting at him saying we don't need to be saved. it's a lunatic situation where this right wing evangelist is speaking on my behalf. >> what about the guys burning the quaran? >> he is a congregation of 12.

[laughter] >> equate that with the tv space, and he's a megachurch. >> last summer when there was nothing to report, they go to his church and turn him into a superhero. again, i'm not stepping on his right to do anything. >> you think he has the right to burn that in? >> he does. hehe has a choice. sarah palin on the right side come up with this crazy solution. they said if he doesn't burn it, you don't build theommunity center. that's why he has the right to burn it. the amendment givings him the right to burn, and the 4th amendment gives me the right to build this commune center. there's no kind of confeion done on the first amendment here. you have to tell people that. you do not want to let go of your first amendment rights in order for people like donald trump and sarah palin to speak on your behalf.

where isamerica? i really want to know. >> don, before we get to you, spik you have to leave in five minutes, and building on what you talked about is the responsibility of media; right, and putting the views out there. spike, where has media been responsible? what are some of the examples that we can hold up? >> i need some help. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> what? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> film making, it can be hollywood examples or regard to news as we talked about, but where is the responsibility you've seen out there, that awareness? >> it's fleeting. >> it's that difcult? >> well, we're being overrun by

garbage on television, and it's selling, and especially in this difficult economic times we live in, they are not just going to cut that loose when it's making money, but i just think that people in power, they really just got to come down and understand you have the responsibility because when you get your license from the fcc, there's a responsibility there, but i think that for many people it's profits over people. i think the best example was bp of the whole bp thing ere people in the gulf states re sacriced for profits, and that's really what the country is built upon though.

you look at the what happened to the native americans and this stealing of people from africa -- that's wha the country is really built on, you know, exploitation, and it's slicker now, it's glossier. sometimes it's harder to find, but, you know people pray it all the time, people kneel down to the altar of the al mighty dollar and they'll even put their mother on the corner for money. gr what's your - >> what's your perspective of large money? the perspective of the media companies, does it squeeze out diverse voices? that's the argument that's being made out there. >> my whole thing is just a matter of huge media companies. i mean, it looks like a couple

years, three companies will own everything in the world. it's not just media. yiesm -- i mean, everything is just people buying this and buying that, and there's, you know, fewer places to go to because you got to unlock especially with film. there used to be a lot of independent houses, major stuff where you can go, you can try to get a film made. those companies are out of business. >> they are gone? >> gone. >> what's in the place now? >> the majors. >> how do they do that? >> my man said now they want movies. if it can't beone in 3-d.

come on, we're people of color. they don't make a black swan, fire, true grit, those film like $20-$35 million, but african-americans, it's hard to do, especially when denzel's not in it. >> or you. >> or me? no, no. don't put me in that. no, the thing it's not just african-americans, but i just think -- unless you spielberg, james cameron, tyler, it's hard to get a film made nowadays because the median range budget film they do not make anymore. they give you pennys or $20 million. >> last words. i know you have toit to road to go to that -- [laughter]

>> woman with the h? [laughter] >> i just think that we have to keep fighting, and we have to think about our past. think what oscar myrrh shell went through, same with nat king cole, many, many people, jim brown, people -- my man ossy davis, ruby dee, great, great battles have been won and sometimes likes like we're moving backwards, so we ju got to, you know, keep going bard of the it's tough now. it's tough. >> spike lee, thank you for being here. i know you got to go. >> okay, thank you. [applause] >> donald, let's continueith you then, what are the examples,

you said on the business side that looked at that you would hold up as ones that have been responsible, media companies or filmmakers or writers, columnists, what have you seen out there in >> i think there's a number of examples of folks that have been responsible. i was thinking when spike told the story, one of my stories from last year was the turn around of how everyone came out and were attacking from the get-go, and at the moment they found out the information was incorrect, i enjoyed watching the unfolding and the news stations and the online publications and the print communications all coming back and actually apologizing for what they did, so i think, and i think after that point, they were responsible, granted they were very quick to accuse, but they were able to come back, andic that they gave her --

and i think they gave her the air time to give her the amend to correct what they did incorrectly. that's one case that started bad, but turned goo at least in terms of that particular story. i think on the business end as we look at this space it's kind of hard to see that; right? as i mentioned before, the dollars are tracking quite frequently with the sort of base level type of content, and the viewership, people are watching -- >> like what you were saying? >> similar police take. spike talked about reality tv moments ago. it's unfortunate, but inexpensive to produce, and peopleatch it, get sucked in, and the people who produce it

are introducing the people to be on the shows looking for points of tension, frequently racial tension, and they cast the stereotypical black woman who is loud and boisterous with all kinds of craziness going on with her life, casting her with someone else and want to see tension occur on televisio and when that occurs, the ratings go up because we're tuning in, and our country, weontinue to tune into this stuff, and i had these conversations with friends who will sit there and talk about just what happened on i won't name all the shows, but they talk about what happened on the shows, an the next sentence is about how awful media is today, and the fact of the matter is you have to begin to vote with your, you know, with your tv or with your newspaper choices or with your online choices. you have to determine what is, you know, what is sorpt of media

-- sort of media that is fairly representing of what's going on in o country and support those outlets and turn off the other wops because -- ones because until we do that, we're not going to see much of change. i mean, it's -- many of these cases, it's a business decision and it is what drives ratings and the advertising dollars. >> will, reality tv show there; right? >> right. >> did quite well. >> yes. >> what is positive about that >> well, i just think it was in tune with the times.. ..

the watch what ever is on. and they aren't going to vote with their feet. they just won't. ultimately it's the kind of obligation of the media companies to say our goal is to trto be diverse. you want examples of a responsible and most of these are historical and when the movement was happening then that would drop out, they didn't have

any black reporters so they hired some come some of the early guys that -- that's how the central lagat discovered. i remember the situation with mack robinson when they had the hostages, the only person they would talk to was max robinson. and then a couple years later he was on the anchor desk. i remember seeing bernard shaw over in iraq with bombs in the background and then he came back and cnn really hasn't recovered from his departure becse they don't have an evening news program when he was there and i don't think they realized what they had while he was there. we've told in 60 minutes they are trying out some guys it just became obvious they were not brimming barred revenue or mentoring somebody i think in thnews rooms or even in the media companies it's become in

the mud to talk about the diversity because people are against goals and targets, etc.. if you don't plan forit it isn't going to happen. and that's whateeds to happen within the news rooms and what happens with the entertainment companies. i want to have ten black films, start with that we are going to fund it. and then you can open the door and start taking icres and they can't all be the same i don't want all my reality shows to be conflic and i want to see different slices of life and you say that's what we are buying and where the creative community essentially will be selling. >> i agree with what you're saying but i also believe that consumers and watchers and viewers do have to say and we just recently freedom of peace last week on race state inverses racism. it was the people who ran

talking about andrew, the same, but basically it changed and they decided they were going to start a position to be a competition to get rid of him on the "washington post" and the have i think it was 43,000 people that signed the petition, it raised the eyrows of the folks the "washington post" and they actually did take a minute and star looking at andrew and they responded by saying he doesn't have racism in his heart. he's just priest beating. so, however you want to slice the birds and whatever you want to do with that the fact of the matter is that they have been looking at where to put him on the site and they have been responding in part to what color change to it, and i think that there is something to be said about the viewers and consumers taking an active role in change, and they can make a difference in doing this whether it is the

petitions with these types of things. i agree it's not going to happen as quickly as if you were to fu it from the top but i do believe there's a rule to be played. >> anything - ten we aren't even at this level where we can think what is ahead. so on a good day in the so-called established media like "the new york times" on a good day they would have a story in the way they did about six or seven months ago and the muslim women in the u.s. and every single one of them where the heads are off because that's what the muslim woman is to "the new york times" and the muslim women like me have to go okay at least they see a positive role models of the women but none of them look like myself and at least they are there's a that's why i'm talking about stopping at a disadvantage or about a month ago they had a huge magazine off about in muslim preacher in the u.s. again who

represents a tiny slice of the muslim experience in the u.s. trying to explain where the ultra-conservative views come from. this ideal atleast we've got to get rid of this at least because many of you out so at least i or someone who believes what i did so we had very little in common that they had and i think the pushback is coming not so much from the established media itself because they don't recognize ou diversity where the pushback is coming from this social media. social media is where a lot of the voices who don't have room in the lis published media coming from so you have consumer media watch set up by muslim women and north america basically come and they have writers from across the world who monitor the way the muslim women arportrayed in the so-called stub bush meant major media. and you have independent writers who because they don't have a

place in this so-called established media they have to go and created online and i am fine with that because i thi in a few years that will be the place to go because when i look at egypt i think one of the main drivers of the revolution is what has been happening in the region is the young people who've gone and created spaces for themselves where they've not existed before and they've used as platforms to take on these regimes, so that is what it takes here and if i have to look at the guest of which media as the regime in this country then so be it because it's not happening, we are not creating that space. they might take a muslim reporter war two but still the same story that at the end of the day makes me think of leased line there but i've got another five or ten years before they recognize that dhaka, too and a muslim in this country. >> we have had these large buckets. you did a great job, mona, describing the muslim community and they are diverse in their experiences with a come from culturally as well as ethnically in nationality as well but also exists in the asian-american

community as we all ow, so with all this diversity, within this diversity to the question is should they be presenting all of these, is it physically possible, can you do that for these media companies? >> they are representatives of people who live on earth. it's not like -- it's not like somebody is sitting but people on tv that don't reflect the human being or the american population. i think the center on this is why i say it was back to what are we -- what are our values as a country, and whenever we get into those perlstein or we have to go back to the root of we are as a country, i count several as being robably the the era where we have the basic, then we start making decisions that are based on that like yes, there should be african-americans should have equal access to schools, different minorities should have equal access to hospitals. when we go back to the root of

we are as a country and once we establish, we are a representative democracy. and that should be reflected in all the major sectors of our country. and the media should be no different from that. and so it i run a major media company i do think there's a difference between the news and entertainment i won't go all into it here because entertainment is a very finite resource 100 some odd major companies per year. it is hitting the water to get a film made so that is a different discussion. television a news is different. it's not as finite. news i think should reflect the culture, and i think msnbc so far has done the best job of reflecting the way from what happened during the obama administration, before obama msnbc on a demographic point of

view was no different -- was behind cnn to tell you the truth. it was after the obama campaign started kicking up and he became very serious than people who had -- the start of pulling people in from chicago now moving to new york. people who then had access into the world and the obama phenomenon than became -- then they started being put on the air. and i think it's good for that to happen that way. but i think that somebody can be more intentional, and if you were more intentional you would be a big winner. i will give you quickly the converse. i used to work of news corporation, and it was in the very beginning years of fox news. >> still nice guy. don't worry, i go goldman and other stuff landstuhl chongging -- [inaudible] [laughter] but fox news is in the early

stages and that the beginning roger ellis came over from cnbc and he still had his ideology and political views but he was trying to program it has a broad based network. alternately with a decided is forget the broad base, let's just go back to what we do best and what was being done in the u.k., primarily what had been done in australia, and we are going to become the conservative outlet and have diversity point of views within conservatism, and they went from bing the last please note this tradition in new york and l.a. to becoming the monster that they are today. and i think msnbc has tried, but it hasn't been falls road, the same thing with cnn. you know, you can't straddled between object -- for objectivity and sound point of view. i think your values shuldn't be a pot of view they should be yo values,period.

