national captioning institute] >> coming up in about 15 minutes we'll remarks from former microsoft ceo bill gates. he's the keynote speaker at an event marking the 150th anniversary of the moral act. president lincoln signed it back in 1852. it's hosted by the association of public and land grant universities. live coverage is 15 minutes from now. legislative work is under way at 2:00, busy agenda this week in

the house. 15, suspension bills today. also house majority leader eric cantor's office has confirmed thursday is the day the full house will hole a contempt to congress resolution vote against attorney general eric holder for failing to provide documents relating to fast and furious. you can see live house coverage again when they gallo in at noon eastern on c-span and on companion network c-span 2. quickly looking at 2012 election news. the presidential primary season comes to a close today. utah holds the final contest. the state is also holding a

senate primary hatch with orin hatch. also congressional elections happening today in new york. republican voters will choose a candidate to face off democratic senator kristen in the fall. quick reminder to visit our campaign 2012 website to view the latest events from the presidential candidates. you can learn more about key state races, what the candidates are saying on major issue and watch campaign ads and web videos. that's all online at c-span.org/campaign 2012. remarks from from former microsoft bill gates. until then we'll hear from president obama at a campaign stop in boston during a northeast swing yesterday. >> what's holding us back is a

stalemate in washington between two fundamentally different visions in which direction we should go. this election is your chance to break that stalemate. this election is your chance to move this country forward. this is your choice. let's be clear about had these choice -- what these choices are. mr.romney and his allies in congress, they've got a very particular theory about how you grow the economy. they believe we should go back to the top down economic policies of the last decade. you can sum them up fairly simple. they believe that if we eliminate regulations and cut taxes by trillions of dollars, that will free up the marketplace and will solve all our problems. that's the essence of their

argument. they argue if we help corporations and wealthy investors maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, whether it's through layoffs, outsourcing, union busting that will automatically translate into jobs and prosperity that benefit all of us. that's their theory. that's note an exaggeration. just last week it was reported governor romney's old company, they were pioneers, it was not my phrase, pioneers in the business of outsourcing of american jobs to china and india. yesterday they tried to clear it up by telling us there's a difference between outsourcing and offshoring. seriously, you can't make that

up. [applause]. what mr. romney and advisors don't understand is this, if you're a worker who's job went overseas, you really don't need somebody to explain you difference between outsourcing and offshoring. what you need is somebody will wake up everyday fiking to make -- fighting to make sure investments are happening here in massachusetts and here in the united states of america. that's what you need. [applause]. let me be clear. we all believe in the free market. we all believe that risk takers and entrepreneurs need to be rewarded. it that dynamism that built this country. but we also believe in shared

prosperity. i want to close the outsourcing loophole and our tax code. i want to give tax breaks to companies who create jobs right here in the united states of america. [applause]. this particular commitment to outsourcing isn't just part of his record, it's part of an overall economic theory that republicans in congress want to implement if they win this election. it's been voted on in congress. it's reek there on governor romney's website. they promise to roll back all kind of regulations on banks and polluters and oil companies. they don't want to just keep all the bush tax cuts in place including tax cuts for folks who don't need them. they want to add another

$5 trillion in tax cuts. including 25% tax cut for every millionaire in in country. now you maybe wondering how do they spend $5 trillion on new tax cuts and still keep a straight face when they say their plan will reduce the deficit? that's a good question you asking yourselves. boston has a lot of smart people in it. i'm sure mit grads are here, math majors, $5 trillion, how does that add up? they start by proposing trillion dollars in cuts to things like educational and training, medical research, clean energy. but that's only a trillion dollars so that's not enough. then they propose to eliminating

healthcare for about 50 million americans and converting medicare into a voucher program. but that's still not enough. so, then they also have to effectively raise taxes on the middle class by taking away tax deductions for everything from healthcare, college, retirement, homeownership which could cost some families thousands of dollars. this is on their website, they voted on these plans. that's the entirety of their economic approach. that's it. there's nothing new there. we've tried this, by the way. when mr. romney tells that these some sort of financial wizard can fix our economy, this is how he intends to do it. now, if you're a person who think this plan sounds like a

good idea, if we want to try the same policies that we just implementing in the last decade and did not work, those folks should vote for mr. romney. they should reelect republicans who been running this congress and together, i promise you, this is the path they'll take america down. they are more than qualified to do it. but i believe their policies have been tested their policy have failed. that's because in this country prosperity hasn't come from the top down. it's come from a strong and growing middle class. it's come from people striving to get into that middle class. it's come from successful thriving small businesses. it comes from consumers who are

seeing enough income and wage increases that they can afford to buy great products and services from businesses. the entire economy grows. we do not need more top down economics. we need a plan for better education and training, so our young people can take advantage of marketplace, energy independence and innovation and infrastructure and we need a tax code that encourages companies to create jobs here in the united states. and tax codes that ask wealthiest americans to help pay down our defense. -- deficit. that's what we need. [applause]. there's nothing radical about that vision. that's the vision that built this country. it was part of what used to be a

bipartisan consensus. we don't expect government to solve all our problems. this notion that somehow there's been some heavy tilt to the left on the part of the democratic party over the last three years, i cut taxes for the typical working family by $3600. cut taxes for small businesses 18 times. eliminated billions of regulations that didn't make sense. i don't believe we should be in the business of helping people who refuse to help themselves. i don't think government can solve every problem. but i do share this basic belief with our first republican president, abraham lincoln, who said that through government, we should do together what cannot do as well for ourselves.

[applause]. there's a place for us to work on the common good. there's a common good that we invest in together. that's how we built this country, together. we built railroads and highways together. built a hover dam, golden gate bridge together. we sent my grandfather generation to college on g.i. bill together. we invested in basic science that led to unimaginable discoveries, we did those things together. because we understood it made us all better off. it gave us all opportunities.

because it created a platform where everybody could succeed. if you were willing to work hard, you could succeed in part because we had great schools. we built great roads and we had a system in place to make sure investors weren't cheated when they put money into the stock market and bank depositive it sit -- deposits were guaranteed and polluters didn't run wild. all those things made us together better off and allowed us to succeed, as one people, as one nation. [applause]. that's the true lesson of our path. that is the right vision for our

future. boston, that is why i'm running for a second term as president of the united states. i want to move that vision forward. [applause]. i'm running to make sure every american has the chance to get the skills and training that today's job require. i want to recruit new army of teachers pept to hire more in areas like math and science.

i want to give 2 million more americans a chance to go to community colleges and learn the skill that's local businesses are looking for right now. [applause]. i want to make higher education affordable for every american that's willing to work for it. not just by offering more loans and financial aid but by bringing down the cost of college tuition because this is no longer an economic luxury. every young american needs the skills and training to succeed in the 21st century economy. boston understands this. massachusetts understands this. that's what we're fighting for. that's the choice in this election. that's why i'm running for president of the united states.

[applause]. i'm running so that we have a future where we control our own energy. that's good for our economy. it's good for our national security. it's good for our planet. we need to end subsidies for oil companies that are making plenty money on their own and double down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promise wind power, solar power, biofuels, fuel efficient cars. [applause]. i'm running to make sure that the united states becomes the

best place on earth for innovation and discovery. i'm proud that i kept the promise i made to you in 2008. we have ended the war in iraq. we are transitioning out of afghanistan. i want to start doing some nation building here at home. [applause]. i want to take half the money we're no longer spending on war, use it to put people back to work. rebuilding our roads, rebuilding our runways, we building our ports. building wireless networks, building high speed rails. investing more in research, investing more in science. all of those ingredients that made an economic super power.

>> president obama yesterday in boston you can see his entire remarks in the c-span video library. the presidents in miami and atlanta for campaign events today. joe biden is on campaign events also in iowa. former microsoft ceo bill gates. he's scheduled to speak recognizing federal funding for colleges and universities. >> we were talking about who should be the keynote speaker. we immediately agreed on a first choice bill gates. someone who will not only help us recognize and celebrate the last 150 years but challenge us and work with us in the decades ahead. together with his wife, bill cochairs the bill and melinda gates foundation which works to expand opportunitys for people

around the globe. their foundation is a leader and efforts to improve global health, alleviate poverty and expand opportunitys for women and with particular significance today increase access to and success in education. their efforts which span the globe are unprecedented and truly exciting. the work of foundation is built on values. it is rooted in the same philosophy as the we're celebrating today. which extended educational and economic opportunity to millions. the gates foundation is involved in many of the same endeavors that today's land grant universities are in particular improving educational outcomes, expanding access across our country but also in addressing

some of the grand challenges globally. such as eradicating disease, ensuring food security and developing new sources of sustainable energy. through not only its funding but its thoughtful approach to philanthropy. we could not have a more committed and passionate ally in these pursuits. i know all of us respect and admire greatly what bill gates has devoted his wealth and life to and we're delighted to welcome him to this celebration. join me in welcoming bill gates. [applause]. >> thank you. i'm grateful for your invitation to address the aplu on this

