to seniors. they will bear more of the costs themselves. it is a bad idea. it will ultimately end medicare as we know it. the proponents of this budget will tell us we have to make all these draconian cuts' because our deficit is so large. this is an existential crisis, we have to think about future and that argument might have a shred of credibility were not for their proposal to also spend $4.60 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates. we are told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating waste full deductions.

but the republicans in congress refused to lift a single loophole but they're willing to close, not one. and by the way, there is no way to get even close to $4.60 trillion in savings without dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle- class families, tax breaks for health care, tax breaks for retirement, tax breaks for home ownership. meanwhile, these proposals and tax breaks would come on top of more than a dollar trillion in tax giveaways for people making more than two and $50,000 per year -- more than $250,000 per year.

a second andck for look at $150,000 pays for. a year's worth of prescription drug coverage for senior citizen plus a new school computer lab plus a year of medical care for returning veterans plus a medical research grant for chronic disease plus a year's salary for a firefighter or police officer plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable plus a year's worth the financially. $150,000 would pay for all these things combined. investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all this -- all of us.

for $150,000, it would go to each millionaire and billionaire in this country. this budget says we would be better off as a country if that is how we spend it. this is post to be about paying down our deficit? -- this is supposed to be paying down our deficit? it is laughable. the bipartisan simpson decibels committee that i treated, which the republicans were for until i was for it, that was about paying down the deficit. i did not agree with all the details. i proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion -- i am sorry, it proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion more in defense cuts than i propose in my own

budget. but it was a balanced effort between democrats and republicans to bring down the deficit. that is why, although it differs in some ways, my budget takes a similarly balanced approach. cuts in discretionary spending, in mandatory spending, and increased revenue. this congressional republican budget is something different altogether. it is a trojan horse. it is disguised as deficit reduction plans and is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. it is thinly veiled social darwinism. it is antithetical to our entire history as the land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who's willing to work for it. a place where prosperity does

not trickled down from the top, but grows out for from the heart of the middle class. by getting the very things we need to grow an economy that is built to last. education and training, research and development, our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline. and everybody here should understand that because there are very few people here who have not benefited at some point from those investments that were made in the 1950's and the 1960's and the 1970's and the 1980's. that is part of how we got ahead. and now we will be pulling up those letters for the next generation. in the months ahead, i will be fighting as hard as i know how

for this to truer vision of what united states of america is all about. absolutely, we have to get serious about the deficit. that will require tough choices and sacrifice. i have already shown myself willing to make these tough terraces when i signed -- tough choices when i signed into law the biggest tax cuts in history. the overall spending next year will be lower than any year under ronald reagan. i am willing to make more of those difficult spending decisions in the months ahead. but i have said before and i will say it again. there has to be some balance. all of us have to do our fair share. i have also put forward a detailed plan that will reform and strengthen medicare and medicaid. by the beginning of the next

decade, it achieves the same amount of animal health savings as the plan proposed by simpson- bolles. it does so by making changes that people in my party have not always been comfortable with. but instead of saving money by shifting costs to seniors like to the republican congressional plan proposes, it will go after excessive subsidies to prescription drug companies, gets more efficiency of medicaid without gutting the program. it ask the wealthiest to pay a little bit more. new incentives for doctors and hospitals to improve their results. and it slows the cost american costs by strengthening an independent commission, one not

made of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need. we also have a much different approach when it comes to tax. if we are serious about paying down our debt, we can afford to spend trillions more tax cuts for folks like me. for wealthy americans who do not need them and were not even asking for them and that the country cannot afford. at a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1% of the people in this country has climbed to levels , thosecene in the 1920's same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years.

as both i and warm but have pointed out many times now, he is paying a lower tax rate and his secretary. that is not fair. it is not right. and the choices really very simple. if you want to keep these tax breaks and deductions in place or give even more tax breaks to the wealthy, as the republicans in congress propose, then one of two things will happen either these higher deficits or it means more sacrifice for the middle class. seniors will have to pay more for medicare. college students will lose financially. working families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest americans are doing less. i repeat what i said before. that is not class warfare. that is not class envy. that is math. if that is the choice of the

members of congress want to make -- and we will make sure that every american knows about it -- in a few weeks, there will be a vote on what we call the buffet rule. it is a simple concept. if you make more than $1 million annually, then you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle- class families do. on the other hand, if you made under% $250,000, like 98% of american families do, then your taxes should not go up. that is the proposal. you will hear some people point out that the buffet rule alone will not raise enough revenue to solve our deficit problems. maybe not. but it is definitely a step in the right direction. and i intend to keep fighting

for this kind of balance and fairness until the other side starts listening could i believe this is what the american people want. i believe this is the best way to pay for the investments we need to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. by the way, i believe it is the right thing to do. this larger debate that we will be having and that you will be covering in the coming year, by the size and role of government, this debate has been with us since our founding days. during moments of great challenge and change like the ones we're living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. that is a good thing. as a country that prizes both are individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important

debates that we can have. no matter what we argue or where we stand, we have always held certain beliefs as americans. we believe that come in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can just think about ourselves. we have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. we have to think about our fellow citizens, with whom we share a community. we have to think about what is required to preserve the american dream for future generations. and this sense of responsibility to each other and our country, this is not a partisan feeling. this is not a democratic or republican idea. it is patriotism. if we keep that in mind and uphold our obligations to one

another and to this larger enterprise that is america, then i have no doubt that we will continue on our long and prosperous journey as the greatest nation on earth. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you. thank you, everyone. thank you. >> we appreciate you so much being with us today. i have some questions from the audience. the republicans have been

sharply critical of you as well. americans want both sides to stop fighting and get the job done. >> i completely understand the american people's frustrations. the truth is that these are imminently solvable problems. another christine thlagg arde is here. the kind of challenges they face fiscal is a much more severe than anything we can confront if we make some sensible decisions. the american people's impulses are absolutely right. these are solvable problems the people of good faith came together and were willing to

compromise. the challenge we have right now is that we have, on one side, a party that will book no compromise -- and this is not just my assertion. we had presidential candidates who stood on stage and were asked would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involves $10 of cuts for every dollar in revenue increases -- a 10-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue. not one of them raised their hands. think about that. ronald reagan, who was a recall

is not accused of being a tax- and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that come when the deficit started to get out of control, for him to make a deal, he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. he did it multiple times. he could neither did through a republican primary today -- he could not get through a republican primary today. let's look at booles-simpson bear. i proposed less revenue and slightly lower defense spending cuts. the republicans want to increase

defense spending and taking in new revenue -- and take in no revenue. if you essentially eliminate discretionary spending, not just cut it, everything we think of as being pretty important, from education to basic science and research to transportation spending to national parks to do environment of protection, we would have to eliminate them. i guess another way of thinking about this -- and this bears on your reporting -- i think there's oftentimes the impulse to suggest that, if the two parties are disagreeing, the near equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

and and equivalents is presented, which reinforces people's cynicism about washington in general. this is not one of those situations where there is an equivalence. i have some of the most liberal democrats in congress who are prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests and who said they were willing to do it. and we could not get a republican to stand up and say we will raise some revenue or to even suggest that we will not give more tax cuts to people who do not need it. i think it is important to put the current debate in some historical context. it is not just true, by the way, of the budget.

it is true of a lot of the debates that we are having here. cap and trade was originally proposed by conservatives and republicans as a market-based solution to solving environmental problems. the first president to talk about cap and trade was george w. h. bush appeared now we have a party that essentially says we should not even be thinking about environmental protection. let's gut the epa. healthcare, which is in the news right now, there is the reason why there is a little bit of confusion. in the republican primary about health care and the and did -- and the individual mandate. it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace and health care while still ensuring that

everybody got coverage as opposed to a single-payer plan. suddenly, this is some socialist overreach. as all of your doing your reporting, it is important to remember that the positions i'm taking on the budget and a host of other issues, if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, it would have been considered squarely centrist positions. what has changed is the center of the republican party. and that is certainly true with the budget.

>> [inaudible] the need for a lower deficit and lower taxes. how do you respond to that? >> she is absolutely right. when i travel around the world to these international forums, i have said this before. the degree to which america is the one indispensable nation, the degree to which -- even as other countries are rising and their economies are expanding, we're still looked to for leadership, for agenda-setting. not just because of our size and our military power, but because there is a sense that, unlike

most superpowers in the past, we tried to set out a set of universal rules or a set of principles by which everybody can benefit. and that is true on the economic front as well. we continue to be the world's largest market, an important engine for economic growth. we cannot return to a time when, by simply borrowing and consuming, we end up driving global economic growth. i said this a few months after rose elected at the g-20 summit. -- after i was elected at the g- 20 summit. driving economic growth by taking imports from everyplace else, those days are over.

we do have to take care of our deficits. i think christine has spoken before and i think most economists would argue as well that the challenge, when it comes to our deficit, is not short term discretionary spending, which is manageable. as i said before and i want to repeat, as a percentage of our gdp, our discretionary spending, all the things that the republicans are proposing to cut, is actually lower than it has been since dwight eisenhower. there has not been some massive expansion of social programs, programs to help the poor, environmental programs, education programs. that is not our problem. our problem is that our revenue has dropped down to between 15% or 16%, far lower than it has

been historically, far lower than it was under ronald reagan. at the same time, our health care costs have surged and demographics show that there's more and more pressure placed on financing our medicare and medicaid and social security programs. at a time when the recovery is still gaining steam and unemployment is still very high , the solution should be pretty apparent. even as we continue to make investments in growth today, for example, putting some of our construction workers back to work rebuilding schools and roads and bridges or helping stage rehire teachers at a time when schools are having a huge -- or helping states rehire teachers at a time when schools are having a huge problem retaining quality teachers in

the classroom, all of which would benefit our economy, we focus on a long-term plan to stabilize our revenues at irresponsible level and to deal with -- at a responsible level and to deal with our deficit in irresponsible way. and that is exactly what i -- in a responsible way. and that is exactly what i am proposing. during the clinton era, wealthy people were doing just fine and the economy was stronger than it had been. and let's work on medicare and medicaid in a serious way, which is not just taking the cost of the books, of the federal books and pushing them on to individual seniors, but let's

actually reduce health care costs. we spend more on health care with not as good outcomes as any other advanced developed nation on earth. that would seem to be a sensible proposal. the problem right now is not the technical means to solve it. the problem is our politics. that is part of what this election and what this debate will need to be about. are we as a country willing to get back to common sense, balanced, fair solutions that encourage our long-term economic growth and stabilize our budget? it can be done. one last point want to make that i think is important because it goes to the growth issue -- if

state and local government hiring were basically on par to what our current -- all part to past recoveries, the unemployment rate would probably be about a point lower than it is right now. if the construction industry were going through what we normally go through, that would be another point. part of the challenge we have right now in terms of growth has to do with the basic issues of huge cuts in state and local governments and the housing market still recovering from this massive bubble. those two things are huge headwinds in terms of growth. if we put some of those construction workers back to work or we put some of those teachers back in the classroom, that could actually help create

the kind of virtuous cycle that would bring in more revenues just because of economic growth, would benefit the private sector in significant ways, and that could help contribute to deficit reduction in the short term, even as we still have to do these important changes to our health care programs over the long term. >> president, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for the supreme court to overturn law passed by an elected congress. if the court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do or propose to do for the 30 million people who would not have health care after that ruling? >> first of all, let me be very specific. we have not seen a court a law that was passed

by congress on an economic issue like health care that i think most people would consider commerce. they'll like that has not been overturned -- a lot like that has not been overturned at least since locklear. that is pre 1930's. the point i was making is that the supreme court is the final say on on the constitution and our laws and all of us have to respect it. but it is precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint

and deference to our duly elected legislature, our congress. so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. as i said, i expect the supreme court to actually recognize that and abide by well established precedents out there appeared to have enormous confidence that come in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the court will exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our supreme court has.

as a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies. what i did emphasize yesterday is that there is a human element to this that everybody has to remember. it is not an abstract exercise. i get letters every day from people who are affected by the health care law right now, even though it is not fully implemented. young people who are 24 or 25 who say, you know, i just got diagnosed with a tumor. first of all, i would not had it checked if i did not have health insurance. and i would not have had it treated if i were not on my parents' plan. thank you and thank congress for getting this done. i get letters from folks who have just lost their jobs. their cobra is running out.