you planned those and then build your company are now those values and i fink within the first media company that says we are a media company within a representative democracy the first one who increases that -- increases that i think will blow the rest of the water because they will have nieces and the different points of view that represent the country as a whole. >> donna, to you. as we see the specialized media, specialized news channels and i mean not only in broadcast but also printed online as a distinguished themselves based on ethnic groups, does that help or hurt the issue we are talking about today which is race in the media? >> for the moment i think it still helps mainly because there is no representation in terms of mass media. so these outlets provide an opportunity for peole to

congregate to discuss and engage a around issuesthat are very relevant in the communities. and i hink that too will's point as soon as someone understands you can integrate all of these stories and these people into the fabric of what you're doing and actually gaining broader audiences respected for doing all of those will work and until then it still makes sense for us to have these places that are basically surfacing, stories that are not being seen other places. >> and you're saying there is a time you say that these sorts of ethnic based media organizations may not be seen that way anymore or they will be integrated in or they will buy other companies. >> two things. there will always be the need for people to find the people with like mind and to complicate and discuss issues.

i think double always be the case whether it i drawn on the racial lines, religious lines or whatever, economic lines that will always be the case. but i do believe at the time progressives you will see more integration, you have to see it about the browning of america. if y are going to win in this space you have to begin to look at how to incorporate all these voices, you must to even play long term in this business so i believe over time you will see much more integration but i ink it's going to take -- it's the first move. who's going to be the first company? again i think nbc has done a good job in terms f increasing minority managers and employees and raising them throughout the company but i think we need more. anif you look at the other companies, there are very few companies that are really looking at this seriously to figure out how they are going to

win long-rm. >> two things come to min the arab community in the u.s. right now there's a growing american comedians who started around 2003 and they perform a function very similar to a jewish comedian, and richard pryor and eddie murphy and chris rock facing head-on discrimination for comedynd arab-american communities sold-out a theater on broadway about four or five months ago it was the first time they managed to sell out a broadway theater and was a great moment, and soon after that we began to hear questions should they identify more or should they be canadians -- should they be pigeonholed and that is constantly de dial am i and for

a certain amount of time you do need to identify and work within the so-called pigeonholes because you want to present these diverse spaces but sooner or later you ought to be accepted as arab-erican comedians and for the comedian the muslim community we are not there yet. >> othat point that is the question i was going to ask when we see faces on television often you will see those of certain ethnic backgrounds they would be talking about those specific issues related to their ethnic background, and i think it was brought up earlier by the panel is there a point you think where we c get thoseaces on air that are talking about muslim american issues, so you will come on and talk about business, for instance, and how do we get there? >> we get ere by inviting more and more people on. shaping up rolodex basically because anyone who works in the news industry you know how much time ou have and that little time combined with laziness you go to the people you know so it is the same old faces over and over again, the uual suspect so

until we break out and start asking friends of friends, ten french removed who do you know and recommend, unfortunately to break into something like te opinion industry which is what i've been trying to do is incredibly difficult because when you don't have any connection how are you going to get on to these pages and then they continuously say women don't want to leave the want to read the pieces but no one goes to the women when they want an opinion piece written by women and then they complain. it is a catch-22 they get to either way, so you have to start just going to the usual names and just start fresh with people you've never heard before and give them a chance. if they n't have anything to say don't invite them back. i am not saying bring someone who is an expert oran unfair advantage but have them talk about everything because what upsets me when it comes to tv every year something i want for this, we have a piece about what it's like to be muslim and that

person is never asked about anything except what it's like to be a muslim. do they not have an opinion on the elections were on every devotee television? i spend my entire life just thinking that simple. you need to give people a hance and i'm sure we can start speaking so just opening up to more people and you see it happening with other religious groups. the focus on religion, when it comes to catholic issues for example someone who used to be catholic they will focus on someone who has a complicated relationship or talk to some of that single orthodox catholic but when it comes to muslims it's like this and it's not that simple. we are very diverse. muslims just like everybody else come in all shapes and sizes and not just about muslim issues but about a whole bunch of. my opinion about the neighborhood -- >> we can do that next time. >> is a supply or demand

problem? you wrote your having difficulty developing serious reporters and serious times is it a supply problem or is it a demand problem? something i asked myself when i entered the industry as well. some devotees reacting to the success of fox news. and what fox paid is it sold the news and so no every network is selling the news instead of reporting. >> in the stivers sees as supply versus demand. >> this w we are seeing that so now everybody is, cnn is trying to sell the news come msnbc is on the news, abc, everybody is basically trying to sell the news. so as soon as you try to sell the news to viewers, when you get into the sale mentality what are you doing? i don't want them to report somhing i don't report, i don't want something on their store shelves hat is and online so you start reacting to

everything out there and start getting stories from twitter and according to facebook and seeing me in a chat room, you just start getting caught up on the play-by-play, and when that happens, anybody can be an expert onthe subject because you're not talking about anything that the other guys aren't talking about. you don't need experts to basically report what is being sold as news right now. as a result it gets back to what you said which is who is closest to me? who can get down to my studio in the next hour to talk about the story that just broke on twitter that is essentially daytime news right now. a g chunk of it. you know, about what just broke out on twitter, who can get to the next studio in an hour-and-a-half for two hours. so there aren't a set of values for people th edia covered or at least it isn't apparent. i think you would change. really do think when 2012 comes around, i think we will

see kind of beside the point when the campaign kicks off and the coverage happens and the tea party dissipates back to the niche that is the essential when it becomes an interest group essentially to the report showed and when people start seeing the house party, the rally they are going to be like i need people who look like those people to go out and report on this campaign again, and i think you're oing to see another influx of pieces that are going to be on cnn and msnbc, you know, for sure, but it would be much better if that the top management level within the media so not just the network, but the owners of the network said listen, all of not accompany we have a mission to diversify from our suppliers to the subscribers that we go after to the customer service, and it will also be true in our entertainment products and who reports the news, not what you

report it is who, and we are going to become a more representative company, and i think once one company makes that statement and they begin to see the benefits of doing that, then i think that will have an impact on the rest of the industry. >> turning the boat a little bit, and i will move in talking about hip-hop and definitely get your view as well as a multiracial movement, and what it's meant to the discussion that we are having today which is race and media. >> he should start with will not one. >> we can start with will and circled back if you would like. >> hip hop and the rule of muslims and arab-americans as well as international hip-hop stars or rap generally because colin the african revolutions

can tell you of rappers in libya and tunisia and egypt and so many countries that have taken mix ackley the value of hip-hop as it started in the u.s. and the late 70's, early 80's, have taken that art form as the main expression against oppression and injustice and underrepresentation and using it in the most passionate way many of us who love the beginning of hip-hop continue so it's been amazing. it's taken it exactly and when you hear the songs now, but stick to nisha for example there is one that is the general and he wraps in arabic. tunisia is known for a lot of people to speak french but they represent the upp m m m m m clas existence and those who follow the revolution started by the young man who set himself on fire a working-class town that has nothing to do with french or upper-mdle-class existence but

very much to do with the upper representing class nobody's all so this idea to point at the insible isakson ackley what he was doing, and because of that two or three days nto the revolution he was arrested by the regime and after he was released and arrested fo the rap basically saying you will meet the day your people will overthrow you and they really did. and soon after he was released his next rap was come on other arab countries we need the resolutis and he's basically passing on the book on to egypt, libya, algeria has we have seen it a now there's a mix tape even the idea of mixed tapes there's a mix tape of rap, revolutionary rap in the middle east and north africa that's exciting so not only is it representing the values but it's now being sung in the language that the average working-class underrepresented person can understand and not the language of the privileged and affluent

and that is exactly the kind of value that it started wh. [laughter] >> we don't have a straight up and down hip-hop credit on the panel, so i'm not just going to be as animated as i normal would. but the biggest thing about hip-hop is it is the window of culture so it is people who don't live in the same area who don't have the same life experiences but have the same emotions and are looking at the same will have a common language they can talk to each other, and that has been a movement going on since the 80's until now. like it has literally brought -- when you've show the cnsus, the multiracial statistics, hip-hop is a big part of the reason why the raises have gotten together to the point of the essentially, you know, creating more kids together. so it has been -- it just has

been amazing. but in the same ways -- >> what is the sort of -- >> because here is the iggest problem at least in the 50's, 60's and 70's. anything before the 70's people did not know eachother. they di not live together. they didn't talk to each other. white parents didn't want black kids -- they didn't want their kids to go to school together. they dn't know each other. in the deep south, blacks and whites knew each other but only in a subservient relationship, so they didn't know each other as equal and together. so in the 80's, when it bame -- it could have happened some like if the rock movement had in the 80's than it would be like rock was this amazing revolution for the races, but it didn't because the races were still separate when the rock relution happened and what stock happened. there were just starting to come together but when hip-hop have