special day. and to express my gratitude, i bought this baig with me. farmers will grow black eyed peas. they did until researchers at purdue university developed this three layer nylon baig. it increases poor farm families incomes by over 25%. [applause]. >> it's a good example one of

the many partnerships our foundation has with aplu members across the country. american public colleges and universities do the finest research in the world. you create knowledge not just for some sake but to improve people's lives. on behalf of our foundation, i want to thank you for that. today i want to focus on the one thing you do even more important than that's research. that's providing great education to almost 5 million students. the moral act created public colleges to appropriate liberal act of education there were two break through ideas contained that single sentence. first that higher education should be both liberal and practical, that it should

address society's needs. second that all people should have the opportunity to obtain it. these two ideas amounted to a brand new vision for higher education. base on the conviction that a bigger and more diverse group of well educated people would be an asset to our democracy and a boone to our economy. this vision powered america's economic dynamism for more than a century. your graduates helped build a prosperous country. recently though, education advocates have been looking at the international competitors. what we see there is that other countries have seen as well. rebuilt a system of great colleges and in many respects, they are copying on what we did. in some respects, on areas like

completion rates, some of those countries are doing even better than we've done. what that says to me, we need to double down. we need to take this phenomenal asset that's benefited the world and make it even better. there should be no doubt about our starting point. we are still by far when it comes to research, teaching and learning at top universities, the very best in the world. however, two major trends in higher education are guiding us down a path that may lead us away from the historical commitment to equity and opportunity. first, there's the financial constraints. in the past generation, state funding for full time students fallen by 25%. i don't need it tell you that. this is something you face

everyday. the fiscal price have accelerated this trend. in just the five years for example, my home state of washington has country funding for higher education by 17%. as a result of this investment and the federally rising costs of running your institution, the financial burden of college has been shifting to students. they now pay an average of $45,000 out of pocket for four years of public school. now federal money has helped bridge the gap for a while. the federal spending on higher education has gone up quite a bit. within of the faster growing items in the budget. the stimulus package helped the state budgets for a couple years. but now those dollars have larged come to an end. the pell grant alone has more than doubled. unfortunately, it's unlikely to

continue that path. it's not on a sustainable trend. in fact, we look out to 2014, there's an $8 billion funding gap just for the pell program alone. that's one trend that's troubling. a second trend that's troubling is the sort of trap of moving towards higher and higher status or exclusivity. when u.s. news ranks come out, they judge you essentially on how selective you are. more by the inputs coming into the institution. they look at credential faculty, the amount you spend on various things and sort of subjective impressions about the reputation. these measures are standing in the way of having real measures of value added. real measures of effectiveness that we really need to root out

what best practices are and continue to benefit from the best work that all of you do. i understand these incentives are hard to get around. in a sense, it's a type of competition in exclusivity. the acceptance rates at many universities now hover at around 50%. that doesn't count a large number of students don't even bother applying because they know the bar of admission continues to go up and up. in short, fewer people of those who want to attend universities are getting in and those who do get in are paying more. so, this is a big challenge. it can't continue if we all have a goal of fulfilling that

mission of providing broad education. we have to look how we can converse. we have to let in as many people as can be successfully educated a inthey have to get that education at the lowest possible cost. private universities can boast about their selectivity if they choose to do so. as public institutions, -- it is not a point of high status to keep students out. but rather high status letting them in and even taking student who haven't had the greatest high school education, who don't have the highest best s.a.t. scores and giving them a high quality education. so today is a great day to pause and look to this group for leadership. you can steer your universities

out of these trends by making innovation a priority for the sector you lead. 150 years ago, your predecessors started a new conversation about the purpose of higher education. you can start the conversation now about the changes required to keep on serving that purpose. for example, how can we get mur public funds. unfortunately, there won't be much additional money. the rise in share of both state and federal budgets committed to healthcare broadly defined leaves very little room for flexibility. the mathematics are quite brutal. whether there is more money or less money in the long term, we should also focus on the challenges figure obligation out how to -- figuring out how to

use it best. particularly money how to use financial aid. i think there are two principles we're keeping in mind. the first is that age should be structured to providing incentives for both institutions and students. incentive to raise completion rates. incentives to raise income and employment of the graduates. if we look just at completion rates, the six year graduation rate for apl institutions is just over 60%. the four year rate is little bit less. behind those statistics are a lot of stories of students who end up with a lot of debt. tracking those students understanding what's going on to them should be more important. perhaps age should somehow

should be tied to institutional practices to adopt the practice that's have been seen at the best institutions to boost graduation rates. what if students felt that financial incentive to reach important milestones on the path to graduation. we really can't be agnostic about whether age subsidizes failure or success. the goal is success. a degree in the shortest reasonable time for every student who puts in necessary work. without just screening the most preparing students, policy makers are starting to look at some of these incentives for completion might look like. i hope you join them. you and your students would have to live with policy changes that are coming and those changes will be more effective if you correct your expertise early in the process.

a second principle i think is valuable for financial aid is to make need-based aid a priority again. in the past 30 years, the percentage aid money going to students without demonstrated financial need has tripled. this is somewhat a consequence of the upward spiral giving the top students scholarships is a great way of persuading them not to pick another institution. it also means that money is being spent on students who may actually need the least help. colleges add the most value when students come in, who are less prepared and leading with the same knowledge and skill that's other graduates possess. reserving your aid money for student who need it also serves your economic mission.

educating a student who might not otherwise go to college generate a higher return on public investment than framing the cost on education. we also have to engage in a new conversation about the role of technology. after all, technology has come a long way. for easier now to store videos online. essentially free to do it. there are tools now let us build wonderful interactive courses. in fact, in some case their demands are getting ahead of the supply of these things. how do we use technology in a variety of ways to augment of education we're providing? technology may serve to help us both in terms of efficiency and in terms of quality.

technology should be reexamined to look at the whole college experience. how do we track whether students is coming to lectures and immediately engage them and understand what's going on with them. that's an area -- actually the for profit sector does some things that are interesting. we've seen technology enable and come into several definite areas for -- different areas. data software and students spend more time on the concept they are struggling with. hybrid models improves the quality of collaboration between students and teachers and simulation of gaming can engage students. but these innovations are largely still at the pilot stage it will take leadership to move them beyond that. once it's taken scale,

technology can change the financial calculus and give more students an opportunity to earn a degree. there's some interesting models to build on. state university in tennessee recently created an eadvisor system. it gives students a suggested list of courses by looking at their transcripts and looking a the data from hundreds of thousands of previous students. it's almost like the way netflix suggest movie. it suggest those they will be able to handle that will help them get to their degree requirement. across the united states the average student graduate with 20% more credits than necessary. in some cases this is fine. in many cases, it's because the courses are not available or they didn't have advice about

what will be best. applications like the recompass can address these issues and do it in a way that's very straight forward for the institution. the earlier results have been promising. students do have a letter grade better in classes suggested by degree compass than in classes they pick the old fashion way. similar systems in other universities have improved rates. arizona state university recently designed its introductory math course taken by 8000 freshman many who came in very poor preparation. not ready to do college level work. instead of lectures, they developed hybrid classes.

the students are given a piece of adapted computer software that looks where they are and understands exactly what they have learned well and haven't. it gives reports to the professor so they can work with students in small groups. they can organize group that's need help on concept. they can organize groups for peer learning, that turns out to be very powerful. the results in this are very impressive. they taken a course, first math course, that is often the very worst experience and have terrible completion rates and raised those completion rates by 17% while cutting costs by a third. a large number of students were able to finish weeks before the end of the term. get their math knowledge up to

par and still have time to devote to their other classes. certainly in areas like remedial math, i believe the future of education looks more like the course delivered there than it does like the traditional course delivery. the whole area, so called mooks, mass online courses are receiving a lot of attention now. some might say what's really new here. we've had video portions online. we've had interactive courses like open learning institute. is there some break through. the answer is in a technology sense, there really isn't some dramatic break through. but what's being done that i think is very exciting is they are taking three elements. really great video lectures

with the activity built into those lectures. so that's the beauty of great video lectures together with the interactivity. the third thing they do is they get a lot of people often as many as 100,000 taking the course at the same time. so they have lots of peer education going on where people are answering questions, looking at each other's homework and giving advice. the teaching staff it reviewing all of that activity to make sure it's high quality, that students aren't being misled. a fourth piece is probably more challenging. that is how does this connect up to degrees or accreditation that employers will value. they are giving out certificates but not fully endorsed degrees. that's an area where there will be some evolution. but this is a very important movement.

you all need to try it out. think about how your institution should get involved. harris got over 40 courses. the courses themselves are free everyone. you only pay to get the actual certificate. theoretically, these courses conserve millions of people. it has some real opportunities to step back who are the best lectures. who do we supplement that. what are the skill sets that you really want to pull in for a hybrid type model. i know some critics worry about the loss of personal interaction. that certainly is central to a high quality education. but this technology when it's

well concede, actually be used to strengthen those interactions. the arizona state math shows, technology can free up time and allow the professional to really be working with student who need that help in a more direct way. these moves, i think, really do represent something important that we all have to contribute to and think about what their role should be. we need to look at different types of students. particularly students who are not well motivated. we can say that definitely that original group who signed up for machine learning course, that was not your average students. those were some highly motivated people. so that's where i think the hybrid brand really have to come in. technology can't do everything but for schools that want to be at the cutting edge, experiment in this field is very important.