there in the middle of treatment for colon cancer or breast cancer and they are worried that, if there cobra runs out and they are sick, what will they be able to do if they cannot get health insurance? the point that was made very ably before the supreme court, but i think that most health care economists have acknowledged, it assures that people will get coverage even when they have bad .... one way is the single-payer plan. everyone is in a single system like medicare. the other way is to set a system in which you do not have people who are healthy but do not

bother to get health insurance and then we'll have to pay for them in the emergency room. that does not work good as a consequence, we have to make sure that those folks are taking their responsibility seriously, which is what the individual mandate does. i do not anticipate the court striking the stem. i think they take their responsibilities very seriously. i think what is more important is for all of us, democrats and republicans, to recognize that, in a country like ours, the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth, we should not have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick. or and waiting until they do get

sick and then go to the emergency room which involves all of us paying for them. >> you have been very generous with your time. we appreciate so much you being here. >> thank you so much, everybody. [applause] thank you. >> president obama at the american society of news .ditors' conference paren this is available on our website. go to c-span.org. today's -- today is primary day for residents in and wisconsin, md., and the district of columbia. mitt romney is hosting a luncheon in waukesha, wisconsin. rick santorum is back in his home state of pennsylvania.

newt gingrich has no public events today. ron paul will be in california tonight hosting a town hall ornia.g in chico, calif. we will bring results and speeches from candidates at their primary night headquarters. we also simulcast a portion of politico's coverage. again, it all starts tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. book tv tonight, first, carl bogus talks about his book "buckley." and timothy stanley discusses his book, "the pressure." after that, -- "the crusader."

after that, a book about ronald reagan, our 40th president. and now, a harvard university forum on race and the presidential election. the panelists discussed the black vote and their response to the trayvon martin shooting by president obama and other candidates. >> good afternoon, everybody. we want to welcome everybody to this afternoon's form. i am pleased to introduce one of the organizers of the congress.

his new fellow at state and local governments specializing first studies at k-12 education reform. she has coordinated the public policy of their ship conference and is a co-chair. >> thank you. humvee half of the black policy conference leadership team, will come to the eighth annual black policy conference at the harvard kennedy school. we're here to celebrate carriagheritage and horizon. it is our hope that, throughout this region, we generate innovative solutions to approach the world's most challenging problems. without further ado, we would like to begin that discussion here with our moderator.

thank you. >> thank you so much. i am thrilled to be here with you. one of the current fellows at the institute politics here at the kennedy school of government. i want to introduce my panel, starting with the gentleman to my immediate left. he is also a current resident fellow at the harvard institute of politics and a former member of congress, representing alabama from 2003 to 2017 he was named as one of the 10 best congressman in america. he graduated from harvard university in 1990, which i also did some of the enough, and harvard law school in 1993, which i did not. [laughter] in 1992, he was named best oralist. and then we have april ryan, the white house correspondent for

urban radio networks. she has a daily feature broadcast nationwide. she is a member of the national press club and a 23-year journalism veteran. she began her career in baltimore, maryland, my hometown. she has served as news director as w. xyz f m. to her left, we have ron christie, who i do media with. this is a small colored world. robert christy is a veteran senior adviser for both the white house and congress coul. he is a visiting assistant director and adjunct professor. to his left is kelly crosswasly.

she was an academy award nominee and emmy award winner as a producer on the documentary series "eyes on the prize." she is a graduate of wellesley college. let's have a round of applause for this panel. [applause] we could look at the interconnections between us as booking people that we knew. but it really is a small colored world when it comes to political journalism and political punditry, when it comes to african-americans and a lot of people of color. to what extent is that an advantage or disadvantage that you know so many of the players? dealing with the daily issues of

the presidential campaign? >> it is an advantage to a certain extent that you know the players. it is such a small number of us that are seen daily, a role called by name daily by the president. when there are issues for the black community or for people of color, they make sure that they talk to you during the bush years, i didn't even have to raise my hand. some issues during this presidency, particularly with the black farmers, he knew that i was one of the ones raising the issue. because there are so few of us, there is an invented.

but at the same time, it is a disadvantage because mainstream media, particularly with this president, there is a universal approach. there isn't everyone approach. with that, they want to make sure that they touch black media. it is a fine line to walk for every president. they do not want to be perceived as trying to pander to an audience. at the same time, they want to make sure that audiences hear the message. >> ron, you do tv and radio and teach and run a strategy company. you wear many hats. there are many african americans and people of color who have said to me to be careful. do not be put in the black box were your only called upon to talk about race. you obviously have had a career

in republican administrations where you transcended the black box in many ways. >> when i joined the administration, i switched over to the policy adviser for the president. you go there and you think i will be best don policy adviser there is because i am smart, i am a lawyer, and then you look around and you realize that they're not -- that there are not many folks that look like you and you have ended-- you have an obligation. if you do not speak up and offer your voice, it is an opportunity missed.

tion was that it strom thurmond was elected president, perhaps a lot of us in this room for me, i went to our chief of staff right after trent lott made his infamous comments about the former senator strom thurmond and the insinuation was that it strom thurmond was elected president, perhaps a lot of us in this room who look like those of us on the stage would be in a different place. i was so angry when that happened. i thought, special assistance for the president do not march over to the chief of staff and say, we are blowing it. we are missing an opportunity. i wrote him a four-page letter and went through and said, i cannot rationalize this for myself or my family and anyone outside of these dates if we remain silent and do not address this issue of racial insensitivity. when he called me, i thought i was going to get fired, but instead, it opened a dialogue. it is a double-edged sword. it is good in many respects because people are looking to you. it is bad because people are looking at you.

>> artur, as a congressman serving in alabama, you have been able to see many of the commonalities and divisions that typified american politics. many of the commonalities and divisions that typified american politics. and your work here at the iop is a blow by blow of what it takes to run for president. how do you see -- what did you learn from your term in congress about the issues of race and how they play into politics? which of those lessons apply to the current presidential race? >> let me put it into context. the conversation you talked about, getting put in the box. i was in congress for eight years. it was a pretty good eight years for african-american members of congress. at one point, there were seven

african-american members who were chairman of committees, another seven who were chairmen of the subcommittees in. about 15 or 16 of us walking around as mr. chairman. you want to be mr. chairman if you are on the hill. it is a good thing. what was always interesting, wherever there were subjects of jurisdiction or controversy, it was amazing that the mainstream press never seemed to call on them. in a previous lifetime, i used to watch a lot of shows on sunday morning. i do not do those things anymore. the voice and things like that. i would always be struck. they would talk about tax policy. weirdly, there was this guy, i think his name was rangle, who knew a lot about that and became

the chair of the committee and was a ranking member before that. i would never, even before this started, i would never see charlie rangel talked-about tax policy. we would not see eye to eye on a lot of things, but benny was the chair let -- the chairman of the homeland's security committee. homeland security is a big, broad topic. we talk about it every 9/11, when there are terror alerts every few months. i would never see bennie thompson, the ranking member of the committee, the chairman of the committee, ever talking about homeland security. i could keep on going if we had enough time. you get my drift. i thought it was just pundits or talking heads, those of us who write blogs or that kind of thing.

it is not just those of us who are talking heads, it is elected people and people who have proved their spurs by becoming committee chairmanships. we are going to talk about all of these things about race and politics and probably something that happened in florida that happened a week ago, maybe you have heard something about it. and we have heard -- and we should talk about that. it is very important. but we have started on exactly the right note. by asking the question why are voices of color often put in a particular, limited context. my final point, i do not want to leave harvard out of the equation. i win here as an undergraduate and law student. it still looks good on a resonates. -- a resume.

i remember being in a class that i like very much. the guy who ran the session was a good guy. he would do a review on politics. i happen to be here -- he was decidingfor president a third t? marion barry got into some stuff in d.c. he would call on me and he would say, artur, what do black people think about the situation? what do black people think on him running a third time? the first couple times -- the first time, it hurt my feelings. the second time, it's good being offended. the third time, i thought, the

chance to say what artur davis thinks. it is an incredible challenge that everyone who is black or brown or yellow or indian has to appreciate. there are a lot of people who are going to look at you and decide, you are smart, but i'd bet your specialty is this. i think it is a normal problem, it limits us. >> callie, let me dig into media. you and i are both people who continue to persevere in what some people think of as a dying industry. of course, the level of competition, the mergers, the shrinkage, my first job was at newsweek which is no one but the daily beast -- which is now run

by the daily beast. how does that affect the ability to have a good strong coverage during a political year, which includes important racial topics? >> it means that stuff gets overlooked. i say all the time, there are many perspectives. what happens when you do not have the many voices in the room to talk about what is the central issue of the day -- you have lost something in terms of understanding what the issues are and how they impact all of us in a community. i see it over and over again. for those who say there is only one way to look at it, i have been in so many discussions. i have raised my voice to say, but what about -- it is a huge loss. back to the double edge sword, sometimes you are in the

uncomfortable position of being the only voice to raise it. it does not just have to be about race, but a different way of looking at something that may be informed by the fact that i am a person of color. i look at things a little more broadly. just by the nature of my experience as a human being and a journalist. i cannot say how valuable it is to have those other voices in the room. even those of us at this panel are weary, do i have to say it one more time? there is always somebody new in the room. >> speaking of an issue with one truth that many perspectives, i am going to go to the case in florida. trayvon martin's death. it has become a media firestorm. we are getting to the point

where we need to focus in on what some of the central issues are. to me, this is my personal opinion, we have a very bad law that is influenced by lobbying patterns in america. it is not just an issue of justice 41 young man, it is many unarmed people. i want to take this into the presidential carina. we are supposed to talk about the presidential race. president obama said if i had a son, he would look like trayvon. recently, robert zimmerman said i never foresaw so much hate coming from the president and the naacp. mitt romney says it is a tragedy, there needs to be a

thorough investigation. rick santorum said that stand your ground is not doing what this man did. newt gingrich said the district attorney had done the right thing and of zimmerman he said it was a guy who has a hobby that is dangerous, armed neighborhood watch. side from zimmerman's father, you see some unanimity of critique. what impact does the trayvon martin case and these aha racial moments have on political races? go ahead. >> it has a lot to do with the presidential campaign. if you are president, you are president of all america. everything goes to the white

house, from war to peace. trayvon martin is part of the white house. the president talked about his son. the white house had been working on crafting some kind of response. the justice department was working on crafting some kind of response. what do you think about the trayvon martin issue? i said, i know you do not want this in your lap. there was a big mistake made with the henry gates situation. the new head -- then you had the shooting. they had to craft a statement that was general but with ownership. at the same time, the republican

candidate for president, i am going to be blunt, it is not on the radar. we have seen it. numbers of black americans going to the polls during the primary and not even measurable. >> all of the candidates -- >> they had to. the president spoke. that forces them to say something about it, particularly in light of gun laws. they are strong proponents of the nra. they are courting the hispanic vote, not necessarily the black vote. they had to prepare something that would not push them out of the way, make it tea party like them -- make the tea party dislike them, something broad

enough that whatever happens, they would be ok. with something of this magnitude, they had to come in and step in. they are the moral leaders of the country. they set the tone in so many respects. >> 3 worth that april said, setting the tone. i think the president did not set the right tone. i think he should have gone further. the thing i took exception with what he said is that he said, if i had a son, he would look like trayvon. what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? you could say, and a father. -- i am a father.

i was upset he did not say, people need to chill out. this is a sensitive issue. we need to learn what all the facts are. by him saying, we need to have a soul-searching moment -- we do not know what the facts are. the only thing we know is that a 17-year-old boy was shot dead. he was shot by a neighborhood watch person who was armed. that is all we know. he was told to stand down. the fact that our president said, if i had a son, he would look like trayvon, it only added a little more kerosene. see, it is a racial issue. folks need to get riled up on issues of race as opposed to being more compassionate. >> artur.