been the they were just coming together. so it gave people a way to talk to each other. that is the reason why win obama is up and at the time hillary clinton was criticizing him he could just brushed that off the shoulder. an auditorium full of white people went crazy and blacks because they knew what that meant. so he had a lot and they were like this is our president, too. so you could just feel that swaggart and black-and-white and everybody felt it. now here's the limit to hip-hop. it is a social values of some of the way people hang out, we get along,tc.. it isn't a moral value system. like it cannot replace -- it cannot replace what religion, the role religion plays as far morals. it's about who we are. it can get us to get there but it's not the golden rule. it doesn't tell me how i treat you. and so, for people who think

because it brought people together that now it is a new moral code, it's not. it's a social -- it is hard with a social engineering benefit. it doesn't have the moral benefit. that still has to coe from the church. that still has to come from what you believe about the country, your political values. all of those things still have to be put into the individual person. it can't solve that problem, but it's done a lot to bring people together, and it's all over the boat. >> wouldn't use it devolved though significantly from the messages from the 80s and 90s to what you're hearing today? >> it's just at the bottom it's gotten beter. because it is more people who are doing it. now people would say in the beginng it was just fun and party. that's not true. in the beginning there were gangs with deejays in the bronx and you go to a party and it's

just go off, turning into mass flights. if you go back to news clips in the 1980's you couldn't go to a show in the quarter without a brooklyn being in the house. when i say brooklyn is in the house and brooklyn comes in and they tore up the ladder in court or as if frank ws here he was doing his prt in it. [laughter] >> now he is gone you can see that. it's on tape. >> but a big part of it, it was still a lot ofangst. it wasn't as pervasive ast is now. so the for te negative effects our people feel now because it's all over they are going to feel it all over. >> two now moving to questions and comments for the panel and anybody that has a question or comment, please. >> the president and ceo of the national puerto rican coalition. i also sit on the board of the hispanic leadership agenda and

the diversity of the council for the abuse corporations. it's interesting when you're talking about. i have a comment and question. my comment is it's very interesting. i've been here all day listening to different panelistsnd two panels i think are very crucial to the hispanic community, just the politics and the media i haven't seen one hispanic, and i haven't heard about the hispanic experience and that is a little disturbing to me. so that's my comment. maybe it's time for us to start finding the word diversity and maybe that is something to think about. haven't heard the word of advertising agencies to read advertising agencies i call it with the media is all about because the move that had the right direction. can you comment on it?

>> who would like to comment? >> i want to be clear on the question. are you stating specifilly with your creating in terms of advertising work? >> the control the dollars from the corporations. e advertising agencies tell the corporations where and how to invest in the dollar on the media outlets. so they definitely have a very important role for us to be able to leverage them so than the media outlets will create the demand and supply that. >> i think what's happening in the advertising agency is exactly what we've been talking about hollywood and what we have had in the news media that there is a lack of representation. if you look at most of these advertising agencies large agencies, most of them at the highest levels have very little diversity. many of the agency's recently started acquiring small warehouses that focus on the hispanic media will focus on african american media or asian media. but for the most part of the

highest level there is very little diversity and that certainly has an impact -- is certainly has an impact on what's being created, the type of advertising that you're seeing, and also has an impact on where those advertising dollars are going. does that answer door question? >> whais your definition of diversity? isn't there lot of, you know, folks from jewish background in the advertising industry and in the media? that to me is diversity. so diversity, are you talking about color? >> it can represent in many ways certainly better its religion, whether it's race, whether it's economic status. and there is a broad range of ways to look at it. and in the end, the advertising world there are very few minorities and i say minorities i am speaking specifically about ethnic minorities and represented at the highest

levels. >> do you have a follow-up question? >> it's just it seems to me when we are having a conversation about the state of the race in america we keep using the word diversity coming and we use diversity whenever it is convenient to us and really it's time for us to find that word because if we are focusing on differences, then we are always going to perpetuate the problem that the difference exists, and all we do this with spikes that at the beginning. we talk about the same thing over and over and over and maybe it's time to find that terminology so that and everybody starts working from the same foundation. >> hispanic representation as it relates to the media and because in many ways an african-american entrepreneur is look at companies especially when it comes to television, the latinos

are a model minority in the ability to have networks that are across the nation and to go and get specific budgets from the effort pfizer's. >> we can with of the concept like hell are we going to create more houses, right? essentially was the question. the bottom line, if you -- if sponr comes and they need, or proctor and gamble says we're going to back this showed an mtv or a network will put it on the air almost assuredly. so we went and we tried to put it together. they couldn't get on their side enough johnson & johnson, walgreens.com wal-mart, enough advertisers with in their portfolio coming into the global

media, media holdings and ad agency thisisn a boutique agency this is a major agency and they couldn't get them to come at -- connect to the several million would take to put together on that scale. now they took the same idea and probably you've worked with these guys took the same idea and said we are going to try with of the hispanic community without were latino content. do you know that within 120 days they were able to get nine figures worth of commitment for latino programming and there's many reasons for that, but one is the hispanic community is much more organized when it comes to getting corporate dollars. you won't see it in the film industry or some industries, but when it comes to television,

print, and you have your own distribution, the second player, telemundo -- >> but it isn't hispanic owned. >> but you have to -- i know that's important from the wealth building perspecti, but if i am a consumer and at the end of the day tyler perry doesn't own the studios, the theaters in the neighborhoods. i don't dig deep about what percentage owned is lying in state -- ions gate. like i want to see my image, so univision is valuable for consumers. i understand the argument that you're making it at the end of today but i'm saying we had on ideas on shows that were working that couldn't attract advertising dollars and versus shows that were still in theory

that could attract advertising dollars from the latino market, and the answer to that isn't for me to be mad at latinos and for us to get into it over those limited budgets, it's to go back to the core principle which is to say media companies need to tell the advertisers we are going to be represented. across the property is what we produce, who calls the shots w will be represented at the democracy. so when we say diversity that's what we mean. it will reflect the population of the country. >> thank you so much. we've got three more minutes coming up. >> my name is carol gregory, with the economy in a director of communications of special-interest and you talk a bit about the lee zenas of journalists and to point out also and based on the old

business model that sarted failing and focused it and recognized the and that the internet would have of the social media, the fact that the bloggers of the press controls the news rooms have shrunken terribly and in addition to laziness you have news rooms that were cut in half, print news rooms also cut in half and a lot of the veterans are gone you have very young kids out there telling those stories. i wonder as you're looking -- i think i mentioned in a kind of shot out one econ amine launched something called the public internet channel pic.tv and we have people such as robert townsend who produces program where he can't get that on regular tv but he's doing it on the internet and not just because he can't do it on regular tv but because he's realized so many people are getting content and it's a

strategic move in reaching an audience that's growing. do you think the internet has the capability of being what television might have been 20 years ao for the media and also for entertainment distribution etc. >> i will be very quick and done i can jump in, too. as we move forward as traditional media like "the new york times" and others stop putting the ball the payrolls as budgets become a reality i'm glad you mentioned that because budgets are obviously a consideration. i think the kind of media model we give to start looking at now that isn't on the contentious relationship between taditional mainstream media i think they have to start daing together. they have to understand the nd each other because the budget cuts and because mainstream can't move that far the have to start depending on what has become known as citizen journalists or people who are on a twitter or facebook more and to offer it very quickly.

at the same time those citizens could also use the huge platform that there is a mainstream media type can offer them so this is the model we have to look at. i don't think one or the other is the and to replace the other. it has to be this very paranoid contentious relationship. i think it should be symbiotic and they can look at ways to strengthen each other because that will be the future. i spent my entire day on twittered. if someone can get me on to better i will be there. so this is the model where they learn to dance together rather than combat each other. >> 30 seconds. >> i agree wholeheartedly. basically actually if you look at the recent statistics on online dollars from advertising dollars, they are actually doing more and more toward from print to on-line journalism. also if you look at the online leadership upnews versus print,

46% of americans actually get their news now rom online pleases versus the print newspapers so you're saying to see this movement and i'm not saying that no one is right. i think the models are going to be completeldifferent. i think you're going to start seeing different ways to pay for media whether it be micropayments, you migt see the subscription models the line excited to see what's going to happen at "the new york times" and recent pay models and a number of different models over the next couple of years until someone gets a right. >> yes, more every day. [laughter] last question, please. >> i just wanted to ask you to say a little bit more about the difficulty responsibility.

the shared responsibility challenge. it to the extent the problem that we face is the structural racism this matter of media representation is a critical part of the problem and dismantling the represent -- changing the representation i think is a critical priority. but could use a a litle bit more about how the responsibility towards addressing these images and ereotypes and the representation that we see so often across the media ought to be shared? you talk a little bit about the importance of those who lead these organizations, recognizing the importance of the diversity but can you say more about what you think the responsibility of the consumers are, and also the

folks who participate in these programs who, you know, accept the rules in the movies that are not necessarily positive. can you say and little bit about how you think the balance ought to be struck? >> good comment there. also final words if you could to the panel, and again in about 30 seconds. i apologize as we wind it up here. who would like to start first >> in terms of -- in terms of what you were asking ithink that over the next number of years we're going to continue to see the growing diversity the major media as i mentioned before their must -- there has to be a change at the top level there has to be a change of the sort of bottom levels of what's going on in order for companies to succeed long-term i will tell you a very brief story but a colleague of mine came in the office the other day and he said you know it's interesting to me?