when we look at the number of students being educated, it's interesting to ask, would advances in use of technology allow you to grow even more and serve more students. well for 150 years, higher education has been an incredible source of strength for our country. there's no group of institution that showed that better than the ones represented here. our nation has done better at sending lots of young kids to college than any other. your institution have shown that equity and opportunity don't need to compromise excellence. it's a nation chartered a different course 150 years ago and education continued to be reserve for the select few. there's no doubt that we'd be less competitive today. instead, we decided to build

something new and better and we created these universities that are the envy of the world. that is why young people keep applying in ever greater numbers. that's why they're willing to take on tens of thousands of debt to get a degree. they know the education you provide is the key to the future they want so badly. they know you can make their dreams come true. but we face a huge challenge just like we did in 1862. how do we cope with these budget constraints without sacrificing the quality on which society rely. can we be innovative and effective with the most challenged students as we are with most prepared ones. can we apply resources in new ways so that we conserve everyone who wants access. asking and answering these hard questions is the question to building on the legacy that you inherited and that you now hold.

i believe it's key to the future of our country. i agree that optimism you will once again summon your ability to innovate, you will see clearly where higher education needs to go and lead us all there. thank you. [applause]. >> okay, i told you he'll challenge us. now we get a chance to challenge him a bit. we will open up for questions. i know there are some people in the audience that are chomping at the bit. i'm having trouble seeing everyone. i don't know where the microphones are. i'm assuming you will get to someone with a question. i'm going to ask the first question while you're figuring

out the logistics. one of the issues that some of our institutions have bill, is that you people are coming out of high school unprepared for college work. they have to take remediation, developmental education. your foundation supports work in that area, something you're very interested in. i wonder if you can share with us what you found to be the most promising? >> definitely the boundary between high school and higher education is really not well handled today. if you're a student in high school, you ought to be able to go online and have some free assessment of your say math capability. you should never have to go in and take the qualifying exam, which is generally an place for exam and get surprised by the results you get. it's really disheartening for that student because they just

get a number. they get told, well, you need to work on fractions, you need to work on scientific notation. then they go into remedial course where they sit there. 70% of those kids will go to that remedial math class, never get a degree. it's just bad in every way. the idea is to have the set of knowledge that we expect you have in math. say algebra, to have that be well understood. the so called common core effort that's been adopted by 46 states that will lead to that. that math in the country is the same. you can have different textbooks and different ways of teaching the core concepts are the same. the online material, actually has adopted to this common core very quickly over period of next

two years. the different states are getting their textbooks. that will be coupled with these free online exams you can try your knowledge at and be pointed to various materials either by yourself or teacher or by a teach that will help you get there. we hope to take that huge disconnect that puts huge costs on the higher education system to make it kind of clean up these problems and have it be a lot more open about what's on. lot more efficient and lot more positive for that student. that's a boundary both reading, writing and math that has been very problematic. >> question? whoever gets the mic first gets to go.

>> mr. gates thank you so much for being here. throughout your career, you visited many college campuses. i know you get a charge out of interacting with our students. tell us what you think the challenges and opportunities are for students these days. >> it's interesting to talk to kids how they pick an institution and how clear were they about their goals. there's a big difference between kids who have a career goal and one who don't. it's not talking about how much you work during school, how you're think being this debt you're building up over time. what do you think about the quality of your teachers? do you give feedback to people about different experiences that you're having. one thing i've always been interested in are the kids who don't complete. the fact that even in these very

top institutions, six years later, 40% haven't completed. it's surprisingly high. higher than if you'd ask me before i saw the statistics, what that number would be. sitting down and talking to them, where do you feel like you got lost? what kind of intervention would have made a difference for you to be able it stand? was it mostly financial, were you discouraged by your ability. why did that go off track. clearly there's a lot of amazing professors who reach out and get engaged with students. it's always wonderful to hear about that. it makes you think, if that's the best practice, is that measured, is that rewarded? how would that spread out to other universities. it's always impressive to me the energy these students put in to

get an education. this leap of faith that you will spend this four years and that's going to do something great for you. you look at those application rates, that are even stronger " -- today. on the side of the employer, for microsoft we went to the elite institutions awe hired the very best students. we were quite picky about where we went to hire, exactly what courses we thought they should have taken. we were expecting the universities. we weren't considering ourselves the ones who would fix some lack of education. we were going to pick the people already very well prepared. it was definitely on the institutional hands. >> you mentioned something i

think it's important, we're all very interested in increasing graduation rates in this country. that is a goal that every institution in this room shares. one of the things that aplu is working on now, which i think is going to be very important for policymakers, it's a deputy way of looking at rates. right now with don't capture those students who transfer. it will help us understand better the path for college students in america. another question. yes please. >> good morning mr. gates. i'm president of montana state university. thanks for your message this morning. you shared with us some exciting ideas. do you have any additional exciting ways in which technology can be enhanced in higher education? also what is your advice to institutions who want to lead in

these areas? especially in the current budget environment? >> well, there's no doubt that technology enablement should be able to help with budget constraints. for example, if you take the lectures of your big courses and you choose to put them entirely online, that is not to have a physical get together. then in many cases, that keeps what the key enrollment is for those courses and it gets rid of it. if you actually have feedback system where is you take the study groups that are often those are grad students or people in those. really helps you understand who's doing a good job had those things. you have a review system that rewards excellence in those

roles then that is the real thing that drives the quality are the people in those study sections. they kind of an irony now that large lecture which technology can provide something that is better because you're using world class lecture. it's interactive in a way you don't have to go 30 or 60 minutes without sitting and practicing the knowledge you're gaining. there's clear proven evidence really improves the retention and understanding of the material. i think that sitting there and why isn't it being grabbed on to? well, it's the financial pressure just hasn't been strong enough for some institutions to take that leap. it maybe that the teachers don't want to do it. that's sitting out there very

clear thing. hardly adopted at this stage was so ever. that's partly why we're at the beginning because it's only as you get that type of adoption in a hybrid mode -- if we don't get hybrid mode, we will get system of accreditation that has the some college degrees. it's independent how you learn the knowledge. there will be people that certify that you have the equiver leapt -- equivalence of four year degree. they won't be bundled together the way education and the degree are right now. there will be this system that grows up outside of traditional education particularly to the degree that these online things aren't adopted within the mainstream education.

>> okay, who has the microphone. there you go. >> university of tennessee knoxville, chancellor. looking a at your foundation, it looks like you focus on community colleges or funding. i was wondering if you explain why you're doing that? >> that's absolutely correct. other than our scholarship program, actually ends up sending kids to community colleges. i think that most what we're doing there in terms of how you track students and help intervene with students having problem. redesigning the remedial math. a lot of that has applicability to all colleges. when we look at where low income

students end up going in this country, it's overwhelmingly to community colleges. fortunately, many of those student it is they dwell after two years, then they show up in your institutions. there are some selection bias there. those students actually tend to have a better completion rate than people who come to you in the first year. it's a very attractive cohort. it's a cohort we should all want to grow. in terms of educational dollars spent, they actually getting a four year degree for a lower cost than people who take another path through the system. we saw that there was less money, less tension. there was more use about professor. there was more of a need students tracking.

more of a need of actual measurement of who the good professors were and great a professional system around that. also there was some ability -- when you have adjuncts, i know there's lots of challenges with that. it's a system you have a quality measure, you can very immediately decide who to give bonuses to and who to bring back and who not to bring back. the pay back on quality understanding is very high whereas if you put that into another system, what are you going to do with the data that come out of it. we wish we could work on both. we hope our stuff has brought application. now we're getting involved in issues like what should the policy should be and how should that encourage excellence and completion rates. in those

areas are all the different loan type policies. that obviously touches the whole system. we're quite worried that if the amount federal money education shrinks a lot of people talk about that happening, will that be done -- can we minimize the amount that happens. can we make sure it's done in the most effective way. >> okay. microphone. >> mr. gates, dwayne, i'm president of the university of idaho. one of the concerns that i have, i know a number of my colleagues have, the number of young people that are tracking in the stem discipline. it goes beyond preparation. it's getting them excited about science, technology and engineering and math. we're losing ground globally in this context. i like to you comment a little bit about how we can work more effectively starting at the middle school level and high

school as universities to try to stimulate a more effective pipeline for these students. >> less and less of their graduates are going into science engineering. if you look at the salaries from the job needs in their areas. they are very strong. you have very unusual things like computer science departments, the top computer science departments in the united states many of them are over 50% foreign born. the uc berkeley computer science department, which is super topnotch, 77% foreign born. then you get this irony which is that if you go to hire those people, they can't get cards. they gotten the world's best education. wherever they work, companies

like microsoft create like five jobs around each of those engineers. we do it wherever we can get the engineers. to the degree they have to go back to in europe or china, that forces those other skill sets to be developed in those countries.