>> there are 1000 things to be said about this. this is one of the big concerns i have about the trayvon martin controversy. one of the two eyewitnesses -- no one knows what happened. having said that, if it turns out that george zimmerman is telling the 100% gospel truth, if it turns l. that trayvon martin did slammed his head to the ground, if zimmerman's version is vindicated, it does not excuse the fact that all kind of people who look out of place, if they are not getting shot, they are getting detained.

the of getting questioned. they are getting analyzed. they are getting profile. on the flip side, if it turns out that somebody comes forward and says, i saw this thing and what zimmerman says is 100% false, if he is convicted and black folks are jumping up and down the street, that is not going to solve the fact that some other black kid is going to wander into the same situation. every time i hear us obsessing about one controversy, i do not care if it is this, if it is rodney king, i was a student here when that happened, we get so worked up over one person. of course we ought to care about the tragedy. we forget the fact that the resolution of that one person's

saba still leaves us with the same problems. elected in a black president did not lift race off the backs of the american people. that is a reality. my final point, i will follow ron's instinct, you have to say something controversial. this does remind me of one of the thing, may i use the we in the literal sense, meaning the folks of color. we have to be very careful about over-invoking racism and race and racial injustice. i will be very candid with you, we love to do it. african american politicians under investigation, we love to talk about a number of african

american politicians under investigation. we love to talk about patterns. we love to invoke racial injustice. we love to say that every time a new measure is passed that says you have to do one extra thing, that is the ugly and of jim crow. it sounds good. it makes you feel nice and warm. the only problem is, as good as it sounds, and eventually the real wolf does come knocking at the door. when the real wolf shows up at the door, if it turns out that zimmerman is lying, that is what happened. then it sounds like what we are saying, it sounds like it is what we have said, and how we have said it before. it does not resonate the way it

should. i will make those two cautionary point. do not think it is going to solve anything or and anything -- end anything and be careful about how we talk about walz being at the door. -- wolves being at the door. >> recently a participated in a forum in new york. the african american studies library in new york, on the panel was randall kennedy. in the process of conversation, one of the things that came out was that, although we have this black president, president obama, in some ways, he is perhaps the least equipped to deal with structural racial injustice. it is a third rail for black politicians.

inject whatever else you feel, do you think that in some ways there is a structure against black politicians? the wolf could be at your door 10 times in one night. the wolf could be at your door one time. it could also be 10 times. it could be the wolf. under what circumstances can you challenge structural injustice, not just sporadic in justice? >> as a black politician, not very much. as leader of the free world, he has the justice department. it is under his power to say, let's go see what is going on in florida. that is what he can do. it flies back in his face. people are going to say, in this polarized -- i cannot call it a

dialogue, discussion, ranting, that is going on in this country, if you bring to the table that you are black and speaking about race, it is translated into racism. i want to pick up on something that artur said. the last person in the room that wants to call it racism is the black person. i do not want to be the person to say, did she not wait on me because -- i want to think of anything else but that. the way this gets translated it is that people imposed upon us, saying we scream racism. we are the less people who want to call it up. we want it to be anything else but that. when it is there, let's face up

to it. that is the frustrating thing around the trayvon martin case, the negativity we have seen that is racially based, directed at president obama. i hear no other voices except black people saying, come on, y'all. recognize this. to the extent we are still operating in the context, we are operating in the context of, this is going to go on today and tomorrow and the next day, we have to figure out how we are going to go forward. your point, that is what president obama said that trayvon could be my son. the undertone is about the ongoing racial conflict. to not say anything about that in the most carefully crafted way he could is disingenuous. i really do think so.

>> let me respond and go in a different direction. we have a short attention span as an american community. we remember what happened this morning and yesterday. i remember an episode about six months ago, i will not pick on the college by name, he is a prominent figure for the civil- rights community. he was talking about the phenomenon of "racism" and the response to barack obama. i think he made some points that were very good. he took one point too far. he said, two years ago, i am quoting him, "when the tea party folks were out there and they were holding up the signs

showing obama with the hitler mustache, can you imagine a caucasian president being treated in a disrespectful way ?" the host of this show paused for a moment. he said, i want to show you something. he put up a clip of george bush with a hitler mustache and dick cheney with a hitler mustache. a lot of ugly things have been said about barack obama that a disrespectful, that a dumb, that have no basis. news flash, being president of the united states entitles a lot of people to feel they can say dumb things about you. i have this memory of another

guy, he was once called the first black president until we got the first black president. his name is william jefferson clinton. at one point, people said that obama was a muslim. what was his name? pastor wright looked anything but a muslim to me. that continues to float around. that he used to be the biggest drug dealer in arkansas and run drugs at of a pout of a private airport. that he had his white house aide it killed. that he had raped a woman, two. i will not even repeat some other things that were commonly said.

i could go back through the charts. none of them -- there are some people who dislike barack obama. so many people walk around with race at the core of their heart, there is no reason to think it would stop. we have to be mindful of this. we live in a time where contempt towards people would disagree with is a common political play. it is awful. the notion that if we do not agree with someone's politics, we ought to tear them down. that if someone does not think like us, there is something wrong with them. the left things, if you do not agree with me, there is something wrong with your brain. the right says, if you do not agree with me, there is

something wrong with your soul. if we can get past the politics, i think it will be a lot better off. >> i have to it jump in here. we are in the q&a time. we did not even get to big issues like, before we wrap up, we will go through it speed read on. -- a speed round. there was a poll that said his approval ratings have inched over the 50% mark since last may. there were others that were lower. the same poll said that if the general election were held today, president obama would win handily. there is the issue, another issue i find troubling, which is

the black unemployment rate being double -- it rose, the overall unemployment rate stayed stable, the black unemployment rate rose, it is at 14.1%. i hope some of the wise people will be able to craft questions. we have microphones here. i will give you the drill. all questioners must identify themselves. one brief question per person. no speeches. questions and with a question mark. >> good afternoon. my name is michelle wilson, i am from the epa. my question has to do with voter suppression, what you all believe will be the effect on

the election of these laws and how we should, as a group of people of color, what should be our strategy to deal with these ideologues and their intention of reducing the number of people of color at the polls? thank you. >> the assistant minority head, on the hill, he is also the head of the anti-voter suppression effort. he said, it is going to happen. the fact that you are going to have to have your id card. everyone needs to make sure that

you get some kind of state id so that you can go to the polls. you do not just have that. you have the issue of the fact that this is not going to be the big one. you will never have the big moment. there is an issue, the intensity, it did not just have the voter-suppression issue, you have the intent to the issue. 90% plus went to the polls for obama. obama is concerned about intensity. factoring in the unemployment numbers, the fact that black people -- i think some of this trayvon martin issue is a culmination of so much. there are so many african americans who are disenchanted by so many things.

they are scared to speak out. they fear it could hurt the president. this trayvon martin issue has evolved into a lot of things. this placed anxiety, the perfect term. -- displace anxiety, the perfect term. there are several factors that black america needs to face. why am i going to the polls? the big moment is gone. this is what black america have to deal with. >> let me ishaqi by saying something about voter i.d.. -- let me shock you by saying something about voter i.d. it does not bother me. let me say why.

whenever i hear somebody say that and i d requirement is oppressive, i have to ask the question, how many times are we asked to present id in the course of citizenship? the department of justice is challenging voter i.d. laws. you cannot get into the department of justice without a photo id. it so happens that you cannot get into a lot of private buildings in washington and new york without an id. if you try to get on a plan without an id, they have to make a whole bunch of phone calls. if you happen to be an arab person -- i have not seen any of those factors in vogue at rage in our

society. whenever i say that, people say, the difference is we have a right to vote. britain not have the right to get on a plane. -- we do not have the right to get on a plane. you may discover you feel you do have a right. there is this interesting notion that if you have a right in this country, that nobody can attach a burden to it. that is at the heart of what people say. they are saying, because i have a right, you cannot put a burden on that. when you turn 18, you do not become enrolled to vote. i did not see anybody saying that you should be auto-enrolled to vote. we have a registration.

registration does not happen -- you have to fill a form out. you choose to vote. you have to stand in line. you have to get someone to notarize your form. do you have a right to vote absentee? you bet you do. you have to jump through some groups. -- hoops. if you register people to vote and you are active politically, that is okay. here is how you handle the worry. make sure that folks have an id. you get out and register them. >> i have a feeling that other folks want to follow up. i am going to go to the next question. >> i am and alumni in the public

policy program. it is interesting that black people talk so much about having our points of view heard and discussed and what we do not do is to make our thoughts heard affectively. we do a lot of talking, when it comes to voting day, we are supposed to show up. we are there, registering our opinions as we were given the right to do and our forefathers blood so that could happen. we are not there. what is it about us that keeps us talking and raising the good fight philosophically, but we did not take care of business? >> callie?

>> people have to feel the vote is connected to their lives. when they do, they vote. it cannot happen for barack obama, people felt -- the turnout happened for barack obama, people felt it was connected to their lives. the inauguration -- he never gets up to do nothing. he felt connected. for pookie and many other people, the question is, will it make a difference if i get up? i did not see it will make a difference. he is not able to go to a federal building. he is part of the 25% without

any government issued id. 70% of the elector for all votes are held in states with photo id laws fo. that is a political situation. whatever it is, it is a reality. some laws are still yet to be enacted. i have to enter this about the photo id thing, there has not been demonstrated fraud. i am ok if you demonstrate there is fraud. that every second person is fraudulent. all right, let's take them through all the hoops. that is not the case. somehow, the story has to be connected with the folks who are not voting to make them understand that there is a lot at stake in this election and every election.

itmore alexian's than most, is going to provide a stark contrast about policy. people need to be paying attention to that. >> we have two questions appear. i am going to start on the right. >> i'm a sophomore at the college. this is a follow up. race plays a different role in the democratic and republican party iies, he may disagree with me. this might be controversial but, i wanted to ask, to what extent the believe that race is used as an instrument in politics. >> when we talk about the voter i.d. and voter suppression, it

is being used as a wedge issue against republicans. somehow, republicans want to suppress the vote of the people of color. they are putting together this new jimc rowe era -- jimc rowe era poll tax. it is nonsense. you cannot exist without an id. >> you can. i am if field reporter who goes out to those tons with there is nothing but a corner store at the intersection of tree and rock. >> i am only looking at my own example, my relatives. miraculously, my 98-year-old grandmother has a voter i.d..

it is nonsense that republicans are seeking to divide the country on race -- it is nonsense. the plan to the point that there is no proof that this is a republican witch hunt, that is where i am going. you look at the election in minnesota. the congressman who had the seat, it is proven there are more folks who were legally registered to vote to cast their vote. i need to go no further. in minnesota, it is not a place where you a trying to suppress the minority vote. there is one instance where it is false to say it never happens and an instance where the democratic party is time to stir up interest by some republicans are racist.

but -- saying republicans are racist perry >> there ought to be one of every two people are fraudulent voters. there is not that. when everybody leading the voter i.d. campaign is republican, well, people say, what are you doing? and why? the only state where i know there were black people part of the discussion, was rhode island. rhode island has a voter i.d. law. there are black lawmakers who feel strongly about it. the rest, they a democrat. it was the black democrats involved in supporting the law in place in rhode island. everyplace else, i do not know. >> let me jump in. 15 seconds on this point.

the guy who served in congress before i did, in the democratic primary in 1992, he got 130 votes, in the run-up to got 13,000 votes -- run-off he got 13,000 votes, you do the math. in a governor's race in louisiana there was a minority running. he was not a black person. he was an indian-brother. five days before the election, his opponent cichlid a fly air -- circulated a flier that showed him with long hair. they darkened the photoperio. the only place they want to hand out the photo was the george wallace area.

that is where they handed out these fliers. his name was bobby jindal. he came back and won. he had a five point lead before they went had the race on him. the day was the democratic party. -- they was the democratic party. jindal is a republican. there are folks in both political parties who use race when they feel like it as a political instrument. there are democrats who are as happy as republicans. there are some republicans who have a history of doing it too. it is not a partisan thing. >> i am a freshman here at the

college. i would like to ask this question on behalf of the jfk forum. i am aiming this at mr. christie. could you describe what role your race played during a time in the white house? do you feel you were treated differently, is the positive or negative, as a result? >> it is great to see you again. jacob was a but this event in my study group. -- a participant in my study group. it is great to see a friendly face. i will tell you a story. it is in the book. it upset me. it related to the ways we could have been more sensitive. i was ecstatic to be in the east room of the let us when coretta

scott king presented president bush with a portrait of her husband. he was very fired up. he said, i can hardly wait to hang it. i waited a couple of weeks and there was no portrait. i went to the east room, the west wing, i cannot find it. i went to the chief of staff and said, what happened to the portrait? he said, i do not know. someone had put it in a box and ship it to a federal facility. the portrait came back. the chief of staff said i want it back. i said we should hang it in the east room. perfect. hung up on the wall. two weeks later, yangon. it disappeared. i said, how is it that we have

white house staff where we have been given a portrait of doctor martin luther king that someone continues to take this thing and put it somewhere -- is that with this is going? -- where this is going? it goes back to my earlier commentary, no one else seemed to care that this portrait was not there. if we cannot even hang a picture of doctor martin luther king in the white house, what else are we doing wrong? that started my crusade in the white house to speak out and to be a focal figure -- vocal figure. >> the bust is still in the white house. it is still there. he is in the oval office. >> a good spot to be perry >> he

is on the move. >> i am a freshman at harvard. we have talked a lot about the problems rub in politics and the issue of race, what can be done on capitol hill and on a personal level to try to rectify the problems as much as we can? i you optimistic that change will come? >> i have been at the white house for 15 years. bill clinton, the eight years and to which the the bush, to this president. -- the eight years of george w. bush, to this president. no matter what your agenda item is, your idea is grade -- >> can you explain to a. philip randolph is?