my child just had -- to girls the other day i asked him who they were in fighting over for a sleepover and he said his daughter explained that the girls were really smart and funny and lots of fun and when they got to the house both children were black and his daughter was white and he was absolutely baffl that his title but didn't mention that these two little girls were black. and i think as we look at this nation and we look where we are going as a nation and how we is evolving and changing the people are going to be -- we have to begin incorporating and integrating people from all different religious economic and ethnic backgrounds and in order to be representative because we have a whole generation that's coming up that doesn't see the world in the way that we have seen theworld and they have to

be inclusive. >> about theamerican muslim community, 9/11 was a shock to everybody. muslims included the died in the attack and it made us realize whether we have been in this country or are newcomers to the country than i am it is our responsibility speaking out, and one thing i learned last year during the part 51 debacle according to the polls only 38% of american say they know a muslim but that is two things to me. they are such a small minority in this country but most americans probably don't think i am a muslim so they wouldn't tell them that they know me as a muslim so my responsibility becomes now it's almost like being gay you try the first three sentences to put into the conversation that you are in muslim. [laughter] so that is my talent now. i will meet complete strangers whether it is in a hotel, breakfast buffet or in a supermarket and we are having a

conversation and within three sentences it is my challenge to let them know i muslim because i want them to go home and say i met a woman who turned out to be muslim and i never would have guessed she was a muslim. so this kind of like we of saying that the american muslim community recognizes we have to speak out more, get out there more, as we no have comedians, writers, actors come active in the rules to your taking and a lot of the actors are speaking out saying no more doing this because they do feed these awful, hateful images people are getting but also the community is learning to write when the ca eight full story. the community in the campaign. it is kind of grass-roots stuff but the community and all of its diversity is learning. the african american muslim community knows it very well because the have been facing discrimination as blacks in this country for centuries. we as the newcers to this country was immigrant ascent must learn more from our african-american muslim brothers and sisters and all the others in the community, from the asian

community, the jewish community, all communities we have so much to learn that the biggest thing is to ust speak out and speak out louder. >> the individual always has the ultimate responsibility for their choices in their lives, period. i just think that's a fact. when did you get into the public square and you're talking about media and government, etc., then those entities also have a responsibility. and so that's the reason why i take the point of view that the media has responsibility but i'm super optimistic because even in my adult lifetime wilder left office in virginia and people like will the ever be another black govenor? it was over, like the government

there's a black president and he's not even done with a first term and they are saying will there ever be another black president? so i just think -- i'm pretty optimistic on all these questions and in the media in particular i just want to be a part of it which is the reason why i'm an entrreeur and by immelt and active and i just believe that my -- when my kids grow up they will be able to play in a pretty much everything all over the globe. i just think there's an opportunity now if the media company would seize it. >> will griffin, thank you so much, donna as welcome impressive and so open aboutall >> president obama will be at facebook headquarters in palo alto, calif. to take part in a town hall meeting and will talk about the upcoming vote to raise the federal debt ceiling.

you can see live coverage of that starting at 4:45 on c-span. >> tonight, a look at government transparency and the public access to information. you will hear from the founder of wikileaks as he debates whether whistle-blowers' make the world a safer place and what risk. >> i say to you because it is obvious that whistle-blowers make the world a safer place. when we try to counter arguments, we see hot air. it does not mean everything in government should be exposed. what it does mean is that the system of breaking a budget laws is working. it must be kept going that way otherwise lost cannot reflect the reality we are in. >> watch this debate from the

front line club in london, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span. >> tonight, on c-span2, a discussion of what defines corruption. you will hear from a high- ranking justice department official on what the courts deemed corrupt and whether the american public would agree. >> charlie rangel would argue he was not corrupt. he said even on the last day when he was about to be censured by the full house, he was arguing he had not received any personal enrichment, no actual dollars had gone into his pocket, which was his definition of corruption. he did not get any money. but there are very few regular americans that would look at the conduct mr. riegle was found to have engaged in and think it was not corrupt. in that way, a mate -- i may differ from the other speaker to say sometimes it's not about the money, sometimes it is about the prestige. >> you can watch this event

tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span2. >> up next, the assistant secretary of state for the economy and business affairs talks about the korean free trade agreement and u.s. jobs. his remarks followed secretary clinton's comments to told korean business leaders that the obama administration expects the agreement to pass before the end of the year. this was hosted by the woodrow wilson center and is about one hour and 15 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> for those of you new to the wilson center, let me give you a brief introduction. back in 1968, when congress decided they wanted to find a

way to honor woodrow wilson, our 28 president, they decided against another marble monument and a statue and instead created this living memorial. the assignment was to bring together both sides of woodrow wilson's life. wilson was the only president to have earned a phd. he was in his era, a prominent political scientist. he wrote eight or nine books, some of which are still used in today's political science class. he went on to beat president of princeton, 82-year governorship of new jersey and 82-term president of the united states. they wanted us to bring together both sides of his life, the academic, the thinker about policy, together with people who are actually implementing or

influencing policy. we have distinguished representatives with us from the department of state, together with a senior scholar who will give some commentary on that question and we are looking at the korea-united states free- trade agreement. something that is timely and important and will be very soon, i think -- i guess i am getting ahead of myself, but will soon be the subject of congressional action. if it is a great pleasure to welcome to distinguished gentleman from the department of state. we are delighted to welcome the assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs. this is the part of state that deals with a host of complicated economic issues. he brings a positive record to this, to his position, he was a

very prominent lawyer at one time in the financial world and was recognized for his adroit execution of international acquisitions and mergers. he was identified by observers as one of the world's most influential and effective lawyers. he has been at state for some time and we will turn the floor over to him in just a moment. i also wanted to introduce an old friend, the deputy assistant secretary for trade policy and programs come apart of the same group in the state department. he has a very area dight background and a deep experience in negotiating trade policy. from 2002-2009, he was actively in gauged with us though hot development around. i'm sure had he stayed, it would

have been done by this time. he goes back in time to the nafta agreement, one of the significant agreements the united states reached. he started life as a foreign service officer and is now a permanent member of the civilian side of the state department. finally, i want to introduce a colleague here at the center, a senior scholar working on a book on the future of u.s. trade policy. i think that will be an interesting, provocative and timely volume. he has a great deal of experience himself, he worked on capitol hill and spent several years at u.s. trade representative offices and was the senior vice president at a major business association in town with his businesses being

of principally on the international side. but me now turn it over to the assistant secretary. after he has finished, we will call on william krist and open up for your questions. >> thank you and good afternoon. i have not seen to rose mp. i'm glad somebody is coming onto the second row. i have not seen a crowd like this since first grade. it is a good to be here. thank you for the welcome. i am pleased to see a number of faces i recognize, which means after a year in d.c., i'm getting to be an old hand. i'm here to talk about the korea trade agreement and there is one point i would like to leave you with -- this agreement will strengthen not only our economic

relationship and vital strategic alliance with korea, but also our deep human bond with korea. with korean people who already c.s. as one of their closest friends and most loyal partners. i am fairly familiar with those personal bonds. i spent a lot of time on the korea free trade agreement, working on some of the issues that came up at the last minute and talking about its benefits. as a lawyer, i did a lot of work in korea. one of my most memorable connections came before i became assistant secretary, when i had the honor of serving on the board of trustees. i was fortunate to be able to look at dartmouth's new president. we had a number of great candidates who ended up in the administration, but one candidate stood out.

he was the valedictorian of his class, the star football player on his team, he had been to brown and harvard and left with a doctorate in anthropology. he co-founded partners in health and had been named as one of the most influential people in the world. during his interview, he said he had been a failure because five years before, he had been the executive at the world health organization and announced a campaign to save 3 million lives in five years from the development of tuberculosis vaccines and he had only been able to save 2 million. i thought he was fantastic. i spent a lot of time on the board convincing him he was their man and i watched him be

inaugurated as 17th president of the college. the reason i'm telling you this is the seventh president was born in seoul, korea and moved with his family to the u.s. at the age of five bankrupt in a small town in iowa. he was a son of korean immigrants and had grown up to the world health expert and the first asian leader of an ivy league institution. i became very much aware of how far korea had come. the korea his parents left is clearly different from the korea we see today. korea has built itself as one of the world's most dynamic economies in the world and today, they are a strong partner and new source of economic opportunity.

the u.s.-korea relationship is one of the world's most vibrant economic relationships. the two-way goods trade between the u.s. and korea today reaches nearly $88 billion per year. those are the figures for last year. today, correa is our seventh largest trading partner and we are their third largest trading partner. a couple of years ago, we were number one and that is something else we will talk about. our alliance with korea has expanded to develop into one of the most vibrant, dynamic full spectrum partnerships in modern history. today, korea stands shoulder to shoulder with the u.s. in a number of places in peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. in haiti, they have pledged as much as $50 million in addition

to having peacekeepers on the ground. recent events in north korea have reminded us this alliance is a vital linchpin, not only for the security of korea and that u.s. but for the region as a whole. we believe the implementation of trade agreements will signal to other asia-pacific nations are continuing interest in their region as a vital partner in its defense and development and will underscore the commitment of the u.s. to prosperity and security, not just in korea but in the region as a whole. we have to continue the leadership of shake the -- shaping u.s. policy and crafting institutional agriculture.

international commercial ties only get you so far in washington. they are not the only important aspect, but i believe the cause is critical to america's prosperity because our number one priority in all agencies in the u.s. government is jobs. now more than ever, our ability to create jobs here at home depends on our ability to export goods and services throughout the world. by now, you have all heard of the national export initiative, where president obama directed all of the agencies to work together to double u.s. exports in the next five years and to do so with the kinds of exports that would create 2 million american jobs.