i know some universities have combined a number of the science courses, but we really need to seek out best practices on that, because those jobs, more than other jobs, people can say i am biased, those tend to drive

economic futures. it is ironic we are not driving those things. the fastest-growing major in united states is a physical education. historically, people put -- people put others in the new fields. no matter how much having people on the cutting-edge deals -- even press any of those indicators are scary relative to asian countries. >> thank you. i will ask the last question because i am in charge of the schedule. i want to take a shift from the conversation, and educational attainment is a high priority of ours. land grant universities are involved in addressing these global challenges that the gates foundation is. we think about 21st century land grant model addressing food security and opportunities for

economic health. can you tell us, spend a few minutes talking about the most exciting opportunities you see for america out's universities to engage in the work that drives you? >> universities are doing a far better job of making their students aware of conditions of around the world. when i almost graduated from harvard -- [laughter] i had no sense of living conditions around the world. today universities have lots of courses and they try to get things out there. they bring in the information. that awareness is an extremely bad real thing. when the foundation goes out to look for working on better seeds, to design better back

scenes, a bill better toilets, it reinforces u.s. universities are the cutting edge. something about 70% of our grants, if anything, we try to go to institutions in the developing countries themselves. we have two equally meritorious scientific research proposals, which would favor the poor country where the problem actually is in that location. yet, for most of what we do, it ends up being the lead university will be a u.s.-based institution. they are doing a good job partnering with institutions in these other countries. there is some secondary benefit that comes from that. even though we are talking about this tough challenge of these budgets, i want to share with

you my optimism for the state of innovation. the fact that other universities around the world will participate in innovation, that is a good thing, but in the u.s. alone, the speed of innovation:, whether in materials science, understanding chemistry, at the basic digital level, energy- type advances across the board, understanding how to make new vaccines, the immune system, a lot of that pushed through by try to understand diseases like aids, agriculture. it is so exciting, thank goodness, that plants have the same genetics as humans, because so much money was spent to create sequencing tools for genetic understanding. now the field gets that as a windfall. the deep understanding of plants, plant product activity,

innovation. great professors, bad students, after institutions are doing the things that allow our foundation to be very optimistic about improving life in the countr ies, the poor countries, whether it childhood deaths that are down. i can see that a pact to get down to 2 million. toot -- malnutrition -- have enough food to feed the planet? even to fight the headwinds of climate and certain limited resources, i think we will be able to beat that challenge. it is almost a paradox that the importance of the work and innovation is stronger than ever at a time when scaling it up and making it accessible is a tough challenge. , absolutely, and that is a challenge we will accept and we look forward to working with you

and the gates foundation. thank you for being here to help recognize this event in the history of our country, and for a challenging us today, and thanks for your partnership with the gates foundation for american public higher education. >> thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you, and as my final act on the stage, it gives me pleasure to introduce my friend and former colleague -- >> as we leave this event, the house begins a busy week at

2:00. the votes at 6:30. 15 suspension bills are on the agenda today. later, fiscal year 2013 spending bills to fund the transportation and hud. thursday the full house will vote on that contempt of congress resolution. also the house and senate are facing deadlines for student loan interest rates and for the reauthorization of the highway and surface transportation bill. house coverage when they dabble in at noon today. kelly ayotte at the brookings institution in washington about $500 billion in automatic spending cuts to defense. the sequestration cuts were

agreed to as part of lawmakers' deal to raise the debt limit last summer. this will be of monocot 30 p.m. eastern. then a live web cast with james mann. he will be speaking in washington. you can remarks is live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. the house gavels in at noon eastern for morning hours. we will bring you the house live at c-span. now a discussion on the supreme court's decision on immigration. "the los angeles times" says --

"the orange county register" also with a top headline above the fold -- "the chicago tribune" also tells its viewers what is going on. one of the border states wrestling with its own issues, texas has "the houston chronicle." "the pittsburgh post-gazette" looks at the case. "the atlanta journal constitution" -- georgia is one of its states that has its own controversial immigration law on its books that may be affected by what happened in the supreme court yesterday. "the wall street journal" headline --

host: joining us to talk about the piece is jess bravin, here in the studio, supreme court correspondent for "the wall street journal." looking at the headlines, there is variety and different takes on how the story is being perceived, whether or not the heart of the law was retained or whether it was struck down. guest: not only that, but because of the number of reporters covering the supreme court has declined, several of the stories are excellent the same story written by the same person and road different headlines on it. editors have tried to summarize it in terms of the headline -- either a split decision because the court upheld one of the sections, or they said really it is a rebuke to arizona because the substance of the

law, really the harshest parts that go beyond simply checking immigration status more rolled into conflict with federal law. host: "usa today" has a nice graphic that shows the three parts thrown out and one part of bell. the "show me your papers" is what republican jan brewer, the governor, said was the heart of the law. guest: the core provisions at issue -- the part of the court found permissible established state policy of having local and state police officers check the immigration status of people they stopped for other reasons, whom they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally. and the supreme court upheld that provision because it found that congress intended for there to be some consultation between local officials and federal immigration authorities. under federal immigration law,

the immigration and customs enforcement agency is required to provide immigration status verification to local authorities who requested. the supreme court reasoned that if the federal government is already required to provide that information when local officers asked for it on their own, the state did not face a bar to establishing a policy requiring officers to ask for it inhost: let's listen to governor jan brewer speaking. [video clip] >> we know the eyes of the world will be on us and the critics will be watching and waiting for another opportunity to continue their legal assault against our state. but i have faith in our law enforcement, our brave men and women in uniform have been trained so they can enforce this law efficiently, effectively, and in harmony with the constitution.

civil rights will be protected. tolerated. senate bill 1070 is equally committed to upholding the rule of law while ensuring that the constitutional rights of all in arizona are protected, including prohibiting law enforcement officers from solely considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the provision. in fact, under my direction, senate bill 1070 was amended to strengthen and to emphasize the importance that civil rights are protected. host: governor jan brewer from arizona reacting to the supreme court decision. it is the state and president"i am pleased the supreme court struck down key provisions of arizona's immigration law" --

jess bravin, both sides are claiming some degree of victory. guest: that is true, because this provision establishing the statewide policy of requiring immigration checks when officers reasonably suspect someone is in the country unlawfully. however, the court did not give it an unqualified embrace. during oral arguments in april and also this opinion, justices said they were concerned about possibly people may be detained solely to check the immigration status. the court makes clear in the opinion that local offices cannot do that. if someone was going to be in custody anyway, sure, local officers can check immigration status but they were open to the possibility it could be unlawful for officials to hold someone solely to verify immigration status. host: here is the "usa today" headline, "a mixed message."

what was allowed to stand was the checking immigration status. let us hear what the callers have to say. glenda is from los angeles. caller: good morning. i would like to know why we are calling this immigration. it is an invasion. we spend in california $10 billion a year on illegals.

incarceration, education, welfare, health care -- they get everything. they also, it the biggest crimes in california. recently, a high school star student was shot down by an illegal because he was carrying a red backpack. his mother was serving overseas. had been killed. i think any red blooded american who has lost a family member to protect our country and then we have these yahoos letting them in, giving them special treatment -- and this is against our laws. host: jess bravin, did the justices individually talk

about the issue of immigration nationally and how they may be wrestling with this? guest: the court acknowledged, the majority opinion written by justice kennedy, that the strains of illegal immigration was placing on arizona, noting statistic showing in illegal immigrants cause a disproportionate number of crimes in the phoenix area and similar strains that their presence can place. he also had poetic words about america that a heritage as a nation of immigrants, and so forth. those issues are kind of beside the point because the supreme court is not in the business of making policy for the united states government. that is the job for the congress and the president. the supreme court that a job is interpreting the laws congress and the president adopted. when the president made his statement responding to the ruling yesterday, he did emphasize what his policies had

been. those have been to emphasize deportations of zero violent criminals and other people who they make a top priority. so, the president says his policy has been to focus on people who she indicated was a threat to public safety and shifting resources to them as opposed to people who they think are not a threat, like the children and so forth. so, the court observed that hundreds of thousands of people are deported by the united states every year. host: here is what supreme court justice kennedy had to say and we will take a look at this.

jess bravin, did you get a sense of the justices on multiple sides of the issue -- because there was a majority opinion 5-3 in one aspect and then the court split 6-2 on another aspect -- did you get the sense they were seeing their place in history in this debate? guest: i think the supreme court justices are very aware of their place of history in every debate, because they have the last word certainly on constitutional interpretation under our system. so, they are aware of that. it was a notable that justice scalia, who dissented from this opinion, went out of his way to invoke president obama's recent decision regarding the younger in illegal immigrants, deciding not to deport them, and so he -- host: bringing in modern-day politics in an issue separate from this case. guest: as an example of the federal government failing to it in force, in his view, immigration law, and therefore creating an opening for the state.