>> a pullman porter. >> i need that explained. [laughter] >> i am time to give a synopsis of a synopsis. -- i am trying to give a synopsis of a synopsis. he was told, i think your idea is great. you have to make me do it. that is what we have to do now, to make congressional leaders take notice. to make presidents take notice. i have not seen, i am saying we as a people, we do not have the it-ness. witnes-to- change is still ongoing . people do not want to stand at the white house. i am telling you, the

aggravation, the tension, for people to look at, that is what will bring change. in my opinion. >> i have to say, and industry. i worked in the technology industry. i have doubled and technology since 1995 have 1995dabbled -- have dabbled in technology since 1995. when i worked at a biotech company, there were no black voters -- at a tech company, there were no black coders. you do see stratification. white, black, asian, native american, very different outcomes, sometimes it has to do

with race and ethnicity. some of it has to do with, what i call, the social aspect of hiring. people conform to stereotypes about who is hirable. based on that -- if you want to put together a startup team, there are reasons why you want a homogenous team. you want people who you can spend 23 hours a day with. when to start growing that, you should not have the homogenous company. we need to start looking at things from the industry's perspective which cycles back to the issue of jobs. >> can i say something quick. it is relevant to everyone who is here. this is the world we live in. washington, d.c., new york city

are the two hubs of the legal world. an average major law firm has 1000 people. do you know how many black partners are at those firms? you would be lucky if you had 10 to 15. that is fractional. we have not had an african american considered to be on the u.s. supreme court since clarence thomas. as not one of those three individuals, not one of them has interviewed anybody black for the u.s. supreme court since 1991. that is the reality. does that mean there are no qualified jurists who are african american? look at the appeals court. this is a problem that works its

way through our system. how many times when african american candidates want to run do we hear the question, is he electable? when barack obama was running for the senate in illinois, all the major democratic players in d.c. said he is a smart, a young man. he is very capable. we just wish she was electable. i did not hear anyone asked if a white guy is electable. >> i'm a student at the business school. my question concerns a longer- term view. can you discuss the impact that growth in asian and latino populations will have? >> that would be huge. [laughter] >> could you repeat the question? >> he said what about the demographic impact on asian and

latino populations on electoral coloring. my answer is it would be huge. we are talking in generalities. the asian community is growing too letter in larger political power. latinos have numbers. they are prepared to flex the numbers. >> [inaudible] >> we vote more than you think. 76 percent of blacks voted in alabama. there is this myth that blacks do not vote. blacks are voting. >> african americans have slightly lower floating rates than white americans, but above latino americans -- lower voting rates than white americans, but above latino americans.

florida is different from massachusetts. >> i talked to michael steele before i walked in. he said, the black population is not even a consideration anymore. in the republican party, they are going gung-ho for the hispanic population. when nixon became president, 40% of african-americans voted for him. when george bush became president, it was 9%. the former black congressman said to me -- republican congressman. [laughter] he never went to a meeting. >> i did not go to a whole lot. [laughter] >> yeah right. [laughter] he said to me, when president bush got in he said, i can see

black america voting for a gop candidate, i can see that coming. now, the numbers are not measured at all. you cannot measure them. they said, forget the black population. they of the win for the hispanic population. the obama administration -- they are go in for the hispanic population. the obama administration is also going for the hispanic population issa . >> mark rubio coming out to say he felt the republican party was losing the young latino voices. it was an opportunity for the republican party. because he is an attractive candidate, a vice presidential contender, to address immigration issues head on.

let's let me point out a fact that will play something about -- >> let me point out a fact that will tell you why the latino demographic is so hard to point down. cuban-americans, 91% ofn a a certain age said they were white. in the 2010 census, 41% of the children's generation said they were white. race is something that is a perception and ties to the motherland or fatherland depending on whether you are an immigrant or second or third generation. to a great extent, we may not know how the latino cravaack dedemographic evolves.

do you think the republican party has given up on black people? >> no, but we have done a terrible job. we lost a golden opportunity. in april, it was 10% in butch's first election. you think, that is it? what are we not doing that a significant portion of the electorate are saying, i have written off the republican party. i think you have to start small. when i was the policy director for george allen, i said, you have to make an effort to go to committees of color and go in there and keep your mouth shut. -- to communities of color and go in there and keep your mouth shut. politicians love to talk. the opposite of talking is listening. in politics, the opposite of talking is waiting to talk.

[laughter] the people of the republican party, a thinking what they are going to say. stop and listen. go to committees of color and listen. say, what is on your mind? what can i do better? we show up, hey, come vote for me. we go to the church. see you later. >> can i make one quick point. i want to be respectful. in the interest of fairness, there would not be a tim scott -- he is the only black member of congress who represents a predominantly white district. there are only two african american members of congress who

represent predominantly white districts. i used to be the recruitment share for the democratic party. this is african american -- if an african american candidates in the democratic party surfaced it was always in a black district. the staff took a look at it and said, he is a good chap, but he is not electable. 20 and 25-year-olds are going to figure that out. and eventually they are going to figure out that there are more of them advancing in the republican party today in predominantly white environments then black democrats are advancing in predominantly white environment. -- environments.

>> i do agree with the. we have to try to get all the voices in. i am going to ask each of you to speak back-to-back. we will answer both of your questions. please introduce yourself and ask a question. >> thank you. thank you for all coming out. i'm a first-time legislative from minnesota. -- a legislator from minnesota. i wanted some clarity on a comment i heard. it was a republican supreme justice that determined that there was no fraud in the election. 133 have been found to have committed fraud. but of those, -- out of those,

they thought they could vote. fraud is not happening at all. if it is not fraud, the voter i.d. deals it is a national agenda, if it is not fraud, why do you think we are attaching an id to your right to vote? >> i am going to take both questions. >> as a citizen of this of the congressional district, i felt some obligation to ask a question. [laughter] i do appreciate, you alluded to my question, talking about democrats and republicans and having african americans representing the district's with

the majority are not african american. i observed the same thing. not being the chairman of the committee. as someone who observes politics. how does the democratic party thickset moving forward? we have made efforts towards that -- party fix that moving forward? we have made efforts towards that. >> the democratic party needs to live up to its progressive ideals on racial inclusiveness. i am amazed how many democratic politicians talk a wonderful game. i am amazed how many white democratic politicians can get a little bit of rhythm. i can even do it. when you asked and the question, are you willing to get behind an african-american candidate for something behind a black

district, it will be 50 reasons why they will not. -- they will give you 50 reasons why they will not. it is not just crosslartur davi virtually all of these states in the last several years, if you are thinking harold ford is an example, let me tell you, they tried very hard to get the governor of tennessee. folks who ran the democratic party did not want him. i would love to see some good old white democrats stepped up and say, here is an african american politician we think we can get behind. >> we do not have time. what i want to do is get a response to our first question there. and then i want to do a speed

run. a speed arouround. does anyone want to get to the fraud question? >> the question of the matter is there was allegations that there was fraud. it did go to the court system. it was stolen by people who are not legally eligible to vote. the way it was adjudicated is the right way, going through the court system. for those who say it did not happen, that is one case. >> speed round, who do you think is going to win the presidency? >> i do not have a clue. barack obama should worry about, if the health-care log it struck down and the whole conversation

is about what the next lot is going to look like, that is not good. >> that is artur davis, a fellow at the iop, and a former congressman from alabama's seventh district. >> there are eight months. it is a long time in politics. anything can happen. president obama could be up. next week, he could be down. you never know. ithe economy, the economy, the economy. on health care, if one provision is struck down, he is all right. if the individual mandate is struck down and everything else safe is in tact, he is all right. >> could we get a prediction?

i asked for a fortune cookie. >> you do not know what i am going to say. wi-fi thing peggy noonan -- i think pay the sum it up when she said, barack obama can lose but only if the republicans to feed themselves. he should be easily beatable, but the republicans have a remarkable propensity to blow it. do i think romney is going to win? i do, but do i did we have an extremely odd way of losing it and sells the struck staying -- self-destructive? yes, but i put my money on

governor mitt romney. >> thank you so much. >> you will not be getting a prediction from me. here is what i would say. >> you are afraid if you make wrong prediction, he will not make it to the white house. the white house and -- >> this is such an interesting race if the presumed candidate is mitt romney. what i said before about a stark contrast of policy is really going to be on the table, so that is the starch. for both parties, there are reasons for people to stay home.

maybe the black people who are they are just done with him. good on the republican side, i did not want mitt --those are their reasons to stay home. on the republican side, i do not want mitt, but hey barack obama, so he has got to go. listen to the stuff going on. i have got to get up and defend, so there are reasons on both sides, so this would be a very interesting race i think. one of the most interesting we have seen in a while, and eight months is a long time. >> final words with kelly cross,

who is the host of her own show, and i want to thank calais, -- kelly, ron, april for a thrilling panel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> residents of wisconsin, md., and the district of columbia are

going to the polls today. when it for the newt gingrich is on the sidelines. he has no public events. c-span's wrote to the white house coverage will continue with primary results. we will have live results and speeches with candidates at their primary headquarters. you can join in the conversation by phone, on facebook.com/cspan, or on twitter. also, on c-span2, a look at the lives of the note -- noble conservatives. and then tim stanley on his book, "the crusader." and then the book "ronald reagan -- our 40th president" is

discussed. earlier today, u.s. ambassador to the united nations susan rice told reporters that the u.s. is concerned and skeptical of the syrian government over the cease-fire deadline. she added that what she has seen is not encouraging. held in new york, this is about 35 minutes. >> a good afternoon, everyone. we have a lot to cover. i'll turn it over to ambassador rise. and then we will take your questions. >> a good afternoon, everyone. thank you for coming. what i would like to do is go to the program of work and tell you what we plan for the month and make a few comments which we will discuss this morning in the

council which i otherwise would have breached you on, but was briefing the non-members of the council just now. i thought we could kill two birds with one stone, and then, of course, take your questions. the secretary general is at lunch with senior women. let me go to the program of work as shortly as i can. i hope you have the latest version in front of you. i will just highlight various agenda items without necessarily going through it in chronological order. let me begin with the subject of the 19th of april, which is a session on nuclear non- proliferation, disarmament, and security. from the u.s. point of view, the greatest danger that we and all states around the world face is

a nuclear weapon, or nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists. as you know, president obama put nuclear security and non- proliferation as the very center of our policy agenda. he took steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. a crucial part of this effort was -- during the event in september of 2009, shared by president obama. when we're first in the presidency of the security council. resolution 1887 recognize the need for all states to take effective measures to prevent nuclear materials or prevent them from becoming available to terrorists. with the conclusion of the summit last month, it is a

program, we think, to take stock of international efforts on this issue. the goal of the upcoming session is to highlight nuclear proliferation and terrorism. and to underscore the international community is broadly shared interests and responsibilities to respond to these threats. it is also an important opportunity to reinforce the council's support of the worked , implementing resolution 1540. i also want to point to the event on the day of april 25, the following week. the illicit flow of materials, goods, and people. the title of the advance is threats to peace, international security and peace.

how such transfers with it are talking about wmd, small arms, drugs, terrorists, even human trafficking can be a threat to international peace and security. we often look--- we often look at each individual threat. we have agencies that are designed to assist states that need assistance and what assistance to build the capacity to deal with these threats. we have beat 1540 committee.

all essentially trying to assist to build their capacity to deal with the same essential problems, it is securing borders and building capacity to control what is coming in and out of their sovereign territory. we wanted to look at this issue from a more holistic point of view and to see these efforts, these mechanisms and challenges as a part of a larger whole. while there are substantial effort underway to help states develop effective customs and immigration systems or to foster intelligent cooperation, the security council has not undertaken a comprehensive effort to consider how the u.n. structures most effectively supporting states for trafficking. this session will provide an opportunity to hear from the

secretary general who will also a brief on non-proliferation and nuclear security. we will hear about the structures to help states accomplish better control of their borders. we will consider asking the secretary to provide us with a better understanding of what the current structures are and how they might be strengthened to better support member states. let me turn to other items on the agenda. we will have a couple of sessions on the situation in sudan and south sudan which remain high on the council's agenda. on the 11th, the council will get a briefing which may shift potentially by the head of the force commander. on the 25th, we will hear from the secretary general on carfur.