caused presents a historic opportunity to increase exports, create jobs and bolster the american economy. there is a history, of course. it was signed in june of 2007. at the time, u.s. congressional approval could not be obtained do to concerns about market access for u.s. car manufacturers in korea. starting in the fall of last year, the administration consulted extensively with the u.s. stakeholders and consulted with the business community and talk to all labour leaders and congressional representatives. in december of 2010, we reached a new agreement to insure we created a level playing field for u.s. auto manufacturers in the korean market. we believe this package is a

better deal for the auto industry and autoworkers and it is earning widespread bipartisan support in congress and elsewhere. let me give you for differences between what was signed in december of last year on the 2007 document. in 2010, we agreed to encourage green technology by cutting in half tariffs on electric car imports and eliminating both of our tariffs altogether in five years. this was five years earlier than the earlier agreement. second, we it leveled the plan -- level the playing field and addressed the automobile safety standards which has served as barriers to u.s. exports. we ensured the regulations in korea did not place a

disproportionate burden on u.s. automobiles. third, we agreed korea would cut in half its tariffs. while our tariffs would remain in place for five years, this was done in order to give american car companies and their workers a chance to build more business in korea before u.s. tariffs came down. finally, in order to protect auto companies and workers from surges in imports from korea, the two sides agreed to a special safeguard to cover surges in korean exports. the deal we reached last year, according to the united autoworkers addressed concerns about the potential impacts on the auto industry. we have been able to obtain a

bipartisan support for this agreement. these benefits are not limited solely to autoworkers, but will also benefit others, including those in the fuel sector and other suppliers to the automobile industry. we think it will support additional jobs and growth in america and that is ultimately the best thing we can say about it. that is the best thing we can secure for american workers. the easy part has been done and now it's time to move forward and bring the promise which we believe is billions of dollars in exports and tens of thousands of dollars the league this country. the president intends to submit to congress and will work to secure its approval without delay. fifth once it is approved and the agreement is approved, there

will be a number of tangible benefits. that u.s. international trade commission estimates that the economic output in america will grow by somewhere between 10 billion dollars to $11 billion annually. that is more than our last nine trade agreements combine. let me give you a couple of local examples of the anticipated benefits. one is from virginia. the other is from maryland. in the last few years, electronic exports from virginia to korea have averaged about $50 million per year. one of the things it will do is provide a competitive boost to exporters by eliminating almost all tariffs on electronics not already covered by the world trade organization technology

agreement. there will also be benefits for maryland. between 2008 and 2010, maryland businesses exported an average of $75 million in chemicals and related products to korea. they will immediately removed the tariffs on these products that are almost 50% in some cases, thereby making u.s. exports more affordable for koreans to buy. but at the end of the day, let me emphasize the one benefit we believe is most important. that is the huge job creating potential. the tariff cuts alone could increase exports somewhere between $10 billion to $11 billion annually, supporting tens of thousands of american

jobs. they have extrapolate about 70,000 american jobs. last year, the u.s. provided almost one third of korea's total agricultural imports, valued at almost $5 billion. it is expected to boost agricultural exports from the u.s. by as much as $1.8 billion per year. it will do this by immediately eliminating duties on the majority of u.s. farm exports to korea and reducing or eliminating the the rest of the duties over time. but benefits are not limited to agriculture. there are benefits for u.s. service suppliers. correa's service market is large. it is a $580 billion in services per year. the new rights of service providers have, the rights include the ability to

establish joint ventures in korea and liberalizing work rules and easing investment restrictions. that is good news for u.s. service providers. it's good for accountants, lawyers, financial institutions and lawyers who account for about 80% of u.s. employment. we also deal with transparency issues, including strong transparency obligations. we addressed corrections in international trade and investment and include obligations on bribery measures as well. these are the benefits. the numbers are clear, but to gain the benefits, we need to act fast because we are not the only game in town.

cory and the asia-pacific region has a number of dynamic economies and we risk losing market share if we do not move fast. i mentioned that the u.s. had gone from being the third largest exporter to korea -- to being the first largest, sorry, to being third today. our competitor, the european union, china, japan, many others are not standing still and have either signed or are considering signing free trade agreements with korea. these agreements would eventually this advantage u.s. exporters in the korean market. let me give you a couple of examples. without it, american exporters would pay as much as 50% more duties on their products and non-agricultural duties would pay nearly 7%.

the time has come to move and that is what we intend to do. i know i came to talk about the korean trade agreement, but i have to believe there are some in the revenue may be interested in the -- >> there might be one or two. >> interested in the columbia trade agreement. let me preempt a couple of questions and talk about that. this administration is committed to pursuing an ambitious trade agenda that would support good jobs for american workers. the commercial benefits of the agreement would be in our favor. today, 96% of panamanian exports to the u.s. come in duty free. most exports from columbia are eligible for it duty-free

treatment under the existing trade preferences program. that means our exporters are in many cases the only ones paying tariffs. in 2010, u.s. exporters paid in colombia and estimated $3.2 billion in tariffs. u.s. exporters did pretty well in colombia, but that is money american businesses could have earned if this agreement had been proved -- had been approved already. this administration is discussing with congressional leadership how we can work together to accomplish the comprehensive trade agreement, including the korean trade agreement, columbia, a trade adjustment assistance for workers and the trade preference program as well as prominent normal trade relations as russia

joins the world trade organization. with car react and these other agreements, we are on the brink of bringing home more job opportunities that can help in every corner of this country, but again, correa is more than trade. it's an agreement that will continue to link korea and the u.s. even closer, strengthening a vital partnership in the asia- pacific region. jobs solely created by removing the barriers between these two countries and just as adversity was overcome to experience a remarkable trajectory of service, so to can the work deepen the u.s.-korea relationship and deepen success. i look forward to your questions and i also look forward to

working together with you to explain the benefits of the korea trade agreement in the united states. >> thank you. [applause] >> let me call on our senior scholar to make a few comments. >> thank you for coming and for your comments today. let me begin quickly by noting my personal view the korean agreement does need to be passed very quickly and along with that, the colombian and panama agreements need to be passed right away also. as was mentioned, those are very important for korea. i would just note for colombia and panama, colombia trying to create a more market-oriented system in contrast to venezuela

and, we also have a huge cocaine issue there. with regard to panama, we have the panama canal. these are also important for foreign-policy reasons. -- i mean, for commercial region -- commercial reasons. off the korea-panama agreements were signed in 2007. colombia signed in 2006. here we are five years after the agreements were signed and that does not seem to me to be any way to treat friends. we need to get a system in place to move more rapidly. i would like to make a couple of quick comments and then i want to offer a suggestion about how we might approach negotiations in the future. i think you covered the korean agreement very well. i do not have a lot to add.

i think the agreement would have caused serious damage to the u.s. auto industry and i think the changes that were made are very important changes and it is critical, now the administration monitored aggressively and make sure korea lives up to the spirit and the letter of all the provisions, but particularly the auto provision. one other issue is beef. that was not resolved. korea restricts beef that comes from cattle less than three years old. than -- i do not think it is a big commercial issue, but i do not think there is a scientific basis for what has been done. but that can be addressed in follow-up work and i don't think

it should delay progress on passing the agreement. on the longer-term, how to -- i am a believer in most favored nation treatment. that was the original vision of the founders in 1947. they liked that because they felt preferential agreements between world war one and world war two were a factor in creating political fiction -- political friction. most favored nation treatment is compared to the theory of competitive advantage. trade diversion is contrary to that. the poorest countries tend not to be asked to the dance. they

my world does not exist anymore. we do not really live in that much of a world. there are 193 regional trade agreements in place. there are an additional 38 that are pending. the european union has 29 agreements and other aid agreements and services. that includes agreements with south africa and even countries like syria. they are negotiating an agreement with india. at the after countries -- the nafta countries have 18 agreements in place. they are negotiating agreements with india and russia. it really is not there anymore. once all those european agreements come into effect, u.s. exporters will face a preferential tariffs against

them and it will make it a lot harder to achieve a goal of doubling our exports. the u.s. has used a standard model for negotiating are treated grievance -- our trade agreements. it is one that they called the gold standard. the model was developed originally to try to encourage progress and development, and in current negotiations with a free-trade agreement of the americas. it was done up until 2005, when negotiations for the trade area of america's failed. i think we need a new approach. first off, i think there are some problems that are in this model of free trade agreement that really do not belong there. secondly, i think we should have

a more flexible approach. with regard to what is in there that i do not think is in our interest, one is the intellectual property protection provisions that go beyond the trade related intellectual property agreement. i think protection of intellectual property is extremely important. it is necessary to encourage innovation and research and development, which are key u.s. competitiveness advantages. too much of a good thing is wonderful -- and i think that is true for chocolate chip cookies and. i am not sure if it is true for intellectual property protection. protecting intellectual property is designed to give the inventor a monopoly on the idea what to get a large profit to encourage

more innovation and research. however, it also results in higher cost for the consumer and too extensive a period it for intellectual property discourages innovation because most inventions are built on existing conventions and if you cannot use them, sometimes you cannot develop new products. the agreement was negotiated among the one under 53 countries and is a balance between the u.s., what we wanted for stronger protection in other countries, countries that were concerned about too much protection on generic drugs. it tried to strike a balance and the same thing is true for u.s. intellectual property protection law, tries to strike a balance between the innovator and consumers. it goes beyond what is on the

wto. i would argue that it is not in our interest or our trade partners interest. may 10, 2007 agreement between the bush administration and congress brought it back more in line, but i think that i see an inside trade that people are thinking of going back to the old model. that is a mistake. a senate area that i think is an area that should be addressed is investor state provisions. they basically allow foreign investors to bring claims against the government of another partner, directly to an international panel of arbitrators. bat is in addition to the regular dispute settlement mechanisms in our free trade agreements and i do not see any reason to have special protection for investors over

what exporters get. it is either good enough, or it is not good enough. those provisions, in addition to having reservations about them, they have been sticking points in negotiations with the u.s. south africa agreements. south africa objected to both of those. the u.s. should be more flexible in our approach. our trade competitors often will negotiate agreements in goods only, and then hope leader to extend that to services. we insist on the whole ball of wax. it might be useful to reconsider our approach to how we do free trade agreement. as i said, i am still basically in favor, and i think we ought to be working to try to move

back toward mfn, but that is a topic for another day. let me into their, and i look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> would you like a brief response? >> maybe my colleague built they want to chime in as well. we wanted to be provocative, and you achieve your purpose. i really could not disagree with you more. it will be an interesting conversation. it seems to me that intellectual property is one of this country's principal exports. we are not going to be able to achieve what we want to do in exports without protecting innovation and creative industries. i would disagree with you on the legal side.