justice kennedy that a majority opinions of the other position, saying federal immigration law grants a great deal of discretion because of the many factors involved, including diplomatic relations. i think as the viewers consider this opinion, it is important to understand what it is the court, in fact, all who purses updated have to say about this. all of them agreed that immigration under the constitution is a matter for the federal government to decide. the only question legally in this case is whether federal immigration statute create room for states to pile on their own penalties and make their own enforcement decisions or they whether those decisions interfere with federal priorities. the majority found that the three struck provisions interfere with the federal stand. there is no debate on the federal government's primacy in the immigration area or the fact that states, when they do pass their own immigration- related measures, complement

rather than -- with policy. host: another caller from akron, ohio. caller: i find it creepy that a guy who works for "the wall street journal" would comment on the supreme court. host: why is that? caller: well, i mean, he said that the supreme court is not supposed to make policy but, you know, in their decision over campaign financing, they took the most sacred thing that we have here which is our election process and they turned it into a bidding war. but getting back to immigration, the republican party going back to ronald reagan used illegal immigration as a way to get voters.

plus, if you look at the state of texas, you had 12 years of the bush family running of country, that is where most of your problems come from. and they bring the people in there so they can work for eight bucks an hour with no benefits, for though voting days -- as far as arizona, that was one of the fastest-growing states in the whole country based on of using the labor. they invited them over there to work and build their roads, and now it has ended, they want to deport them. you have rogue states in the country who have abused for self-interest. host: let us look and what you brought up about campaign

finance law. this is from "the washington post." we heard of the decisions announced. tell us about this one. guest: first, rick, sorry to creep you out so early in the morning. the immigration law that they said the arizona measure conflicted with was designed in part by president reagan in the 1980's. by the montana supreme court, a 100-year law -- in 1912, it was illegal for corporations to contribute to political campaigns and the montana supreme court said the law could stand despite the 2010 citizens united ruling that found that corporations and labor unions have a first amendment right to make political expenditures to pay for campaign ads.

the montana supreme court said montana's unique history, and because of all kinds of corruption that took place in the wild west days when outside mining interests at a big influence over the state house, they said the montana law could stand despite citizen denied because of some language in the citizens united decision -- saying in our state there was evidence of corruption. supreme court saying, new cannot be serious, no significant distinction between your montana law in 1912 and the kind of measures we found unconstitutional in citizens united. the four liberal members of the court dissented, saying they continue to disagree with the citizens united but even if they could accept it, montana could produce its own record showing why their law might

stand and they felt the supreme court should have heard the case instead of summarily rejecting it. host: birmingham, alabama. hi. caller: good morning. my thing is i was listening to some of the constitutional scholars, which i would never proclaimed to be, and according to some of them, they can go back and revisit the law that they upheld because if they start having a lot of lawsuits and racial profiling, they can go back and revisit that and strike that down. so, i did not think it was a win for jan brewer, even though shei really think president obama the board. they -- and they go back and revisit and people file lawsuits that they are being

racially profile, they can throw of out because we've laws in the united states does you cannot racially profile the person. i think president obama one across the board. also, we need to get off of this demonizing people. because if you have never been discriminated against you don't know what it feels. i did not think african- americans have to keep making a point that the immigrants are taking over our jobs. they are not taking our jobs. we don't need to be separating people like that. i can't go there because i am african-american and i also a woman even though i am sounding heavy voiced this morning because of my allergies. host: where are these obama jobs been promised to illegals?

"the wall street journal" showing us how they weighed in. justice elena kagan was recused. why? guest: she was the u.s. solicitor general and early stages of the litigation so we assume that because she was involved early on she did not take part when it came to the supreme court. host: what was no word on how the justices lined up on certain issues? guest: couple of things. one is that the accord was certainly unanimous on the measure that olivia just mentioned, regarding immigration status check. the court voted 6-2 regarding arizona's efforts to make it a state crime to fail to carry registration papers -- justice alito voted in the majority, 5- 3 on the other parts of the law challenge. both justice kennedy and chief justice john roberts were in the majority ruling for the

most part with the obama administration. that is notable because it and about a year-and-a-half ago they were on the other side of another arizona immigration case that was before the supreme court. arizona had passed a bill written by the same lawmaker who wrote 1070 that essentially put out of business employers who repeatedly hired illegal immigrants by suspended their business licenses and revoking the corporate charters. chief justice roberts wrote an opinion upholding that the law against a challenge brought by the obama administration and the u.s. chamber of commerce, two institutions balked not often interfered with federal law. the supreme court rejected the argument and said congress had permitted states to withdraw corporate charters and licenses and essentially put out of business companies that hire illegal aliens. we saw that in this part of immigration law, the chief

justice and justice kennedy saw things differently and we could explain that through statutory limitation. not trying to set policy but trying to read the statutes congress has adopted and find out what they mean. they are reaching different conclusions not based, they say, on what is the best policy but trying to figure out what congress intended. host: "it is obvious justice alito sees no limits to states' rights." an opinion on twitter. your tweet. whos go to a reporter covers the border. michel marizco is senior field correspondent for kjzz radio, radio fronteras desk. what was a light yesterday? who were you talking to and what were you hearing?

guest: i was talking with people who live on the border. some of the questions are, ok, the u.s. district judge who had initially blocked 1070, yesterday's decision was not unexpected but then the question becomes, well, okay, how are you going to address some of the peripheral issues surrounding the legal immigration? for example, the organized crime aspect, the assaults that take place along the border that mostly go unreported but always in the shadows. i also spoke with some of the border law enforcement officials, talking county sheriff's, and, you know, some declared victory because the most iconic part of 1070, 2b, which would allow officers to question the immigration status, was retained by the court.

they declared victory there. i also spoke to a county sheriff with -- that the one aspect of 1070 would be preserved. host: do you see how this will play out as officers pull people over, is there a sense of what it means on a practical level? guest: no. that is the short and simple answer to this. on the same day that the court's ruling came in, homeland security announced they were going to be rescinding the remaining program of 287 g, which allowed for police officers in the field to cross check people through their immigration status with the department of homeland security. they have now terminated that agreement with the remaining --

at the end of the day, what it is looking like -- and this is all being played out -- is, yes, one provision of 1070 remains, but what anybody is going to be able to do with it is completely up in the air right now. nobody knows. host: michel marizco, kjzz radio fronteras, a consortium of radio stations that cover the board. the you know the political implications? we have seen activists are rallying and reacting to the news outside of your state capital in phoenix yesterday. do you know who this might play out for politically? guest: i was actually somewhat surprised about how tepid some of the response was by protesters on either side. and the thing of course, the immigration debate. and i think this applies

nationally as well. those fault lines long ago have been drawn. people who supported more restriction-tight immigration law and supported 1070, they certainly have not changed their minds. people who were opposed to 1070, they are certainly not going to change their minds on this. i think at least here in arizona, people's reactions go back to much of the same flow as we have seen in the past, and that this to say they have already made up their minds on how they feel on this issue. i do not see any giant surprises or switches even now that we are talking about an election year. host: finally, tell us what you are going to be watching in the next couple of weeks to see what plays out. of insight on what we should be watching. guest: the police, they know they have a lot of confusion, a

lot of mystery about exactly what is going to happen with their enforcement of that one simple provision of 1070 that is so big, so meaningful. but at the end of the day, it is very possible that 1070 may have just had its teeth completely removed. so, i will be watching the police to see how they train for this, how they prepare for this, particularly in light of the federal government's decision to pull 287 g out of the game. host: michel marizco, kjzz radio fronteras reporting from the border in tucson, arizona. really appreciate it. brooklyn, new york. peter is an independent caller. what do you think? caller: basically i have three short questions for the person on your panel.

the first one is, has anyone ever kept track of illegal alien offenders? that leads into, well, the obama directive at a cost to american lives? 10 states withhold federal taxes from the government because the government is not providing services? guest: well, all right -- the questions were, and does anyone track offenses by illegal aliens? apparently so, because the supreme court cited some statistics indicating day, a disproportionate number of crimes in the maricopa county, arizona, so apparently the statistics are compiled. secondly, will the obama directive cost american lives? hard to even answer whether it would cost us save lives.

it is not directed at lifesaving techniques, but involved in discretionary decisions regarding immigration policies. the question does not really have anything to do with the policy. can states withhold taxes paid to the federal government because they do not believe they are receiving services from the federal government? states do not pay taxes to the federal government. in fact, the federal government subsidizes the states. almost every state receives money from the federal government for various programs, and sometimes the federal government can withhold payments to the states and the states do not comply with federal policies. but that is the way the money flows, for washington to the around. host: rich, republican caller. from ohio. caller: one of the question government get the money? do they get it from the states and then just send it back? that is one of the things that

is hidden, $250 billion or $8 trillion? we load up our school systems with illegals and property-tax as goes up, and then somebody loses the house because they cannot pay their property taxes. the other thing, if somebody has said -- in the united states and they cannot track them back where they came from, they will just walk away. student loan defaults, illegals can just walk away. i am curious if they sign up for the draft, illegals. guest: the questions i've got -- where does the federal what it does? it collects taxes and various duties.