-- darfur.mai with respect to syria, that remains an important perennial on our agenda. we had a briefing yesterday by our joint special envoy kofi annan. we heard that the regime has apparently committed to begin and complete by april 10 the cessation of all forward deployment, this use of heavy weapons and to withdraw its forces from populated areas. the security council is now working on a draft presidential statement which we introduced this morning. it will be negotiated today and probably tomorrow which is essentially aimed at trying to give support to join special initiative and to

underscore the importance of the syrian government is adhering to its commitment to halt all offensive actions by april 10. i am sure we can return to that during questions and answers. from the u.s. point of view and that think the view of many states, what we have seen since april 1 is not encouraging. should the government of syria use this window rather than to intensify violence, it will be most unfortunate and certainly our view that the security council will need to respond to that failure in a very urgent and serious way. we will be talking with joint special envoy annan about the potential to have him return to brief the council soon after

april 10 so we can have an update and proceed accordingly. quickly, let me mention that on the 24th, we have a session on peace and security where the council will be briefed an. we are eager for the opportunity to do this. president obama has launched a national action plan on women peace and security and has built a foundation for powerful change in the way that the world prevents war and it makes peace, bringing the role of women to the front and center of that. let me turn to one other point. that relate to young people. the united states think it is important for the council to bring the voices of half the world's population, those under 25, more directly into the work

of the security council. it is the lives of young people that are being shaped by what we do and do not do every day. in so many ways, they have the greatest stake in the work that we do. 15 months ago when the u.s. last held the presidency of the security council, which organized an unprecedented opportunity for young people to participate in a discussion with members of the council on what they viewed -- young people from around the world -- what they viewed as the most pressing issues facing the world and the council today. we want to return to the theme of youth and do it in a different way. i hope over the course of the month, he will be seeing a few younger faces -- you will be seeing a two younger faces. we will be part during with high schools, universities, and ngo's

to come to open sessions of the security council. we will be organizing a special program for young journalists which i hope will be of interest to you. we will be inviting them to report on what we believe is an issue of critical importance to young people and their generation which is of course the issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. we are going to draw young people from area schools and also several member states that will be able to participate. we hope that you will take some time to join us in gauging with these young journalists and encouraging them while they are here. if they happen to break a story ahead of you, do not let professional jealousy get in the way of bringing up the next generation. finally as we close, i will take at the end of our press

conference one question that has been selected among many that were submitted via twitter. the question comes from a handle entitled @freepeople. why are you not acting swiftly towards the killing in syria like you did in libya? i will come back to that at the end. let me say a quick dewpoints on mali -- quick few points on mali. we heard a briefing on the situation in mali. he told the council that the situation has taken a turn for the worse over the course of the past several days. groups have capitalized on the confusion caused by the military seizure of power in key towns, including in timbuktu.

these towns have fallen to the rebels. government forces are effectively abandoning their positions in the north without much of a fight. the council is working on this topic as well which we hope will be issued as soon as possible. we heard from the undersecretary general that the leader has imposed measures as of yesterday including border closures, blocking access to account, and a travel ban. he has placed a force of some 3000 troops on standby, both to respond if necessary to the coup as well as respond to the rebellion that is of grave concern in the north. he also noted the humanitarian situation is deteriorating and

refugees have increased to 130,000. council members were united in their demand that the leaders immediately step down and restore constitutional order. let me stop there and take your questions >> thank you for coming. you say that the announcement -- that the opposition could interfere with the timetable of kofi annan. >> i want to be sure that i understood the question. >> -- interfere with the mission and time table of kofi annan. >> i assume you are asking me that in my national capacity. in my national capacity, the answer is no.

we do not think it interferes in any way. the friends of democratic syria underscored their support for the work of the joint special envoy and his six-point plan. the syrian government has a decision to make. it has made a commitment to accept the annan plan. in the meantime, it is thus far not doing so. arguably, quite the opposite. that has nothing to do with what was done and said in istanbul. that is a pattern that this regime has pursued over the course of more than a year where it has used excessive and outrageous force against its own people. the friends of democratic syria recognize that against the overwhelming force is being inflicted upon the people of

syria, that the opposition which is far less capable of defending itself needs political support. some members have also agreed to enhance material support including the provision of financial support to elements of the opposition. we, the united states, are providing not only a doubling of our humanitarian assistance but also communication equipment and related non-lethal support to strengthen the cohesion of the opposition. get to say that every 15 months. syria byd follow oup on

asking you mentioned initially that if there is an escalation, that the council would need to respond in a very serious way. could you give us some indication of what you would in vision? any kind of sanctions? do you think they would have -- even a threat of sanctions would have a more reasonable chance of being adopted? >> first of all, it is the hope also i would not say the expectation of members of the council that when we review the situation after april 10, the

violence will have seized on the part of the government and we will be in a round of considering how the council can reinforce that halt to the violence. the reality is that has not been the pattern thus far. the united states is concerned and quite skeptical that the government of syria will suddenly adhere to its commitments. in the event that it does not, we will be consulting with colleagues on the security council as to what our appropriate next steps. it is no secret that the council has been divided in the past on actions that it might take to halt the violence in syria. what we hope maybe different now is we are now united and around

the initiative of the joint special envoy annan. the council has endorsed the six-point plan. in that context, should the syrian regime continue its violence, we hope that will create a climate that would be perhaps improved over the past in which all member states see the wisdom of delivering not just a strong message but strong action that might change the calculus of the government in damascus. >> did mr. annan say -- if they carry out these three points, the on voigt will go to the opposition and call on them to carry out the cessation -- >> halt to offensive actions. if you take the three elements

,f the special envoy's proposal that amounts to the government halting its side of the military activity. the joint special envoy was clear that the subsequent step would be to prevail upon the opposition within 48 hours to reciprocate in halting violence on its side. at that point, he was asking that the council be ready should that both of those steps occur too swiftly consider endorsing the dispatch of a monitoring mechanism. >> you just said that the government should stop offensive actions. are the rebels an offensive force to overthrow?

what incentive do they have to stop fighting? >> i am making a very simple point to try to relate what it is we understood mr. annan to be expanding to the counts against today. the first step is for the government to implement elements a through c in the plan which amount to halting the describe further military action against populated areas. then for the opposition and the subsequent steps to halt all violence on its side. i was not attempting to put a moral character -- >> are they purely defensive or offensive? are they just protecting civilians?

why would they stop if they know millions of dollars are coming? >> from the u.s. point of view, we have taken the view that this began obviously as a peaceful expression of popular will among the large swaths of the people of syria against a government it viewed as a repressive. the government's response was to use unrelenting and overwhelming force over the course of more than a year. during that time, what began as a very peaceful, civil protest has evolved into opposition elements taking up arms in self- defense. we have been very clear that while we want the violence tutsis, we understand that in the face of such overwhelming violence directed against the state, it is to be expected,

that eventually people will take the steps necessary to defend themselves. what that evolves into i am not prepared to predict. we have said clearly this is a very worrisome and a volatile situation. we do not want to see this descend further into an all-out civil conflict. that is among the reasons why we are supporting the diplomatic efforts of joint special envoy annan. >> speaking about the urgency of deploying emergency assistance in syria. do you think you can really deploy monitors without a revolution? how fast are you going to act to adopt a resolution? what should the security council could do about ramifications of the refugee issues in

neighboring countries like turkey, lebanon, jordan, and other countries? thank you. >> with respect to the second question on refugees, that falls under the broader work of the humanitarian situation about which the council has expressed concern but we are looking to the humanitarian agencies to try to address the very serious and growing problem of refugees outside of syria. they have the lead from the u.n. point of view. on the monitoring mission, i think there may be some confusion in applied in your question. join special envoy annan has not asked the council to endorse a monitoring mission today, yesterday, or tomorrow.

nobody i am aware of that can be accomplished without a resolution. it would be an observer mission. however small it begins. there will need to be a resolution. i think all council members think you cannot send in unarmed military observers into a hot conflict. we need a cessation of the violence for on unarmed observers to effectively deploy and operate. the joint special envoy was asking that the council be in close communication and coordination with the secretariat who will present proposals to the council and then the council be ready to respond swiftly when that time comes. >> [inaudible]

-- i thought there were already eight members headed to the country this week. isn't there an advanced piece of this mission that is beginning without the security council? also, just more broadly in terms of as a u.s. representative, if you could give us a sense of what the americans are thinking about beyond the commitments that were made in istanbul and the communication, what the u.s. is considering doing to support the opposition. >> the first one was -- >> i thought that the plan was -- >> first of all, i think it is six. it is not an advance team. it is the second reiteration of

a planning team. you may recall a couple of weeks ago there were folks from the joint special envoy personal team that went to damascus to have technical talks with the government about the modalities of potential monitoring mechanism. my understanding is another iteration of that team perhaps with a somewhat different composition will go back to continue those discussions with the government and the opposition so that information and planning can inform dpjo's proposal to the council if and when that is appropriate. >> dave are staying there permanently. >> no. that is not my expectation or understanding. with respect to the united

states and our approach, we have been very clear. the outrageous islands thta assad is committing against his people make him unfit to continue to govern. as you have heard many of us say, his time is limited. we think the best approach now rather than to fuel additional violence is to increase the pressure of all forms on assad to meet the commitments he has made. the pressure of the united states and from many others in the region have imposed is economic and we have stepped up the sanctions both on the national basis over the last several days in coordination with other states which we think is vitally important. we have put in place the

beginnings of what would be an accountability clearing house in which we provide assistance and support to train syrians to gather evidence used down the road to provide a legal basis for accountability. we are also increasing our support to the people of syria through humanitarian assistance. we are working actively diplomatically and politically to help the opposition develop a more coherent approach both internally and externally. we have contributed and are contributing certain forms of non-legal assistance including enhanced communication support which is all part of a larger effort to enable the opposition to be in a position at the appropriate time to negotiate and charter its own future. >> [inaudible]

>> i am not really going to get into a hypothetical. there are many different ways that the situation could unfold. as has been the case from the start, there will be different views among members of the security council as to how to approach any number of different contingencies. from the u.s. point of view, we have been clear that we think it is vitally important that that deadline which in our view is already too long must be credible and adhered to. if not, we will be consulting with our colleagues on the council as to what the appropriate next steps are. but we are united around the view that the work of joint special envoy annan is important and we support it. as difficult as the diplomatic

terrain is, and he would be the first to acknowledge it, supporting him is a wise and best course. >> the twitter question was also on syria. >> let me be very clear. i am supposed to be at a luncheon with the secretary general. in seven or eight minutes. i am happy to answer the sudan question. i would be happy to answer the twitter question at the end. i am trying to accommodate all of these different requirements in one morning. who is all doing the sudan question? >> [inaudible] how close are we to a full-scale war? what is your assessment, your

evaluation of the remediations? >> i will speak in my national capacity. the united states is deeply concerned about the growing violence, the escalation, and fighting along the sudan, south sudan border. we have urged both sides to halt the violence to return to negotiations in a spirit of seriousness and resolve the many underlying issues related not only to the area but relations between sudan and south sudan that are at the heart of this conflict. you may have noticed that our diplomacy included a conversation yesterday between president obama and the president of south sudan. a special envoy continues his efforts to support the mediation

process that is ongoing on a national basis and as well as a council. we have lent our strong support to the high-level implementation panel. >> you had said that the president is unfit to govern because he has killed these people. if the u.s. and the security council is calling on the opposition to not see a regime change, to become a part of the door for process, what is the difference -- darfur process, what is the difference? what is the difference in terms of telling the opposition not to change in government? >> the democratic dispensation

for the people of syria -- that is quite similar to our view as to what is the optimal outcome in the context of sudan where there has been war and fighting for generations. it has not led to greater freedom or greater security for many of the people of sudan. the challenge of the area is inherently a political one as both sides recognized in the context of the cpa. they are facing an intensified rebellion. the prescriptions are annapolis. yes, we have been at the forefront of demanding justice and accountability of the war crimes committed by the president and many around him. that remains an essential part of u.s. policy. >> we do need to take our last question.