i do not believe international protections go beyond what we provide, in general, under u.s. law. investors state protection, i just imagine what would happen to a number of our investors have they not been able to pursue their claims against countries that have expropriated them and not fulfilled their end of the bargain. lastly, if you are going to take out services from trade agreements, you are talking about 80% of the u.s. economy. if we are going to allow importers to access the world's biggest market, why wouldn't you

try to include the 80% of your economy? i think we have some water forced a good discussion -- fodder for a good discussion. >> i never disagree with my boss. [laughter] bill was able to string together a reference to mae west and chocolate chip cookies and the same sentence. on substance, i tend to agree with jose. the korea fta does not solve all our problems. that is exactly right. i am here to tell you that that is not the end of the story, not the end of history. we are continuing to press the

government very strongly to adopt a purely science-based regime that would not limits the export of beef from the united states to south korea. the secretary and i have met several times with the national cattlemen's association and they tell us the story quite bluntly that korea is a major market for u.s. beef, even with the restrictions they have on restricting the exports to cattle. currently, they are our fifth largest agricultural market overall. we currently sell them over $469 million worth of beef a year. that is with the beef tariff of 53.9% imposed on u.s. beef. it will probably drop that 20, once implemented. the u.s. cattlemen think that

this would -- u.s. beef would go up significantly into correa. the world is not a static place. the koreans are talking about others -- talking to others. we compete with the australians, a lot of others. the europe-pripet fda has been approved by both government and it will go into effect in a couple of months. putting u.s. manufacturers at a significant disadvantage trying to sell products into south korea. while that is not why we negotiated the u.s.-korea fta in the first place, it does have something to do with the urgency we are moving heaven and earth to try to get our congress to deal with that.

we are prepared to talk to the congress right now. just yesterday, the white house decided that panama has met all the obligations that we laid out for them in terms of changing their labor laws in ways that we had identified and passing some tax treaty obligations that we had discussed with them. we think they are ready to go. at the u.s. administration team is ready to meet with the congress to walk through those agreements with them. colombia -- some of you may have for that we spent a good chunk of the spring negotiating additional -- additional obligations et. we are crunched on a couple of time lines. the first significant batch of those obligations are things

that they have -- have said they will do before or by april 22. some time it very soon, will be in a very -- we will be in a position to know whether they are living up to the obligations that they have undertaken. if the white house decides that they are, we will be ready to move forward with that agreement as well. i am quite confident that we will be able to move all three free trade agreement to the congress for passage this spring, certainly by early summer. this has to be done in the context of a broader review of the country's overall trade policy, which includes critical things like the passage of the other preference programs and things out from the list but the secretary listed. whether our standards are too

high or not, i can just say that the team of u.s. government folks that negotiate these things on behalf of the u.s. does agonize over trying to balance the interests of producers and consumers and importers and exporters and investors and others. the single biggest element that drives what is and one of our agreements -- to the extent that you have strong feelings about this, i would urge you to make your views available to the folks on the hill that are talking about doing an extension of the trade promotion of authority. if we can keep it with as few strings as possible, that would be in the direction that both you and i could live with campeau -- could live with. >> let's open it up to

questions. please introduce yourself if you would. >> i am president of the economic strategy institute here in washington. i would like to direct this question to secretary fernandez. secretary, you emphasize a couple of things. the importance of this agreement to cement our ties with an ally and the other was the economic benefits. my first question is, it is not clear to me how an economic agreements cements these geopolitical ties. we have the seventh fleet patrolling the western pacific supporting correa, we of 30,000 troops in korea, 50,000 troops in japan. we have taken the lead in

dealing with north korea on -- in support of south korea. we have a very long history of providing geopolitical support to korea. in fact, it is still the case that in time of war, the korean army is under american command. how much more do we need to do to cement the steel political ties? my feeling is that if that is not enough, why would another relatively small agreements cement those ties more? i want you to respond -- why is it that we do an economic agreement to cement the geopolitical relationship? more importantly, the itc has calculated that this agreement

would increase the overall u.s. trade deficit. despite the number is decided about creation of new production and new jobs in the u.s., you are talking about increased exports and jobs related exports. you did not talk about increased imports and jobs lost due to imports. the itc has calculated that we would have an increase in our trade deficit and a net loss of summer around 140,000 jobs. -- somewhere around 140,000 jobs. you are talking about doing a deal that would raise the u.s. unemployment rate in order to achieve some kind of cementing of geopolitical relationships,

which have been cemented for a long time. you are trading of u.s. jobs for some kind of geopolitical intangible benefit. i am surprised the use support this korean agreement. you correctly pointed out that to -- that the fundamental grounds of most favored nation, which as you know, has recently been translated as a permanent normal trade relations. those two are the same thank. -- the same if they and. the foundation of the wto is m fn. these free-trade deals that we are doing are not free trade

deals. they are preferential trade. they should be called pta's. they are precisely the same thing that prevailed in world trade prior to world war ii. they are the competitive agreements but helped to give rise to the board. it was to get rid of those that the gap and wto were founded. you are correct that they are at the pedicle to the notion of free trade. why are you supporting this particular agreement? you also point out the questions of intellectual property and protection and you know did some other issues, let me throw a couple of other at you. you are all talking as if the

primary assumption of your calculations is that the main barriers to trade our terrace. you talk about how the elimination of tariffs will result in increased exports anyone u.s. dealt with korea or japan or any of the asian countries knows tariffs are not the barriers. career is a country that manipulate currencies, just as -- korea is a country that manipulates country -- currencies. the korean currency is managed. the government intervenes to keep it valued at a rate that will support exports. this will offset any of the five, 10, 15% tariff reductions that you're talking about.

you do not have in this agreement anything dealing with competition policies or currencies. the real barriers in korea are the difficulties from falling producers of getting their products on the shelves. just getting distributors, getting dealers, getting into the sales channels. the difficulty does not arise from terrace as it does from the structural problems in the economy. i am flabbergasted that any of you can support a deal that cost americans jobs. in order to achieve a better relationship with correa. it does not make sense to be. >> let me start.

i spent 30 years and the private sector. i can tell you that this is about people. if you have agreements that increases trade, that increases commerce, you'll have more people to people contact and that will increase security. the international trade commission has estimated that this agreement will improve our bilateral trade with korea by $3.3 billion. this is not an agreement that will cost us u.s. jobs. from my experience in the

private sector, security is not about guns. security is not about bombs. security is about people. at the morgue congress you have, the more trade you have, the more connections between people, between business persons and workers in both countries. in terms of the data, we disagree. the itc numbers that i have pointed disagreements increasing the u.s. trade balance. >> sadly, i also disagree with the foundation of your question. you cannot have it both ways. is not both. i would argue that regardless of

how valuable this agreement is, this agreement will increase u.s. exports and nets u.s. jobs -- nets u.s. jobs. we negotiated this agreement with a good friend and a good ally and for one reason or another, it is still languishing without congressional approval. bill year to do that with a friend and an allied does send a message -- failure to do that with a friend and an allied does send a message that is liable to people who are prone to blow up ships and otherwise acted provocative ways. i would argue that the agreement does not do what you say that it is going to do. we appreciate their have been times in the past when there have been regulatory issues with

the korean government and the way they have acted to protect the domestic markets. one of the triumphs of the package that we negotiate with them over the fall was that it grandfathers' and assures the u.s. auto industry that no change in regulation and korea -- i nacreous is going to restrict or reduce the ability to increase exports to south korea at. bay had been grandfathered in. it does not really matter what happens in the future. even if it did not, our auto industry will do nothing but benefits from the agreement that we worked out with the koreans over the course of the fall. i, too, have to disagree with

you on the facts. >> college respond? >> -- how would you respond? >> i could not agree with you more that the fta's are preferential agreement. i do not like it, but as you know, article 24 and never has worked. unfortunately, all of those sources have escaped from the barn in. -- horses have escaped from the barn. we need to protect our own commercial interests and we need to do it in a way that can let us move back toward mfn overtime. your point on the bigger problems, things like the managed currency, and you could not be more right.

currency imbalances are a cancer that will destroy the trade system unless it is dealt with pretty quickly. i do not think that a bilateral fta is a mechanism that the u.s. needs to use to deal with currency manipulation. we have had this problem before it. is started when richard nixon took the south of the gold standard and it came up in 1985. rather than with just dealing with it on an ad hoc basis, we really need to deal with it -- the issue of currency manipulation. the agreement woul have hurt the auto industry. that would have created a lot of job loss. i think with this trigger, the u.s. tariff holding steady for

five y and korea immediately eliminating their terror of and if there is a problem, the u.s. can stop tariff reductions on autos. i think the administration needs to enforce that. they need to call it a very closely. i think it gives us a good mechanism. why should it be passed? one thing i would argue is that u.s. credibility. i just think the u.s. cannot negotiate agreements and then sit around on them for five years. particularly when we are negotiating them to some extent for foreign-policy reasons. it is the wrong signal. the agreement is going to be fine, and i think it should be passed, and the administration needs to be vigilant. >> the gentleman in the back their. -- there. >> i am from voice of america.

there is a -- that it would not protect the u.s. from north korean parts being assembled by chinese or south korean manufacturers. i was also told that the new executive order which prohibits the importation into the united states and includes services in technology from north korea is basically intended to these other concerns to rest. could you state the position, please? >> let's be clear in.

the goods produced in the industrial complex do not receive any benefits under this agreement. that is -- this agreement does not say anything about -- moreover, what the agreement does talk about is something called processing zones. i will be the reduced version. is a long provision of the document. there is a commission created and after a year, it can look at including outward processing zones. it is a recommendation that has to be adopted by the government. of both countries. ultimately, it has to be approved by congress. at the end of the day, it is not included. it was not intended to be included.

any additional aisle toward processing zones would have to be approved by congress in addition to being recommended. the commission is a bilateral commission and cratered by both countries. you would have to have approval by the commission first and then approval by our country. congress. it takes on these issues by an due course. -- in due course. >> the gentleman in the back? >> i wanted to note the administration is prepared to consider something like a reverse fast-track provision? on the columbia implementation of the labor deal that was just cut?