and what kind of accountability? citizens of the united states get to elect members of congress and the president who makes these decisions. so, there is that level of accountability. although the elected officials presumably are held to account each in november election. the question about hospital bills is interesting because decision coming, we think, thursday, which deals with the affordable care act. an effort by the government to expand health coverage. but it has been challenged for various constitutional grounds, including that it exceeds the federal government that a power to enact. so i think for the hospital bill question, you should come back to the show on friday. host: edward tweets in -- jess bravin, could you read tea leaves about the health-care decision based on what you heard yesterday from the court?

there was speculation about whether it sheds insight. interestingd's, is because a lot of people does think the court operates that way. i am not in the private meetings, so i cannot say for sure. certainly not in the brains of the justices. they say that is not what they are doing. not elected officials and not accountable to voters. they do not, they say, trade votes on related issues or try to do things to make things look good for the public or when public support. that is what they say. individually and each has different legal issues. so, the court would say they are disappointed people think what they do is political when they believe what they are doing is legal. the question is, are there any insight into the health-care decision? well, of course, speculation is all that can do waiting to hear what they really have done. we can say that the chief

justice and justice anthony kennedy joining with the liberal wing of the court to affirm federal primacy over immigration law against a states' rights challenge. not only that, but the lawyers representing the two sides in the average on a case, the solicitor general of the united states representing the united states and the obama administration and paul comment formally from the bush administration representing arizona, those are the same two lawyers who argued the healthcare ks and paul clement is seen as one of the great litigators' of his day but was not able to win a majority and arizona case. was this a premonition for the health care case? i would say, having spoken to thousands of experts, the consensus is, time will tell. host: you can go to c-span.org, where you can read the entire decision related to the case. let's look at our facebook page and see what the viewers and listeners are writing in.

jess bravin is the supreme court correspondent for "the wall street journal" who is here to shed insight on what the supreme court decided yesterday.

lizzy from california, democrats' line. caller: three quick points and i wanted to hear his input. i am actually from the midwest and lived in california for 10 years and i have two children. my son just graduated from high school, a class of 692 children, over one-third of the award illegals, 269, i think they counted. i think the problem with the federal government imposing on the stage is when you are from the midwest or somebody -- somewhere in another part of the country, you cannot understand what it is like here in california and arizona. amazing the difference, just the livings in tuition. the illegals are flooding our system, flooding our schools. and when we talk about them taking jobs and causing that problem, i think it is hard for them to understand because growing up in the 1980's, we think of the illegal workers as

migrant workers doing jobs americans likely not want to do. but that is not true anymore. here in california, in the grocery stores, offices with the doctors, everywhere that you think. and a lot of those illegals are using fake ids, which is a hard way to track them. lastly, i just wanted to say my children are half hispanic, they are citizens, their dad is a citizen and a big it racially profile, especially in california. but i think it is hard where the politicians and the news do not want to be pegged as racist. this is not racism. this is a fact of being an american. it is not like the african americans in the 1950's. we are talking about actual citizens of america -- we are talking about actual citizens being treated unfairly. these are not citizens, they are illegal and they live off of our system and work and go to school year and are overcrowding our population and i think it

is important for people to understand that. that is why when the federal government is imposing the immigration stipulation, it is really hard because what is good for the midwest is not going to work here in california. host: a different perspective -- guest: two members of the accord are from california and both of them were in the majority striking down both provisions of that evers and a law. justice kennedy and justice breyer. the two members from new york, justice sotomayor and justice ginsburg -- others from the tri-city area, justice scalia and justice alito voting for the most part against the majority. it is hard to see any regional breakdowns on the court regarding their view on immigration law. host: another story and "the

wall street journal" -- guest: that is an opinion by justice kagan, based on a strange opinions regarding the eighth amendment,: unusual punishment regarding youth offenders. this is as juvenile offenders, people who are under 18 when they commit a crime, cannot be automatically sentenced to life without parole. basically you've got a 14-year old treated as an adult because of the severity of the accusation, homicide, and is convicted and the homicide statute requires a sentence of life without parole. the supreme court said that when the defendant is under 18

when the crime is committed, the courts -- the law cannot require life without parole. the judge has to have an individualized hearing and determine whether or not life without parole is appropriate for that particular offender. it continues the string of opinion by street people who are juveniles when they commit crime as being, to a degree, less culpable than adult offenders. stories in the news. "the new york times" -- the senator from utah faces a primary battle today, where the tea party topped a three-term republican senator in a 2010 election --

this goes on to say he is running an aggressive and well- financed campaign. congressman charlie rangel vindication in new york primary. a headline in "the washington post" campaign 2012 section. a strong democratic challenger has him on the defense. we will see how that plays out as well. other stories in the news. new rules set to curb leaks and ensnare leakers.

"afghan attacks jumping after a street journal." we are mostly talking this morning about the supreme court decision yesterday regarding immigration in arizona. let's go to a tennessee caller. ozzie on the independent line. statements. i have to paraphrase because i do not have my competition with me. when the government gets to a point where it is trampling on our rights and out of control basically, it is up to the people to dissolve the government, abolishing it, which is what we should have them maybe about eight years ago. however, we did not come and the people of very ignorant because -- they did not want the constitution. they are trying to go all around the constitution.

number two -- the only way that this country could ever be brought down is not from an enemy from without but within and what they are doing. they are open for trading the government over the last 35 or 40 years, slowly making a liberal supreme court that is not the elected, they are picked -- duh -- so basically they are to the point where they can do whatever they want to do to the country and destroy it, and that it's exactly what their goal is to do, destroy this nation. host: ozzie finds the supreme court liberal. last year when the court wrapped up its term, they talked about conservative court, from a conservative angle. are you looking to some of this year's term or do we have to see how thursday turns out? guest: firstly, i want to tell ozzie that the constitution does not have a provision of the rise and destruction of the united states government. it does provide amendments through a very complicated and difficult process. but there is no provision in it

authorizing any kind of uprising or insurrection or rebellion against the united states. in terms of the court's ideological makeup -- each decision, of course, has to be looked at individually and the justices have to, unlike other public officials, they have to explain how they reached their conclusion in his written opinions. here is the arizona opinion. so, we can't paint always with a broad brush. but most observers to the court would say that this is actually the most conservative court we have had in many generations. that is really the result of decades of republican presidents nominating justices to the supreme court. so, like it or does like the or disagree, it would be difficult to say that this court is a liberal court compared to the way the court looked at issues back in the 1950's and 1960's. host: donald tweets in and asked

-- guest: justice scalia cited that to say that the federal government's rationale, that the federal government is choosing to not enforce immigration law as strictly as it could and that it was not because of lack of resources, because it will take resources in order to process all of the young people who are affected by the order. so, he was essentially saying that that is an example of the federal government walking away from its enforcement responsibilities and therefore creating a vacuum that the state should be free to fill in. but why he chose to bring up a very current political issue, i don't know. host: republican caller from gainesville, florida. caller: just one question for you -- a few minutes ago you

said by striking down three provisions that the court struck down, that basically they were in affecting any state law that says that list has to complement federal law. if that is the case, what does it say about states -- or big cities or states that established sanctuary policies, sanctuary cities? question. federal law actually tried to discourage these so-called sanctuary cities. what he means that city's that established policy saying they will not walk right with immigration officials and they are not going to ask immigration status. so, the federal government has saw to discourage that. they want local officials to help them and not interfere with them. but washington cannot commandeer local police forces. in other words, they cannot force a city like los angeles or new york to begin enforcing federal law because both local

officers cannot report directly to washington. what they can do, however, is stop a state or city from enforcing a law that interferes with federal agencies. an's say city passes ordinance that says our police officers will protect illegal immigrants from federal officers, that illegal immigrants can come to the police station and we will concealed them from the u.s. authorities, that kind of organs would probably be in trouble before the supreme court. however, the decision simply to not seek to find out in the crisis that is the people they've run in contact with would probably not be a problem. host: bill tweets in -- let's take a look at how mitt

romney, candidate for president, responded to the supreme court said yesterday. he said today's decisions underscore is the need for a president will lead on this critical issue -- pittsburgh, pennsylvania. barbara, democrats' line. caller: good morning. i have a few comments to me. first of all, i can't understand after all of these years, congress does not come together with an agreement where they can allow the immigrants to be in the united states. they need to set a set date that all who are here already go and file to be citizens of the united states. after that, whoever comes after that would be subject to leave this country. just like you have in the prisons, you have fences up there with the prisoners cannot

get out -- i can't understand why they can't take and of the borders with the fences and the guards that need to be there because also you have to look at not only are you looking at immigrants who are coming over who want jobs, but we also of terrorists who can come across our borders. so you have to check who is coming across the borders. i did not -- the immigrants, just like anybody else who want a good living. when they were talking about the slavery of the blacks -- we did not come here on our own initiative but we are here. they came because they want to have freedom from wherever they are coming from. so, there should be a solution. i don't understand why the democrats and republicans do not get together and do their jobs. all this political arguments and -- like the health care plan -- i don't understand why they just don't come together.