guys, we could stay here all day. >> i could stay here all day. excuse me? >> [applause] -- [inaudible] can i ask one? >> with all due respect, let me do as i said. >> [inaudible] >> i am sorry? [laughter] >> could you read it again? >> why are you not acting swiftly towards the killing in syria like you did in libya? >> i take that directed at the security council. i think it is well known and i will say for the benefit of the folks there that the security council has been woefully divided on the issue of syria and unable to adopt a

resolution that would entail relatively modest action. in the case of libya, we have resolution 1970 which imposed strong sanctions and made a referral to gaddafi to the international criminal court. then we had resolution 1983 making a request to the security council for intervention and the council coming together to authorize protection of civilians in the no-fly zone. the circumstances in syria are quite different. the circumstances in various countries within the arab world have evolved in a different way. there is no such request from the arab league or unity in the security council. the circumstances on the ground are quite a bit different and more complex with an opposition struggling to unify and does not

control a clear and geographically identified swath of territory as was the case in the east in libya and therefore very regrettably and much to the frustration of the united states and many others in the international community the security council and the international community has not been able to respond as swiftly as we have sought or implementing meaningful sanctions. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up tonight, coverage will continue with the results from wisconsin, md., and washington, d.c., primaries. you can be a part of the conversation by phone, facebook,

or on twitter. it gets underway tonight on c- span at 7:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at the lives and careers of notable conservatives. then timothy stanley on his book, "the crusaders." that will be followed by an book about ronald reagan. that start at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. shortly, we will go live to the american society of news editors. a discussion will be held on the digital age and investigative journalism. live coverage starts at 3:45 eastern and about 10 minutes. right now, your phone calls from today's "washington

journal." host: the headlines this morning saying that syria has committed to end april 10 deadline for pulling troops. from the un security peace deal, what is next from the u.s.? we want to get your thoughts on that this morning. the news coming out of the meeting on monday. here is "the new york times" this morning --

both russia and china have wielded their power to reject anything that they suspect might result in outside interference. what is your take on this peace deal? what is next for the u.s.? also, you can send us an e-mail or a tweet. also, post your comments on

facebook.com/cspan. we will be getting your thoughts here in a minute but i want to read more from "the new york times." it said that susan rice, the american envoy to the united nations, it is quoted as saying -- she pointed out saying that the withdrawal was one point of mr. annan's six-point peace plan.

host: monaco is from miami, fla. but do you make of this? caller: i think the current administration did a good job in negotiation and peace-keeping talks. i think now the thing is to make sure this is being carried out properly. if not, i believe the u.s. will have to go in and handle this. host: what you mean? what is next at the un peace deal does not work out? caller: i think we should send troops over there if it does not work out. they're not going to stop it. them from doing what they are

doing as far as sending troops. host: what gives you confidence that boots on the ground would work? caller: i do not think we have to go with an all-out war. i think we could send in some special ops to go in and take care of business. i do not think this will be the end of it. i really do not. i thank you the administration for during with the are doing. host: do you think may be a model that we used in libya? caller: possibly. i believe that would be a possible route. host: all right. let's hear from bob next. a democrat in new york. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. this is all but the devil that

you know versus the devil that you do not know. as we have learned and many republicans have come to agree, our venture and iraq was just one of the most misguided possibly in american history. the united states needs to get out of the war business permanently. unless, you know, we are attacked by a country that we can fight back against. which, again, was not the case from 9/11. this warmongering, eisenhower had said it. he warned us about the complex of the military industrial complex.

it is a business. it is a huge business. it has incredible political interest vested. lobbyists. host: ok. what should be done about the situation in syria? caller: we need to keep our noses out of it. the saudis and other countries in the area are investing money, giving money to the rebels. my grandmother had the best foreign policy when you ask about the turmoil and the middle east. she said, from apartment in brooklyn, let them kill each other. i think she was right. host: this is from "the new york times."

let's hear what susan rice, the u.s. ambassador had to say yesterday on this deadline. [video clip] >> of past experience would lead us to be skeptical and to worry that over the next several days in addition to the violence, we might, yet again, see an escalation to the violence. we hope that is not so and the syrian authorities will implement the commitments they have made without any conditions. should they do so, we will expect the opposition to follow suit within 48 hours as

specified. host: "the wallstreet journal" this morning. it goes on to say -- they add, that we need to send guns out to the rebels rather than have them get them from the black market.

other activists said the money pledged is not enough to make an impact, adding that the u.s. needs to send arms to the rebels rather than rely on the weapons available in small quantities on the black market. a republican from marilyn. water your thoughts this morning? caller: i was calling in reference to the caller, i believe he was a democrat, who said his grandmother gave great foreign policy. that we need to mind our own business. i absolutely agree which is why i support ron paul. in my opinion, he would keep the promises the president made back in 2008 when he said he would end the war. i do not see that happening in the last three or four years since he has been president. kudos to his grandmother. host: to your point, let me throw this at you.

here are some numbers from "the washington times" this morning. the number breaks down to about 7300 civilians. on sunday, more than 70 countries pledged to send millions of dollars in communication equipment. i am just wondering on the number of people being killed, people who say we need to go in there and put boots on the ground, people like senator john mccain. the ranking republican on the arms committee. how many people need to die before we go in there? what about that argument? caller: i am sorry.

i do not agree. and nothing we have done has changed anything over there. we entered into egypt and look what happened. the muslim brotherhood took over. women are still being abused and mutilated. we need to mind our own business. the more we interfere, the more we stir things up over there. that is just my opinion. i feel for the people, but our bonds are killing innocent bystanders as well. host: all right. that is what we are doing this morning. getting your take. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. we want to get your thoughts on this. the ap wire this morning with this news out of syria.

if you go to "the guardian's" website they have an update on the situation there. one reporter noted that the unemployment rate is 16% among graduates. that is an update coming out of the u.k.'s "the guardian" website this morning. good morning, thank you for watching. go ahead. caller: good morning.

thank you for c-span. good morning, america. a couple points. syria has a very formidable defense system. i do not believe we should put boots on the ground. to paraphrase macarthur, wars fail, wars start. wars prevail, peace is possible. that is a beautiful necklace you have on this morning. host: do you agree with the money, just not troops on the ground? caller: most definitely. people who are aware of this

note about iran. if we balance the scales, there is a better chance. we are over extended. we cannot afford another war. we helped get rid of saddam, gaddafi, osama. this man is like hitler, in my opinion. i do not want to take much of other people's time. host: we will keep taking phone calls on this subject this morning. first, i want to share with the syrian ambassador had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> a plan would not be successful unless everyone is committed to it. so far, the syrian government said that it is committed. we are expecting to get in touch with the other parties for

those who are involved in initiating, sponsoring, and arming the armed groups in order to make the stopping of the violence relevant to all parties. host: a "the baltimore sun" reporting. on that, a related story in "usa today."

like we said, that dollar figure salaries. that does not stop short of assisting the rebels which is what they have been pleading for according to "usa today." for many years, lebanon was under virtual occupation by syria after the president's father position thousands of troops in the country. the troops were withdrawn -- >> c. "washington journal" every morning. now live to the american society of news editors conference. talking about the digital age in investigative journalism. >> jackie first arrived at the

miami herald as a 14-year-old high school in turn. she returned after graduation, working her way up to become our caribbean correspondent which in the past several years meant primarily covering haiti. since the 2010 earthquake, she has worked almost continuously in the country where her understanding of the culture and people is in comparable. she was born in the turks and of haitian descent. it is that connection that enables her to take her readers places that only she can. in 2010, she was named the international reporter of the year. she played a key role in the miami herald and the sister publication, being named a finalist in the 2011 pulitzer prize category of breaking news

for the combined coverage of the earthquake in haiti. in december, the paper won a regional and me -- regional emmy. jackie was the associate producer. the miami herald won 20 pulitzer prizes over its history but it never won any emmy until she came along. you will find other stories of how and why diversity derives innovation in the news media which can be downloaded from the website. i am pleased to tell you that the internship program that changed her life is still in place and its programs like that that helped drive diversity. minorities represent 20% of the newsroom employees today at mcclatchy. far higher than the industry

average. in july, i will be joining the associated press and am happy to tell you that ap reinstated its internship program after a year hiatus. ap decided that the program was too important to diversity goals to eliminate. thank you very much. [applause] >> i am the executive editor of "the seattle times." every profession has its systemic event, a piece of work that defines the art and inspires generations. in science, origin of the species. in rock-and-roll, it was sergeant pepper. in american journalism, it was watergate. as a professor of columbia put it -- the coverage altered the

map of political journalism and led to the renewal and reinvigoration of muckraking. there had been investigate reporting in the early part of the 20th century but it had gone dormant for some seven decades. that all changed beginning in june 1972 as two young reporters, one a clean-cut christian college educated midwest and just two years out of the navy -- [laughter] the other a long hair chain- smoking college dropout from silver spring, md., began with a fairly routine story and turned it into what stands today as the high water mark of american journalism. i am confident in saying that this single piece of reporting is responsible for many of us in this room tousing the profession that we love so much. we are here to both honor the fourth anniversary of the work of those reporters and to use it

to explore how journalism has changed. what would happen if tomorrow morning a young reporter saw a police report on a break in at the national democratic party headquarters? what might transpire after the initial tweet? could a system relationship with highly placed anonymous sources protected? or is the matrix of digital in permission to revealing? we have a distinguished panel to ponder those questions. moderating the discussion will be lisa shepherd, a consultant who writes on media issues and a former ombudsman to national public radio. she is uniquely qualified to lead the discussion having offered a critically acclaimed book. in the middle here, we have amanda bennett, the executive

director for bloomberg news. she was formerly a top editor with the herald leader in lexington. she is a pulitzer prize winner and a former chair of the pulitzer board. she is the author of six books. on the far left is jeff, the editor in charge of investigations at "the washington post." he joined the post as an investigative reporter in 1997 after 15 years at the miami herald. he has worked on investigations that have been honored with seven pulitzer prizes. second from the right is john marshall, the editor and publisher "talking points pointsmemo. in 2008, he won a george polk award for the reporting on the politically motivated dismissal of u.s. attorneys by the bush administration. finally, our two special guests

and perhaps the most influential journalists of our time. bob woodward and carl bernstein. [applause] each has had a career of distinguished work that has solidified their place in our pantheon. i also want to recognize one another special guest here in the front row. we have their editor, ben bradlee, currently vice president of "the washington post." [applause] now the fun. >> thank you. it is a real privilege sitting here. i wrote my book because i wanted to answer one question. how do you live the rest of your

life that by age 30 you have achieved -- you have achieved the professional respect that most of us hope to have by the time you die? writing a book about t w living people is a very odd experience. i kind of feel like a stocker. you know so much about them. you are reading everything, combing through their archives and divorce papers, and all the while they are right there not at all dead but still not talking to you. [laughter] but we are friends now. watergate was a 100-year storm, a story driven by two washington post reporters who stumbled into the biggest story of the 20th century that happened to involve the president of the united states and led to his resignation. unthinkable at the time was that the president of the united

states could be a crook. today, that is our default. at the time of the break-income itunes 17, 1972, there was a completely different -- at the time of the break-in, june 17, 1972, the washington post was not the biggest newspaper in town. stories from pc did not necessarily filter out to the rest of the country. i want you all to look at a two- minute clip to take you back to that moment. we will spend some time paying tribute to this landmark piece of journalism and then talk about it today. >> these men are about to commit a crime which will trigger a series of events that will change the course of american history. now known as watergate, this might never have become known

had it not been for the american press. leading the effort to get at the truth about watergate work to reporters in the "washington post" -- bob woodward and carl bernstein. intrigued by the dramatic possibilities of to and no newspaper reporters taking on the president of the united states, robert redford decided to approach would word and bernstein about a movie based on their experiences. >> i was a tremendously impressed with redford's approach to this even before he sold it. he wanted to make a serious movie about the newspaper business. >> he seemed excited about it in the sense that our rear ends were out on the line for so long. >> they were alone and lived a somewhat and structured life in a very unstructured town that

seems to be very much to track -- press and politics. they were not on anyone's list. that impressed me. they were real outsiders and at the bottom of the run, speak. >> woodward was covering rat droppings -- rat droppings at a restaurant. bernstein was having trouble staying awake. >> finally, they went ahead with a movie version of their book, "all the president's men." it would star redford and dustin hoffman as carl bernstein. >> what comes to mind after watching that? >> my hair is a different color. [laughter] what it comes to mind is with the book and the movie is about is the process of reporting.