on the enhance that negotiations? what sort of things are you looking for in the bill? but be packaged with colombia and panama? -- will it be packaged with colombia and panama? as i understand bridget >> as i understand the deal. it puts it at odds with that the advocates having actual progress on the columbia labor front. the question would be, if you are having authority for the fast track, special procedures,

would you allow for it being triggered by the failure of implementation to allow the withdrawal of approval of the free trade agreement? a reverse fast-track agreement approved out in one trade bill. that is one element, where you implement bills and you get what is necessary and appropriate in the appropriate basket. that is why i was asking what kind of issues would be appropriate for the appropriate basket. >> let me just respond. i have not heard of any kind of reversed proposal. but this administration is going to do, it receives the information of columbia having complied with the additional

safeguards included in the new waiver agreement. that will be reviewed. there will be a determination on both sides as to whether it has been complied with. the administration will have to propose it to congress. that is about as much as i can tell you. it is in the early stages. each agreement is going to be submitted when it is ready. the korean won is ready now. which is why we are prepared to go forward now. >> i would like to just add that these things are being very heavily discussed with the leadership in the house and the senate right now. there are no decisions yet in terms of packaging or sequencing. there are discussions of doing

walk-throughs. either of all three agreements together, or separately. it changes every time that i asked a question. certainly, i can assure you that the administration is very anxious to move forward as rapidly as possible, but the exact timing and sequence is being negotiated on an hour by hour basis. the budget thing keeps intervening. members of congress are either going to colombia or correa during their easter recess. that said, we are anxious to move forward as soon as possible. >> mr. secretary, as i wait for another question, i wonder, having had a good deal of experience wrestling with foreign trade agreements and international trade, you look

back fondly on the simple world of international mergers and acquisitions? >> without some facetious, every day i am privileged to do this. look, the trade issues that we have been talking about, i consider them to be an almost philosophical discussion. what is the benefit of trade? will free trade help or hurt the economy? what is the relationship of labor issues, pr issues, environmental issues? that is a debate going on in this country, not just in congress, but at the business level. that, i feel, is a debate that we as a nation need to resolve

in order to go forward. personally, i believe, i have seen that free trade can benefit our nation. it also means that some people are displaced. it also means that you have got to help those people with things like the trade assistance act. i think it is actually very fortunate to be a part of the debate that is going on, the debate that this nation needs to resolve to go forward. >> the lady in the front? >> i wanted to ask, recently we have been talking about a broader trade agenda and free trade agreements, as well as pftr for russia, jft, [laughter] is there any talk of combining other things? or is there a priority for

secret trade agreements? how, in the broader agenda, does the obama administration plan to move forward? >> there is a lot of debate in sequencing going on. ultimately, we have to have all of those that you mentioned. russia, trade assistance. that is a debate that is going on as we speak. bill? >> that is very much ready for a further discussion with the congressman. the budget does have an impact. knowing what our budget looks like, what will impact the pay that goes on, how do you wrap up

a score and pay for an extension? there are many variables to this extension and i cannot give you a bright line with seven things moving together on may 2. i wish that i could, but we are not there yet. soon it will be more than just the three. no one knows yet. >> so, in the answer, these on a broader trade agenda? or is that not what you said? >> i said i retracted that statement. that is not what i implied. there does need to be an understanding, an agreement on

sequencing board packaging as. but which is not to say that some things will go second, some things will go third. i cannot predict that. i cannot tell you what will be first and what will be second, no one knows yet. there are overlapping things, blocks in the congress that will only vote for free trade if they know that the safety net is in place. from the perspective of the state department, we are very interested in trade preferences. we want to make sure that there is not a prolonged absence of benefits to colombia until the time that the fta has passed. we do not want significant disruptions in the colombian

economy in the meantime. they are tremendously helpful to us. we do not want to disrupt their economy more than necessary with a temporary gaffle in the program or anything else. all of these things link into each other. they are very hard to talk about, breaking one out and doing just that. >> mr. secretary, when i suggested the statement from the previous pose, that there be an agreement by now. speculation on the agreement going around? >> look, we have made our agreement clear.

what has been put on the table is not enough. diverging economies coming to the table with a desire to broaden the scopa. e. scop >> nothing would make us happier than to bring a successful and ambitious market-opening, job- creating home to the congressman. but it is our analysis that any variation on the package that is would meet thatnow criteria. creating jobs that we can be confident of. certainly it would be a serious left to try to get it through our country -- congress.

we continue to work each day. we are working very hard to see if there is room to maneuver, to get those advanced and developing economies to realize that the world has changed noticeably in the last 10 years. they have benefits that have been accrued from the world trading system. essentially a corresponding level of responsibility to make for -- make sure that the system works well and there is a balance of benefits going back and forth in each direction. we should not lose sight of the fact that there are innocent by standards being harmed by the delay in these sub-saharan african countries. not a day goes by that we do not talk about trying to find some

new way to go forward. they spoke endlessly about cocktails', small groups, big groups, informal groups. nothing has seemed to work so far. we continue to soldier on. >> i would like to make a couple of comments. this started out as a development round, which we kind of lost sight of. the package on the table does have features that could help the development of the least developed countries. in that sense, it would be good to wrap it up as a development around. also, the doha round, talking about currency manipulation, there are others that are just not on the plate. again, i would like to see that wrapped up, turning the focus to the bigger issues.

i think that one of the big stumbling blocks has been brazil and others, pressing for more u.s. agriculture concessions. frankly, i would hope that subsidies would be looked at again in the farm bill, in the budget talks. i do not see why we are paying people in manhattan not to grow crops. i think that there are subsidies that could be cut and if the u.s. for more flexible, we could get more and manufacturing goods in these developing countries. i guess i was going to figure out things to say about doha. >> we are close to the witching hour and wanted to give our panelists a chance to make a final statement. mr. secretary? >> thank you for inviting me again.

you know, i think it is important to keep an eye on the ball. with the korean free-trade agreement finished, the numbers are there. i think that we should be moving quickly to pass it. and that is what we will do, going forward. >> do you disagree? >> no, again i feel that he is spot on. it has been fascinating to see this administration focus on exports through the national initiative. of course, i am very pleased that we were able to get these changes with that the koreans and to the panamanians, putting us in a position to moving forward for congress and hopefully passage over the next

couple of months. it has been challenging, but i feel we are working hard to determine the best interests of the country as a whole, which is to increase exports and jobs here and abroad. >> i guess i will just make one quick comment. referencing clyde's. on the deficit in terms of jobs. there are a lot of causes for the u.s. trade deficit. this korean agreement is very swap -- very small in the equation. much of it is that tilts toward some manufacturing and investment. also, due to the lack of an energy policy, reducing dependence on imported oil, those are big factors that

really need to be addressed and i would just like to conclude by commending the wall for the changes that she made and i would like to see it passed. >> you have lay out the future of the meetings. mr. secretary, thank you very much for coming. bill, it was a pleasure to have you back. always, interesting and provocative comments. please join me in a round of applause. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama will be at

the facebook headquarters this afternoon. there to take part in a town hall meeting. he is expected to talk about the upcoming vote to raise the federal debt ceiling. you can see that coming up at 4:45 on c-span. >> this weekend, on c-span 2, in "takeover affair," the recall of thompson and julia child in world war ii. also this weekend, sarah l. examines the americanization of hawaii, beginning with missionaries in 1820. from the complete schedule -- for the complete schedule, sign up for booktv alerts.

[unintelligible] >> in his monologue, like daisy examines the world as he sees it. in his latest monologue he examines apple and steve jobs. >> my monologues spring from my obsessions. >> you can also download broadcasts of "usa," -- "q&a," online at c-span.org. >> a quick reminder that the president's town hall meeting gets underway in about 25 minutes in palo alto. we will have that for you here on c-span.

until then, a discussion of the jobless rate in the african- american community and what the obama administration needs to do when it comes to creating jobs for minorities. we will show you as much as we can from this morning's pop "washington journal -- this morning's "washington journal." jealous, president of the naacp. let's start with the unemployment rate for the black community. we have seen that number dropped overall: 9%, but it has not dropped that much for the african-american community. guest: we are stuck in this country right now. we have a whole bunch of folks who frankly need the same thing that we did in the great depression to get out of that great recession. we need to be focused on creating jobs. right now the debate in congress has been how to spend less money. you can look over to the u.k. to see what happens. in the midst of a recession

coming you try to fix things by spending less. you end up with much lower consumer demand and much lower job generation. " we need for congress to be focused on, job creation, go back and look at what we did in the great depression to get out of the great recession. one thing that happens in times like this, the discrimination goes up. q c people attract around the family and social network. the people that they know good jobs first. people outside that have a much harder time. and as the economy starts to get slightly better, more and more people stop -- who had stopped looking for work start for you have a push and pull their. the poll is going back, and then what pushes it up is that people they were not counted, not searching, because they had

given up and now they are starting to push back in. host: you and other african- american leaders met with the president a year ago urging him to specifically address the unemployment issue for minorities, poor communities. at that point may come in the unemployment rate was 16.5%. to a if you look at the most recent statistics, not much of a difference. hispanic or latino, 11.3%. what grade would you give president obama on tackling the issue that you urged him to do one year ago? guest: this congress, we would give a very low grade. if you look at first term, the first congress that he worked with, every major push was about jobs. health care was about jobs and

job quality. dealing with the financial crisis was about jobs. dealing with the huge stimulus that he was able to push through was about jobs. dealing with issues of discrimination and exclusion, and one of the things we talked about was the need to have a need for every federally funded job -- right now when you bought into a federally funded job center, if you will see up to 30% of the jobs they are hiring for in your area. 7% are invisible to you because they are done by contractors not required to post. in a country where it is possible for some much of our federal money to be spent in a way, it is so non transparent, it locks up communities like cars. that is something he can fix directly. host: he has not done it so far.

guest: the regulation has been proposed and it will be done by this summer. but this problem has existed at least for my entire lifetime as the federal government shift more to contractors from federal workers. and it has never been solved. it is finally being solved. you see him posted a big stimulus, you see him push through health care, you see a big push to make sure that small business people the best minority small business can do the same contras. but the congress is trying to push the same mistakes that the u.k. may. they're going back and say that we have been through this once before, how did we get out of it? instead, they are saying, let's use this economist playbook that wherever it has been used, it has become a nightmare, and that is the problem, congress. host: what about the president?

what is his grade? guest: it is hard for me to separate the two. " we need is a massive investmentntntntntntntntntntntnt [no audio] communkty,!does that when it comes tooooooooooooooooo in 2012? year depresssssssssssssssssssssh

come andout what that situatioioioioioioioioioioioioim >> one of the big problems with stimulus, the governor said to us. frankly, the governor, the heads of congress, the president himself, he gets it the most. host: you talk about a

regulation that would be put into effect. guest: it will be put into affect in the summer on the face to make sure that all veterans in this country can find all federally funded jobs for which folks are currently hiring in their area. right now, again, you are down on your luck and you only see 10% to 30% of the taxpayer jobs that folks have job postings out for, they do not have to be posted publicly. it is outrageous that a taxpayer would only see 10% to 30% of the jobs that are taxpayer funded in their area. host: what else are you hearing

from the administration that they plan to do over the next year for minorities and poor communities? >> there is a big push to expand access for small business people. the real focus is people in urban areas that are able to get federal contracts. that is huge. there is a lot of frustration with congress over this budget. there is a lot of frustration with states right now trying to kill unions. right now, unfortunately, we are being forced to actually play defense. the reality is that we need a different conversation in this country, coming down to groups like ours raising their voices, saying that it is not enough for us in a recession to play defense.