and a tea party is not really republican. they have taken over the republican party. they are taking over the republican party. and the republican party is bending to their wishes and they are taking us backwards toward slavery times. host: we will hear from a couple of members of congress coming up on "washington journal." let us look back jess bravin's story in "the wall street journal" this morning. with this make it to the supreme court? guest: there was a case filed in arizona by the aclu challenging the entire statute or most of the statute, including this provision during but i think the supreme court

opinion has a prescriptive quality as well. arizona officials -- the judges, city attorneys and so forth who have to enforce their state law and remaining provision, they can read the supreme court opinion and could see the regarding interpretation. p so, the arizona law says that reasonable effort to check immigration status but it does not define what reasonable is. the supreme court indicated what reasonable is, and that means not holding someone solely to check the immigration status. the court gave examples. if a cop stops someone for jaywalking and has reason to check immigration status, they cannot hold them for another couple of hours if they would not hold them anyway for jaywalking. no one would be held in jail for jaywalking. so in that instance, it would not be reasonable the court suggested to hold someone. but for drunk driving -- they would spend the night in the drunk tank anyway while they

are in custody, and it would be reasonable for local police to check the immigration status. the court gave guidelines to arizona, and arizona follows them as that lays out, what are the statutes that would stay in place. but of arizona and turpin said in a way the court feels is accepted, and then it could run into trouble. host: oklahoma. bill, republican caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. could you explain to the american people the immigration policy and the relationship with police officers versus -- i was a police officer in california and i made lots of stops, pedestrians and traffic, and in the course of the interview you ask for a driver's license. they give you a legal one, illinois legal one, false identification. the first thing you have to determine is who they are before asking why they stopped them.

in the past, once we determined they were an illegal immigrant, in the course of time to figure out who they were, we were not able to act on that. all we were able to do was give them a ticket or big release them. we did not hold them for ins. >> live now to the u.s. house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 26, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker

pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate, that the senate passed senate 3240.

with best wishes, i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m.

reminiscing to my first visit to the state department and i talk about mark schneider and argentina and i get these slightly dazed looks and it occurred to me that everybody wasn't doing actively involved in human rights advocacy in 1978 or 1972. we do a lot of reporting in our

bureau and a lot of research and i did a lot of research and i did the forensic investigation, yielded the fact that 65% of our bureau was not born in 1977. [laughter] >> so this day is dedicated to the generation that is d.r.l. generation. people who were born and raised in the world from 1977 until today and the generation both in government and outside who are the next leaders, advocates for human rights. i know we have a terrific group of people here. we are delighted you are here so sit back, enjoy and have fun. one final thank you, a big thank you to tory, our fabulous spokesperson in the department. she called me yesterday morning from istanbul. she was traveling with the secretary. a typical relaxed secretary clinton affair, eight countries

in eight days and she said, is this tomorrow? [laughter] >> so we are delighted and you are a hero, you're a trooper. welcome, everyone. [applause] >> well, thank you, mike, thank you, panel. we have the honor to kick this off with d.r.l., the early years, 1977 to 1988. just a quick personal note, i am very proud to be a foreign service officer in one of the first generations of human rights integral to u.s. foreign policy and all of these folks are heroes to my generation and mentors of a lifetime so let me just quickly introduce them to you. in order here, mark schneider who was first principal deputy secretary in d.r.l. in 19777 and

1979 and he is now vice president of the international crisis group. awful these general, -- all of these gentlemen, it's a bipartisan panel here, which is something we are very proud of. next to mark is elliott abrams who was ronald reagan's assistant -- assistant secretary for d.r.l., 1971 to 1975. he is now at the council on foreign relations as middle east scholar and also a lifetime human rightser. next to him we are proud to have congressman jim mcgovern who in 1979 was the lead investigator on the motion to reconsiderly commission investigating the murders in el salvador and since 1996 has proudly represented the people of the third district of massachusetts. he's also minority house rules committee whip and co-chair of the tom lantos human rights commission. and finally, a mentor to a whole

generation of foreign service officers, tex harris, who spent 35 years in the foreign service and was one of the probably the first human rights descenter in the foreign service and he will talk to you a little bit about his adventures in chile in the 1970's. argentina. geez. i'm messing it up before we start. so as you know d.r.l. was a bureau in the state department that was born of controversy. it was -- i think it's fair to say forced upon us by a bipartisan congressional group, right and left, who felt that this building was not understanding the important goal that human rights need to play in the u.s. strategic approach to the world and to -- i'd like

to call on mark and also on tex to talk a little bit about what it was like both on the department side and in -- on the field side, when the bureau was first created. first getting it up and running, what some of those challenges were, mark, and then -- and also making it integral to the way our embassies run and the way foreign service officers and people in the field do their job. mark, why don't you kick us off and then we'll go to tex. >> thank you for putting this together. it does make you feel old, however. we are not celebrating the 35th anniversary of d.r.l. we're really celebrating the 35th anniversary of the establishment of the first formal human rights policy as part of the foreign policy and

it was a major shift in the way people thought about foreign policy and you're absolutely right that it was the first time that there needed to be a greater public focus on human rights in terms of u.s. national security, in terms of u.s. national interest, in terms of u.s. national values. i think it's important to understand where it came from. my argument was president carter made it the legacy of his administration that in fact the human rights was waiting there. it was already there. it was waiting for someone to champion it within the executive branch. in terms of country just gone through vietnam, the aftermath of the civil rights movement, there was a sense there needed to be fundamental changes in understanding basic rights within this country and at the same time those values needed to be reflected in our foreign policy.

and you have a bipartisan group in the congress, in the senate and house. remember, the first legislation that demanded that there be a focus on taking action with respect to our assistance, where countries were in gross violations of human rights was the harkin amendment and the amendments put together by don frazier and whose staff is here in 1974. amendments to the foreign assistance act. there were kennedy amendments to cut off assistance to chile. stopping torture in brazil. the efforts to recognize torture in the greek hunt junta. whoever was going to be president, starting in january, 1977, was going to have to take account of this movement to recognize human rights as a far greater factor. and elliott, with scoop jackson, in the effort to force the

soviet union to have more soviet jews to be released. those were actions taken on the hill. and then when we came to state i thought on the hill, having worked with committee chairs on issues of jurisdiction that i knew what turf fighting meant. [laughter] >> i was a babe in the bureaucratic world when i came to the state department. in dealing with a variety of very smart, competent, very abled assistant secretaries there was a degree of tugging and pulling that took place. remember at that time the assistant secretary for east asia was one we all loved, dick. you had george at e.u.r. i was looking earlier, you had terry toddman in latin america bureau. there were not always of the same view as to the balance

between national security concerns and the cold war era. we didn't see eye to eye on many things, but he taught me a great deal about how we think about these issues. and then what we did in order to -- in order to agree within the state department, warren christopher was given a charge to do something about what seemed to be constant disagreement between that little bureau over there, which was the bureau of human rights and humanitarian affairs, the president of d.r.l., and the rest of the department. and so you had kris create the christopher committee, human rights and foreign assistance. and that was the mechanism to force consideration of these

differences of view and bring about some policy -- we were criticized, as some of you may remember, for select tift, for inconsistency. the effort was to see that in every instance to the degree possible, recognizing there are other interests that were also important. and to some degree that was the object -- we basically believe and someone was here, tom, to pursue that effort and we did it in a variety of ways. we did what we could. and all i could say is the people i worked with and i think it's important for us to remember the role that pat

played in the first face and heart of the human rights policy within the department was enormously valuable and had a tremendous impact and to some degree we have others here, roberta cohen and steve cohen and others from that era who attempted to ensure that the human rights reports were more honest and to reflect the human rights concerns and i think to some degree we were successful and the evidence of it is the 35th anniversary here today. >> thank you, mark. so, tex -- [applause] -- so, tex, you were one of the first f.s.o.'s in the field to really confront that policy tension between our relations with the government and what was

happening inside the country and as a young f.s.o. to -- >> and sin. >> excellent. excellent. see what human rights will do to you. -- to stand up and say we have to speak out about it. i'd like you to tell a little bit about the argentina story and what it meant at the time. >> we've come a long way, baby. this is not a reunion. this is the step forward. thank you, mike, thank you, team, for putting this together. argentine military junta decided that in order to save argentine awe and western civilization in confronting communist terrorism that they had not only to kill the terrorist but with a medical analogy with cancer, they had to cut out the surrounding tissue

of subversion, not guys with guns or grenades, but people with bad thoughts and they sent off killing at least 13,000 but probably closer to 320,000 of their own countrymen. they captured them. they tore turd them and they killed them. this happened at the same time the carter administration came into power with a commitment which dick holbrooke told me he invented or convinced carter to adopt. >> one of about 40 things. >> and they told me it's true so i checked it. i checked the source. . they agonted a change in foreign policy from the nixon, ford, kissinger anti-communism to a new policy in which the united states would stand up on behalf of abused citizens in another