getting it the best obtainable version of the truth. what you see in the movie and what we tried to depict in the book is a methodology that gets you there. we were young. we worked at night. that is a great advantage. woodward has often said the light comes out and darkness. the methodology worked and 40 years later, what was dismissed as a third rate burglary, we know now was a massive, unprecedented, unconstitutional campaign of political espionage and sabotage that defined the president of the united states and his presidency and we can go on from there. >> bob, what do you think or

feel when you watch that? >> somebody used the word stumbled into the story. that's about 90% right. we worked in an environment in which the editors were always saying where's the next watergate story? what are you going to do? they were encouraging and supportive and the white house was denouncing us regularly. but in a sense, carl and i were in a bubble and protected. work when you are protected and encouraged to get to the bottom of the story. don gramm and his mother was the publisher were the backbone of the institution. when she asked when we going to

get to know the whole story of watergate -- this was in early 1973 when the stories we had written were not believed, when we answered that this is a big cover-up and massive criminal conspiracy, people are being paid for their silence, our answer was never. she said the very memorable, never, don't tell me never. >> can you talk about that day? do you remember it well? june 17, 1972. can you tell us about that day for each of you? >> sure. i was one of two chief virginia reporters. i came into the office working on a profile for the weekend of lt. gov. henry howell of virginia who was running for governor. i heard this commotion around

the city desk that there had been a break-in at democratic headquarters at the watergate and it seemed like a more interesting story than the one i was working on at the moment. [laughter] i said can i make some phone calls and i got on the phone and started making phone calls. you could tell right away this was an unusual story and the city editor and metropolitan area -- metropolitan editor were in an unusual state of excitement. >> in contrast to carl's self assignment, i was asleep. the city editor woke me up and said would you command, there is this story. it was probably one of the most beautiful days in washington, june 17, 72. the editors said who would be dumb enough to come in and work on a day like this?

my name came to the lips of many. i was sent to the courthouse and it was mysterious. in fact, we thought is this the local headquarters, the national headquarters? it wasn't clear. here were these five burglars and it's gone wrong. carl, who had worked in journalism since age 4, said it you never see burglars in business suits. there they were in court and the judge asked the had a burglar, james mccord, where did you work? and he employed the forthright on where did you work. -- [inaudible]

being forthright and so forth, answered and the judge said speak up and the judge said cia. he said i worked at the cia. >> i believe your words were " holy shit." >> it that's exactly right. i think we had eight people working on the story the first day. carlin die, and married, were the only ones to come in on sunday and work on the second story. >> what was watergate? >> let's let somebody else. >> i was going to treat you like

to big dogs on a leash in you dragged me around. >> real quickly, i think the understanding of now, because there were so many tapes and so many investigations, when you blow it all together, you realize so many of the important activities in watergate occurred before the watergate burglary. inre's a tape that shows 1971, haldeman, nixon's chief of staff, told nixon that nixon's appointment secretary was running and it set up a sabotage operation to derail the democrats. there are tapes that show nixon in august of 72 approved and allocated the payment of the watergate burglars for their silence. carl has laid this out very well. watergate was not the burglary,

not just a cover-up, but a whole mind-set and a whole series of illegal activities. for instance, there were people well before watergate, a former f.b.i. man climbed the telephone poll behind joe kraft's house and tap his telephone. just think, if something like that were going on, do you think barack obama has a team climbing telephone poles to tap people's telephone poles? let's hope not. joe kraft was a very prominent columnist at that time. watergate is an interlacing series of activities that were illegal. there were 50 people who were hired to do this and people dismissed that. the watergate committee found

that more than 50 people doing all kinds of things specifically to it derailed muskie. >> there are two essential elements and we can see it so clearly what the tapes today. undermineattempt to the most basic of american democratic notions, which is free elections. what watergate was really about was to derail the electoral process of the opposition party, to have the white house determine who the nominee of the democratic party would be, and then we found out -- and i don't mean just the press, but the judicial system, legislative system, that coincidentally, the anti-war movement had been regarded in almost exactly the same way by the nixon white house. these things had come together

and there was this huge retributive effort that really defined the president and presidency. >> what do you see watergate was for journalism? i bet to everyone who is sitting here because of view, it all of us are here because of you, what do you see about watergate and what you did to the press and journalism? >> could everyone here that? >> everybody here in the room is here because of these guys. we all shows are profession. -- we all shows are profession because of them. what do you think was good about and what do you think was bad about it? >> what it was was in depth,

persistent reporting. we often talk about the incremental coverage. we were told to stay on the story. sometimes we had stories on page be 36. one of them, there was the $3,000 receiver the burglars had, which was a very expensive procedure -- a very -- it showed they had a virtually unlimited amounts of money to conduct these operations. the unlimited amount of money demonstrated it was not just someone at the middle level who authorized it or said we can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on these things. though it is not in the book or in our notes, the idea was to follow the money, find something

to follow, find something that will give you a hook into the story. >> in terms of the profession, it's about a newspaper that we were fortunate, lucky enough to work for a newspaper where the bottom line was the truth. that was the bottom line. that's with the management was interested in. that was the value of the publisher of the paper. bradley, woodward and i were sitting around in woodward's living room going over some things. bradley kept saying it's the truth, is the truth, what about the truth? that's what he kept going up. >> he also told us he did not get into journalism because of us. [laughter] [applause] he gotten in -- we got into

journalism because of him. i remember reading the washington post during my last year in the navy and you'd get it in the morning and it vibrated because it clearly was an independent voice. there was clearly a willingness to challenge the conventional wisdom, to challenge the establishment, and that was so attractive to young reporters. >> the other thing is, there came a day when the subpoena for the committee for the collection of president arrived. bob wasn't there, i called bradley and i said they're coming after our notes. he called upstairs to catherine gramm and she said it's not their notes, they are my notes and they will have to come get me if they're going to do anything. >> this is great because you see they decide they're going to send her to jail and her limousine pulls up to the d.c. jail and she gets out saying i

will go to jail for this. >> i think these guys are too modest to say it. watergate for investigative reporting was like the big bang. everything changed after it. everything from the way government officials act the way reporters act the way public perceives investigative reporting. my generation of reporters -- you could call as the sons and daughters of watergate. i got into this business because of what these guys did. i run the investigative unit that was set up for bob woodward to run. he was the first amateur and i'm the fifth editor 30 years later. >> tell them how much they have shrunk your staff. >> i still have seven full-time investigators.

>> which is a testimony -- but it goes back to what karl said about methodology. watergate taught a culture of investigative reporting and provided a control and it also taught us how to do it and how to think about doing it. follows the money is something we do in every investigation to this day. that is how we broke see jack abrams of story and it informs everything we do. developing sources and paper records and putting this together are the foundation of what we do. >> did it deep throats ever say to you "follow the money?" >> know, but if you look at the notes, that's what it added up to.

if you look at the method, the method was carl saying let's talk to the people who worked for nixon's campaign committee. we could not get a list of who was there. carl had a former girlfriend who had a contact to provide us with the list of the people who worked there. we went into the night and carl, and the method of trying to talk to the people who are interesting under the theory of the money because we had done the story tasting -- chasing a $25,000 check found a bookkeeper for the nixon campaign and that unlocks the whole issue of who is in charge, who authorized these very large payments to people like gordon liddy who ran watergate and that was systematically going through and

finding the people who might know. >> and other thing it told us from the beginning when the nixon white house said this is a third rate burglary, when we went to see the people who work for the president and his campaign, we encountered a credible fear bordering on terror. this is about the methodology. that information in itself was essential. >> wooden shoe have been afraid when you saw that hair cut? smoking cigarettes. -- when you have been afraid when you saw that her cut? >> it can either of you tell us about the documentary and why it's necessary? don't we know everything? >> what redford is saying, he's very serious about reporting.

it is worth pausing and looking at what was it. one of the key questions in all this is who was richard nixon? who was our president? the watergate tapes are stunning. no one is ever going to listen to the mall or look at the transcripts. >> if you do in the car. >> i do listen to them in the car. not only is there an abuse of power, but the smallness of nixon just jumps at you when you listen to these. there is richard nixon, he has the responsibility and high purpose and he wants to use the power of the presidency as an instrument of revenge.

screw everyone. get the irs, the cia, the fbi -- >> the firebombing of the brookings institution, just get in there, firebomb the goddamn place to have to. that's the president of the united states. it's really important that the notion that this was some kind of caper or that the cover-up is worse than the crime, which is not the case, that this was an assault on democracy by the president of the united states and his men and the system that worked. the judiciary, the judge, the supreme court which ordered the president to turn his tapes over in a unanimous decision. the chief justice, appointed by richard nixon who expected to get a pass from the chief justice -- a 77-0 vote by the senate of the added states to

undertake the watergate investigation. imagine today, want to ask about a difference? i imagine getting a 77-0 vote to investigate the purported crimes or malfeasance of a sitting president. the republican party being the people who cast the most important votes for impeachment of the president and house judiciary committee, republicans led by barry goldwater who marched down to the white house and said to richard nixon you don't have the votes in the senate, you are going to be convicted and convinced he had to leave. hugely important and maybe this anniversary and movie might be an opportunity to finally put this into perspective after 40 years. pop talks are very often about

the five wars of watergate. >> the senate watergate committee that got into the details of this -- including carl and myself, we kind of ran by it because the issue became what did nixon know and when did he know it and the pursuit of the tapes. but when they did their investigation, we kind of caught the five wars of watergate. the first was against the anti- war movement. surveillance, wiretapping, break-ins, nixon, the fbi, the cia and then the second war was a guest at the press. the press is covering the anti- war movement very aggressively, they tapped reporters telephones. they were going to set up what they called the houston plant which was a series of illegal

activities to read people's mail and break into people's apartments. they had this operation in place and of the democrats are all the sudden the next threat because they might unseat him in 1972. so they took the mindset and the apparatus and the people and it is in the tapes. they tell nixon they are moving all of us to one campaign or another and -- >> the sabotage. >> yes. the fourth war was a war against the system of justice, which was the coverup. the fifth for which we still see elements of today is the work instead history to say it was a keeper, a third rate burglary, when you look at that details, richard nixon and his team actually picked who to run

against in 1975. they did not want to run against muskie. they thought he was the strong candidate. all of the sabotage efforts were against him and they got george mcgovern, which they wanted. >> and nixon was not in danger. >> that's not the case. first, they were worried about ted kennedy. they get a former secret service agent detail kennedy, report back to the white house. they infiltrated every aspect from way back on the democratic campaign. the other thing about this is the tapes, never on those tapes have we found a single instance where the president of the united states for those around him say what would be the right thing for the country? on any matter. >> is there one thing that if it hadn't happened we would not be after talking today?

i would argue alex butterfield played a huge role in revealing the existence of a taping system. >> i think that's right. if you did not have the tapes, there would have been an ambiguity about all of this. it is the clarity of the tapes and the people who listen to them. particularly the republicans on the house judiciary committee. it was the rage nixon would get into about small things. the indifference to the law and as a car also rightly says, the indifference to the responsibility nixon had as president. there is goodwill everyone feels toward a president, even if they disagree or are in the opposition party. for nixon, he could never

leverage that good will. he was always suspicious. at the end, he of light -- he unlocked the key to the way he thinks when he resigned. he said always remember, others may hate you, but if you hate them, what is it? let's try again. always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, then you destroy yourself. the piston was hate and he realized it destroyed him. that's what the tapes show. >> there are a lot of myths about watergate. one is that you singlehandedly took down the president. >> this is about the system working.

it worked. principle this -- it's an oversimplification. the other one is this idea that it was a keeper. >> the idea that what we were riding was just following what the fbi or prosecutors were chasing. the prosecutors put on the first watergate trial and said gordon liddy was the mastermind. the people behind watergate, the chief of staff, john mitchell, the former attorney general, nixon's personal lawyer, nixon's appointment secretary in the oval office was running part of the sabotages campaign, it was a

completely different picture from the sources we had. that is one of the myths that's out there. >> there is a new book out and in 1976, you talk to one of these old videos about describing deep throat as a conscious-stricken man who crossed the line for the best of reasons. this new book says he felt he was cynical, opportunistic rather than noble. what do you think? >> i did a book called "the secret man" when mark phelps came forward and identify himself in that source. there is nothing in that book that -- i have said there was an ambition and a manipulation. he disliked the press. one of the things you discover that people's motives are not just unitary.

sometimes, particularly with someone like mark felt and the complex mind, three or four or five layers. one was his disappointment at not being made fbi director. i knew him and dealt with him. he was troubled by what was going on in the nixon white house. he was also trying to protect the fbi and people forget about this. he was not a volunteer. he did not come to us, we went to him. you used the term a stalker. i stopped him to get him to talk. >> maybe bubble be as forthright about this as i am but it's the idea that somehow felt played us. that he tricked us into something. nonsense. we obtained information all over the lot.

it was rare he would volunteer information. he would occasionally confirm that that the idea he played us is utter nonsense because the stories turned out to be true. the people who got played or the prosecutors. they've really got played. partly because the assistant attorney general and attorney general of the united states were in on the play. they wrote it. >> the panel is called how would this story unfold in the digital age. we could spend the whole panel talking about watergate, but i want to bring other people in as well. josh, where does watergate into your life and how to use the investigative reporting today? >> like everyone else has said, it is the totemic investigative story. >> how old were you?