we need to create jobs and those values that got us out of the great depression. host: folks are lining up to talk to you. republican line, queens, new york. every black person hearing my voice has a family member in prison. what is the naacp doing about this very great problem in our community. also, going back one century over 100 years, with the president like to take this opportunity to apologize or set the record straight on the way that the naacp dealt with men at top self-help, pride, and cried in africa? guest: who?

host: he is not there. guest: right now in this country, a white person is much more likely to be in prison -- a black person as much more likely to be in prison than during the apartheid. it is working at a highly different level, prompting states and the country. we call these misplaced priorities, choking public universities and destabilizing families. we have to be concerned as it is not making us safer. grover norquist that newt gingrich to work on this.

our country needs to do something different. we even have an association in this country and we need to give it to public universities. 11% in public universities. 11% to spent on public universities. a huge turn of events. back then, those schools were thought to be the best public universities in the world, but it is no longer the case. absolutely attributable to trying to solve social problems with present. you can look back at the naacp and our members have always been supportive and involved.

what did they famously argue about? we are unapologetic about saying that a blood -- that black people are a key part of this country. we built this country and will stay in this country. but if you look at malcolm x, for instance, at the end of his life, when he was assassinated, in a sense he was coming much closer to civil rights. he was a great man. frankly some of the greatest news this country has had, if not the most controversial. host: 1 million of the total 2.3

million population of incarcerated people is represented by black people. 500,000 black fathers currently incarcerated. one out of six african-american men have spent time in prison what should the administration be doing about this? one of the amazing things in this country is that we all tend to use drugs at the same rate. you are about as likely as anyone else to use cocaine. white people, two-thirds of the population, about 60% of the users. but then you look at who gets busted. only 5% of white people. it tells us about two very different law enforcement strategies. if you are white and rich, you

go to rehab. if you are poor and black, you go to prison. and we know that we had is more effective than prison, but we go ahead and do it anyways. sending these children on pads that are very different. senator jim webb has proposed that we actually look at criminal justice from top to bottom in proposing a raft of changes. the state of georgia is going there right now. there are southern republican leaders in northern democrats, as well as texas, there 18 crime bills supported by politicians who are card- carrying members of the naacp

and tea party members. in the state of georgia the governor is proposing another look at the criminal justice policy. here is the thing, it is a classic conservative play. do what saves money and save lives and is most effective. host: let's hear from the viewers. dallas, texas, tony, independent line. guest: as long as we keep people -- keep asking people to provide jobs for us, we will always get the tail end of the. we need to take it into our own hands and create our own jobs so that we do not have to go hat in hand to create jobs.

host: let's take that point. guest: but i am talking about small business owners that have a hard time getting contracts from the government. administration is doing a lot to make it easier. you will have contractors there, like speed dating. you will have prime contractors and subcontractors introduce themselves. at the same time, you make a great point. we are pushing young people to continue the tradition of small- business ownership in our

communities. we spend a lot of time helping them across the country. learning how to draft business models. so that they actually going to college thinking about these small business people. host: tyrone, louisiana, republican. you are on the air. guest: the thing is, we go hat in hand to these people in the federal government and we ask for money. we are not self-sufficient. my point is, if we localize how the money is created, the congress people in congress tied the money. they are held accountable. we would not have deficits going through the roof. putting back the money because

of corps programs. if we give to congress and they reclaim the responsibility for print currency, we could hold these people accountable. my point is that if the ncaa -- dennis -- naacp goes to the black congress and gives responsibility to the federal reserve bank, we do not know who we can hold accountable. our local representatives are held responsible. guest: the issue of accountability is something that we focus on across the country. we spend a lot of time holding local leaders in congress people accountable to their communities. with regards to that, he has a good point.

host: newark, new jersey, leonardo. guest: by m just trying to figure out the role of the -- caller: i am just trying to figure out the role of the naacp. they are being very quiet. i do not see any real leadership. all the guys your followers. this guy gets up and jumps on the bandwagon, giving excuses about why people are blackballed. that was a game that they played and he fell for. guest: thank you for calling in about that. we were the last to make the mistake and the first to apologize. we pushed to the white house to apologize, pushing the usda to apologize and follow-through. shirley and i were to very

closely together. we were both very concerned about this fight to end poverty in rural areas. as she would say, we cannot lead moments like this distract and divide us. we saw a situation depth a group was trying to destroy us by destroying her. ultimately we were able to keep both from happening. i am one of those people that believes she should have been offered her old job back. one place where, frankly, things could have gone further. unfortunately, i do not think that they offered her the right job. host: barbara, maureen, this -- barbara, maureen. guest: i have been dragged into

your interrogation techniques before. c-span, for the last couple of years, and i wrote a letter to susan swain about it, telling them that the mission is spent challenging, undermining, pinpointing articles the challenge -- is he doing the right thing? and so forth. black people will survive. the same thing happening to the mainstream of america today is that they are crying, grasping, and demanding over what has been happening to black people for a century. when we complained about jobs not being available, we were told to pull ourselves up by your bootstraps. i say to white america, do not complain, take responsibility. pull yourself up by your bootstraps. guest: in this country be very much live in a web where the

government plays a key role in making sure that people have jobs. the caller makes a very good point. people tried to get the black community, to encourage us to hold this person accountable for everything. we have known for hundreds of years, after dealing with dozens of residents, we celebrated him as the first black president. from the point he was elected until the day of his inauguration. he became the 44th president. we have great pride in him. but we know that he is no more powerful than any other past presidents we have dealt with. in -- in issues like job creation, congress will have to decide. at the end of the day is 545

people over there that determine how we spend our money and whether or not we will continue this pattern of essentially bankrupting the nation were saying that we have to bankrupt social services. when bush came in, we had a huge surplus. >> you can see the rest of the steps c-span.org -- the rest of this at c-span.org. we are headed to the west coast, where president obama is holding a virtual town hall. more than 36,000 facebook users are said to be online for this town hall. the president will answer questions submitted by users in read by a moderator. expected to start shortly. i will take your phone calls after the town hall. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> we are waiting for president obama here at the facebook headquarters as a part of the three day trip to the west coast for the president. the president will be holding another town hall meeting tomorrow in nevada, focusing on his plans for cutting the deficit. there will also be fund raising of a pit -- fund-raising events tonight and tomorrow. they're attempting to save as much as $1 billion for the race. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> back in washington, republicans were up in arms.

drafting an executive order that would require companies to expose political contributions. ♪ ♪ >> president obama is expected shortly to answer questions from facebook users. 500 million people around the world have facebook profiles. the president's official page has 19 million fans. the online question and answer session today is reportedly being held to reach out to younger voters. "the washington post" wrote that

the president's chief paul starr said that there would be 18 people -- 18 million people voting for the first time in 2012. >> chamber of commerce officials say that the draft goes beyond the nation's. the chamber and the white house have been at odds over contributions since the supreme court ruled that corporations and unions could pay for political attack ads anonymously. mr. obama complained bitterly about it. the press secretary said debt the president deserves -- things the taxpayers deserve to know how other taxpayers -- tax dollars are being spent. officials said that taxpayers deserve to know that contacts like those are not the result of political favoritism.

for chamber officials they say the favoritism shown in new be executive order leaves out. -- in who the other executive order leaves out. -- diane who the executive order leaves out. -- in who the executive order leaves out. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> president obama is expected to focus on his debt reduction plan during the town hall.

the u.s. will reach their current credit limit by may 16. after the easter break, congress is expected to take up legislation to raise the debt limit. the president had made a proposal to cut $4 trillion in spending over the next 12 years. republicans have offered a plan to cut $6.20 trillion. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome cheryl thanburg. [applause] >> thank you all. we have never done this. i do not know where to stand. it is my honor to welcome everyone in person and watching online to our first ever facebook live town hall with president barack obama. [applause] so, we have been fortunate to be able to work with this administration on many issues that we care about.

education, jobs, technology, and most recently the white house summit on bullying prevention. since the president is one of the most popular people on facebook, we feel that he is coming home. welcome home, mr. president. [applause] we are honored to have many special guests here today. house minority leader, nancy pelosi. [applause] there you are. our own returning governor, gavin you some. [applause] the california state comptroller, john chiang. [applause] united states representatives [reads names]

[applause] our own mayor, sydney espinoza. [applause] president of the board of supervisors of santa clara county, david cortez. [applause] and assembly member norra ambertz. [applause] thank you all for being here. today we will talk about the fiscal challenges facing our country and difficult decisions that we need to make together. president obama will take questions from the live audience and from people online. even though it is facebook, no poking the president. with that, marc tucker bird is going to moderate the discussion is going toker bberg

moderate the discussion. thank you all. [applause] >> so, a lot of people around the world use facebook to share a lot of things. things about their day, their family, their kids, and views on things like politics. more and more, many government officials and candidates and folks are also using facebook to share their views with the people following them. sorry, i am kind of nervous. the president of the united states is here. [cheers and applause] so, it has never been as easy in

the history of the world to have people exercise their freedom of speech. but it is good to complement that on-line dialogue with face time as well. what better way to do that than by having a facebook live q&a with the president? it is our honor to welcome to facebook the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] [cheers & applause] [cheers & applause] >> well, thank you facebook, for

hosting this, first of all. [applause] [applause] my name is barack obama and i got mark to wear a jacket and a tie. [applause] thank you. i am very proud of that. >> second time. [laughter] >> the first time that we had dinner together anti-war his jacket and his tie, he was starting to sweat a little bit. it was uncomfortable for him. i helped him out of his jacket and said, if you like, we can take our jacketsff