>> i was 3 and 4. 3. but i'm 43 years old. so everything is compared to it, so i think it's the same for me as everyone else has talked. it's funny. maybe this is generational. it has always been difficult for me to grasp how the initial story -- i get the "holy shit" moment for you guys. but even if it's something totally coincidental -- what i think about most is the way

digital reporting breaks the news cycle. from our own experience, even more than breaks the news cycle, that the way the newspaper business ran four years ago with extras in extreme cases, it is a wants a bite of the apple. there's a series of things a falloff from that. one is that no matter which have, it has to be framed in to two or three basic format of newspaper journalism. the way that things are the most different in my mind are the ways that operating on the web freesia from that. -- freeze you from that. as long as we know it's accurate, we can go right to

press with it. we are not bound into that cycle and in my experience, it's great and you don't have to worry about scrutiny, but it also creates a much more interactive relationship with the audience, and i think that can be transformative. >> do you see a downside to that all? >> there are many potential downsides. in as much as the competition we face today, that there is tremendous pressure to run with things before you got them down. i don't think that's inherit. >> let me throw up to ideas here. was there any story you think we would have done better to rush into the paper on this cycle? can you think of a single one that would have made a difference if we would have jammed it?

>> that the thing, i'm describing something different. stories are reported in a basically different way. you have stories with many individual component parts to them. >> real time. toit's not just the ability rush. >> i think there is a positive side to it and i think there's also a downside. you have to step back and say what is the goal? the goal of understanding. if we had gone to bradley and say we have one fact, he would have looked at us and said "get the fuck out of my office." [laughter] >> everybody learned a new word. >> and then we would tweet that.

>> 140 characters. what is interesting about the process is we would to a draft. we would write on 6 ply paper and copies would go out to people. there were no computers. sometimes editors would meet with us and if we got this story, is it ready? get more sources, get more information, i don't understand x and y. it was that process of delay that allowed us -- he never said we're not printing that story. >> i think that process can happen in a different fashion in this platform. there are two or three big parts of the u.s. attorney is story --

am sure they are true but we did not have it. there are many things we waited days or weeks, things that had to do with the dismissal of carol lamb. >> but your first story, how long did take for the reporting to get done? >> before you went live with it. >> two or three days. >> it was not a tweet. weeting. was no tradin you can still have that very collaborative process in a different platform. the point i would make is that there are -- you can have a broad arc of a story, but even a resignation happens -- a

resignation is a self-contained story. you want to let readers in on it. there are incremental bits of information that allows you to have an ongoing conversation with the readers. >> there are two kinds of investigative reporting. this is one of the legacies of watergate. there is what i would call scandal coverage which is fast moving, very public, 1000 reporters are calling over the same information. then there are the longer-term, very quiet, the liberty of investigations that are done. the pulitzer's will be out next week, the kinds of things that win pulitzers. dave barry famously calls them megaturds. the current environment takes you in two directions.

watergate was a running investigation where you are trying to get things, but you're also taking the time to nail them down. >> i think we have to talk about the current environment because the dominant fact of the current environment is the way the information is being received. the readers and viewers are very different today. we had a readership that is much more open to real fact than today. there is a huge audience partly whipped into shape by this 24- hour cycle that's looking for information to confirm their already-held political, religious, prejudices', believes, and ideologies. that is the cauldron into which all of this information is put. we had a bit of that.

they tried to make our conduct in the press the issue and it worked for a while and they called us democrats and said bradley was a well-known liberal and all the rest. it did not work anymore. i have no doubt there are great reporters out there in news organizations that could do this story. -- i'm not sohink sure it would withstand this cultural reception that it might get ground up in the process. >> i don't think that's the problem. the question is what you have the institution? if you go back and look at this from the perspective of 40 years ago, the risk was bradley's and

katharine graham's. they were the ones who were in peril. if it didn't check out, carl could have gone to cover rock music, something he wanted to do. i could have gone to the dark side and gone to law school. but they were the ones who had on the line. >> "the washington post" had gone public credit that point. the nixon administration decided on the strategy of going after the tv licenses of the washington post to get the basic economic health of the company. this was a huge undertaking of courage on the part of the "washington post." >> the stock had just gone public and it was in the toilet. >> could i ask you to do something for me? you were 29 years old when this

happened, he stayed in the news business and have got lots more experience. you are aware of the existing political climate and news climate. you have had a long, distinguished career since that moment. it's a beautiful day out there and markets has sent the entire staff home. the phone call has just come in that says there's a break in and your the only people on earth who can cover it. what do you do today? what is the first thing you are going to do today and what's the next thing? >> hopefully we would be smarter and more organized and quite frankly work harder and more focused on that. hyatmaybe it's not the sort of y like watergate.

not everyone is. some of the really great investigations are explanations of who people are, what they have done, what institutions mean and so forth. no one goes to jail. someone does not have to go to jail. >> one thing about an institution -- in those first days, he was in the court room and i was going to florida to track the burglars to learn about their past, we have a guy at police headquarters at night to learn from a detective that howard hunt had in his pocket a notebook. in that note but, there was eight -- there was a notebook that said it bought the house. >> he said that could only mean one of two things. [laughter]

he called the courthouse and i called the white house. -- he called a whore house and i called applied house. [laughter] >> you guys are the models for us, who were the models for you? -- was mean as amateurs it jack anderson or did you create your own model is you went along? >> i grew up at the "washington star." it had the most remarkable of staff at reporters -- staff of reporters. what we did that watergate was the kind of thing the started repeatedly.

-- that the stark did it repeatedly. >> it people like david halberstam, the work he had done, the vietnam reporters, there was a lot of suspicion about that. but seeing we're asking the question what should we think about 40 years after this, one of the questions we should ask is to be no blood is going on now? how plug in are we at the d.c. city council out in montgomery county? the state legislature, the white house, the food and drug administration and so forth. the people at these institutions, even the reporters at the post to file multiple times a day. you are unnecessarily beholden

to people at the white house you have to talk to to get a response to the running daily story. they don't like what you do. they just don't call you back and have you out hanging. one of the big important papers here, i said when is the last time you wrote something in your paper, the obama -- when was the last time you wrote something in your paper the obama administration didn't like? he could not think of anything. the question is what should we worry about? we should worry about secret government. there's more secrecy, it's better organized, it is concealed better and -- it doesn't mean it's necessarily illegal, but the judge who said it got right -- democracies die

in darkness. i do not have the kind of confidence that you would hope about are we penetrating, are we describing these institutions at all levels. >> the president said an interesting thing today. he basically challenge the people in the audience to go out and find out if what he was saying was true. i think he laid something out -- we know what he said today is going to be the basis of his campaign in terms of his domestic and economic message. i i think it's real question whether we will go out there and determine whether what he said is the truth. there was an awful lot he asserted today that this checkable. if your newspaper is in cleveland, you can go to the

ohio senator who is a republican and say was obama telling the truth? >> said that could be my next book. >> the most important thing we do is determine what is news. >> the environment is very fast moving and fluid and dynamic, but it is not shallow. and there are many levels and it could take your to get the story and we do a heck of a lot of stories pass off the administration, the congress -- stories that piss off the administration and congress. >> but are there enough? are you comfortable there are enough of the stories? >> i'm comfortable with the commitment that a place like the post has. they put their money where their mouth is. the willingness, are they still

willing to put their money where their mouth is? there is every level of engagement -- >> amanda, what about where you are? what's the commitment to investigative journalism? >> one of the things i'm thinking is despite the talk is how little has actually changed. how very similar it seems, the process you are describing, coming in on sunday, the fact you did not know that watergate was watergate. it was not watergate when you started. you just followed a string. so much of that seems exactly the same. the you disagree? >> -- do you disagree?

the internet has changed everything and the internet has changed nothing. bob has a famous saying recess someone needs to go out in the night and knock out the door. you need to find a source, the need to find a document, you need to be honest pursuit of the truth. the methods are internal and ancient. we have computer-assisted reporting, multi platforms, we can get the word out faster and use social media. but the heart and center of the game remains the type of reporting these guys did. >> one of the points looming over this whole conversation, what's different and what's possible and not possible, how much of that process was based

on the fact that most cities -- not a monopoly in terms of a news monopoly, but the newspaper business was basically characterized by geographical monopolies or duopolies? >> it was not at the time. we had huge competition from the "washington star" and "new york times." >> i remember talking with don grandpa's mother, kathryn in 1977 or 1978, a number of years after watergate. she said we had a good business year, we made millions of dollars. i said i thought it was a pretty good news year. she said that doesn't make any difference. i remember going to bend and crying and saying what you mean?

she said it doesn't make any difference in what she meant is they have a monopoly that if there were lots of good stories in the paper, you would not sell more newspapers or advertising but what she said and what she did and what the current leadership at the post does this is we're going to spend the money on having a news organization, reporters and editors that will go the extra mile. >> i think it functions on the editorial and business sides. the fact that you talked about how many reporters are on the investigative side -- it's no secret to anybody here -- the loss of classified ads, this aggregation of news and

advertising, it's very similar on the editorial side. it goes to different kinds of competition. the fact that other mediums play into what is purely a print space. to me, that's the most interesting perspective. the way the practice of journalism has been changed by the destruction of those monopolies. >> do you think it is possible that the institutional change we have seen, the diet before the internet of the sensational, manufactured controversy, the

course and a vulgar -- and hardly a prude, but the change in what we put on the air and into our papers before the web, that there is i think there was already a huge shift under way -- i did a piece called "the triumph of idiot culture" in 1990 and the influence of murdoch. the dye at that most media outlets -- the diet that most media outlets started putting out before the internet -- despite all of this talk about everybody gone to journalism school and imitating this methodology, i'm not sure that's where the effort when on the part of the management. >> i think there was that trend before these things, but if you talk about it yet culture, look a bit newspaper world in 1900. a lot of idiot culture and a lot

less monopolistic. >> if carl and i are too young reporters working for you, what do you want? we knew what bradley wanted, good stories, keep going, take the risks. >> we had the first part of our site that we opened up when we started hiring original reporters was dedicated to investigative journalism. it was called "the nutcracker. -- it was called "the muckrakers." >> we were talking about this before, this group assembled here -- when they were doing the movie version of "all the president's men" de decided to

hire jason robards to play bradley. they decided they looked alike and they offered him the part -- this is in the mid '70s and they said we will pay you $50,000 and that was great. i'm going to get $50,000 and they gave him the script and he went home and read the script and came into the director and the actors and he says i can't play ben bradlee. they said why? he says i read the script and all he does is run around and says "where is the fucking story." and they said that's what the editor of the "washington post" does. all you have to do is find 15 different ways to say "where is the fucking story."

>> i was just thinking about all of the changes and the previous thing before watergate and somehow it becomes intimidating if we think we are supposed to be swinging for watergate every time we do something. i was thinking some place in the room i hope is another very young person who took on another big institution that probably in her world was every bit as the president which was the young reporter who broke the story at penn state. a small paper, no big resources, a young woman and a debt think she was calling on was right in front of your face -- the thing she was calling on was right in front of your face. i don't know that it takes the big staff we are talking about. you were to people, there's a

staff but it only takes one. have to createou the incentive for the reporters to feel you are saying where's the story? saying. what i'm not sure it has changed all that much. >> i hope you are right. this is the importance of the family-owned newspaper. even once it goes public, having that role where it goes beyond pure business aspects of the newspaper. there's's no question less investigative reporting across the country. there were 40 entries from 29 legacy papers. 10 years ago, there were 110. >> some of that is just real reporting on the communities. >> i'm going to guess that some

of you might have a question. i think we have time for water to questions. just ask the questions. >> a two-part question -- did you guys ever fight over the big issues during this story? and are you guys good friends now? >> yes. >> yes. >> give us an example of something you fought over. >> during the reporting of watergate, i think almost never is the answer. we very quickly came to have very high regard and thought our skills work in a complementary way. >> be careful of that phrase "almost never." we ask about the tapping of the

phones and his answer was "almost never." >> what went through your mind on november 8, 1972 when the election results came in with 61% of the popular vote, every state going for nixon except massachusetts and where we are today after that great reporting effort the made? was there a "oh, shit" moment? >> it did not surprise us and it didn't affect us one bit. we knew the story had not got that much attraction. there was a lot of reporting left to do. we had a real moment in we had a real moment in september