countries. if you as a foreign government abused your own citizens, you -- your relationship with the united states would be severely affected. and that's what human rights is. what it changed from the enormous debates and wars that mark and pat were fighting in 1977, to seeing last night the secretary of state standing up tall in ankara and really excoriating the syrians for their horrible, horrible actions in shelling and murdering their own people. that's human rights. >> you are a young man, you are working in the political realm, you have this backdrop that we are supposed to care about this stuff. what happens, and what do you do about it? >> it's magic. they offered me the job. it was not my job. my job was not nuclear nonproliferation because in those days brazil and argentina were moving to get the nuclear

atomic weapons. i was the guy in the embassy working on that issue. they asked me to change jobs and take on this new thing. i said i would do it on one condition that the embassy which is hermetically sealed would be end up and they would allow people to come into the embassy. i saw my role as a foreign service officer as being kind of a soccer mid fielder. the defensemen, the goalkeepers were the family members, the brothers, sisters, the fathers, the mothers of the disappeared. they came into the embassy and they gave to me and to my local assistant the information -- that was before my computers. my god f. we had computers we would have been dangerous. we had five by eight cards and we would write down all the information and in the evening we would constituent there and segui, my gosh, what happened today? we -- and say gee, my gosh, what happened today? we would try to piece it together. we saw patterns in which

liberation, theology christian groups from a church, catholic church working in the suburbs, 19 kids and their spanish priest were, as the argentine said, sucked up, disappeared, killed because they were identified as being subversives. and we were the mid fielders, we took the information from the families, came to us, we organized in the embassy and we passed it on to mark schneider and pat darian and terry toddman and warren christopher and they made the decisions. >> you make it sound easy that you just passed it on. but what we know is that your ambassador was not welcoming of this work and in fact you had to back channel it. give us a minute or two on that. >> i did everything -- i sent pat and mark, many cassettes, and other things to get the information out. i did memorandum conversations,

and they discovered that warren christopher had seen a stack of my conversations, i could no longer send those in. it was very tough. because the am boss door was not against human rights but -- ambassador was not against hueman rights but wanted to control american foreign policy in the region. when i came into the bureau, the executive director who chose me, had been a person who had negotiated with me on the other side of the table and he told a selection group, i am told, he said i want harris for buenos aris because he will keep them honest. it turned out to be prophetic. sadly. but the ambassador lost control not because of policy. i didn't do anything with polcy. that was mark's job. what i did as a mid fielder is i sent the stories of the horrors of argentina forward. and that was a job of the foreign service. was to tell the department of state honestly, factually what

was going on. and when the ambassador saw that those facts were changing the decisionmaking process in washington, he decided, logically, one way to solve that problem was to stop the flow of information. and so i ran around and ran around and whatever the worst case, and this is really -- this is going to take a minute, but a critical story, they -- i sent an information and formal letter and i gave a copy to the ambassador. i sent one to darian and one to toddman, they took it out of the pouch because this was a -- information that the embassy had not provided to the united states government that accompanied a $350 million loan guarantee was the wholly owned subsidiary of the navy which was killing people every day in the -- and this loan was stopped by mark schneider and by pat darian.

and it caused an uproar because american business saw that they were losing jobs. they were losing business because of the carter human rights policy. a year later because the navy, admirals had seen themselves being rich guys having this turbine factory under their control, and they saw that as their retirement nest egg. they were refusing to stop the killing. they were hige trying to get the human rights commission to come to arbegin tina, just like the mother in-law comes to the house, you clean behind the couch. we thought if we could get those guys to come they would stop killing and that happened because mondale and vidilla made had a deal to invite the human rights commission to arbegin tina and the -- argentina and

the killing stopped. so it was sarne dip at this but it happened. >> individuals matter. witness matters. washington support matters. elliott, so reagan enters office with chorge shultz and everybody who thought this was -- george shultz and everybody thought who -- who thought it was nutty, thought, the empire's back. this is all over. the la fever thing, all of that. turned out not to be the case. turned out that ronald reagan and george shultz cared just as much about human rights. can you talk about that? >> start by saying you're right. there were a lot of people who thought that. the president didn't think that, you but there were a lot of people who thought that. i started the i.o. bure reason moved over to the human rights

bureau which was, i think you'll agree, physically a dump. as you-all know, as you-all know, if you think that there is a long-term permanent war, rivalry between india and pakistan or greece and turkey, try human rights bureau and the regional bureau. this is a permanent conflict. i actually invited secretary shultz to come to my office and he was astonished because, the regional bureaus were, as they are now, pretty nice. and he then ordered that the human rights bureau be gussied up because he wanted it to be -- to look better. just to give you the mood of the department, i got a call very soon after becoming assistant secretary from the office of tibet, they would like to come over and talk to me. i said, sure. this was not permitted.

the east asia bureau went nuts. they were not permitted in the building. i had to meet the people from the office of tibet in a hotel lobby for a couple of years until finally they were permitted in the building, although, chris, one of the things the human rights bureau did we would meet with the people the regional bureau wouldn't meet with, from heartin american countries, tibet, and other places. but what the president did appreciate this. and so did secretary shultz. it was painful for him at times. chile's a good example. most of the people who were in charge of economic policy, the so-called chicago boys, he had trained at the university of chicago. and they were doing a terrific job with the economy. now, when i would go to him and say they closed down another newspaper yesterday and we have to denounce it, he would shake his head and he would denounce

it. >> do the buddha, show what it looked like. >> can't do that. >> it looked like this -- >> remember, that the last previous republican view of human rights, as i guess, it was secretary kissinger in the ford administration. and secretary kiss i canner -- kissinger, whom i admire, has never really understood human rights policy. to this day. and that was the last example. so we had to create a new policy and basically the argument we made was, anti-communism is not enough. it has to be there. these are the days of the height of the cold war. but it is not enough. one of the things that reagan could add and did add was in the

arbegin tine-argentine or chile or central american cases, was being able to argue you -- to these dictators, you are not the bastion against communism. you are going to lead to a communist revolution if you don't stop the human rights abuses and move toward democratcy. that became particularly important in the case of chile where pinochet didn't want to let go and we finally forced him into holding a referendum which he thought he would win and which he lost. so these were interesting times. i just one other example of the ways in which things change. in those days, now talking about the 1970's and 1980's, the o.a.s. was a dictator, you couldn't get anything on human rights through o.a.s. because it was a mutual protection society for dictators. that changed with the human

rights charter that was adopted in the 1990's. but i think it's hard sometimes for people coming into the foreign service now to think back to a time when it was actually argued under the wes failian model that no country had any business criticizing the infernal -- internal affairs of another country and that argument was made whether it was arbegin tina or the soviet union was made as a serious argument and was accepted by a fair number of people in the state department at the time. >> i think it's fair to say that there are places and policies on which we still struggle with that. congressman mcgovern, you started your career staffing in the congress, obviously elected now, but as we said at the

beginning the creation of the first human rights bureau was very much pushed on us by the congress which reflects the fact that in fact there was people power at work not only on the streets of chile and arbegin tina and -- argentina and other parts of the world but also the united states, that the american people actually care about human rights and that's why it is now in our foreign polcy. can you talk about those early years and the commission and the role it played? >> thank you very much. i'm really honored to be here with this panel. i'm thrilled that you are holding this day to celebrate the incredible work at d.r.l. i want to clear something up in the beginning. i walked in here about a half dozen people came up to me and said i have been a long time supporter of your father's. and i probably should tell you that my father isn't george mcgovern it's walter mcgovern who owns a liquor store in worcester, massachusetts.

and if you meant walter, please keep supporting him. i also want to say that on occasion congress does some things right. and kind of the insistence that human rights be a major part of our foreign policy is the insistence that we create an office and then a bureau is something to be commended. and mark mentioned there were a lot of people involved in it. john who worked for don frazier is here. played an integral role. frazier held 150 hearings on human rights. a lot of the n.g.o.'s here. they were very important in pushing this. but i think members of congress realized this was important in part because they had constituents that visited some of these countries, that had

relatives in some these countries, that had great human rights abuses, they became parts of church groups and sanctuary groups and sister city groups. and they saw firsthand some terrible things going on and they wanted to know why our government wasn't saying more about it and why that wasn't a major component of our important followcy. and so i -- polcy. and so i think congress pushed and in this case they pushed constructively. i would say over the years congress continues to push. i think anybody who headed up this bureau knows that you never -- you never are given credit for doing a perfect job. it's always why aren't you doing more? why aren't you looking at this country or criticizing this government or why aren't you suspending military here? why aren't you suspending economic or loan assistance here? this is -- this office continues

to, i think, benefit from congressional pressure. and i think it's been incredibly important. i think our foreign policy has transformed over the years to a plcy that reflects more the importance of human -- to a policy that reflects more of the importance of human rights. i wanted to reflect even more human rights than it does now. that's not a criticism. it's just i believe we can do better on this. if the united states stands for anything we ought to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. this ought to be our priority. in any event i'm thrilled to be here. thank you. [applause] >> we have about 10 or 12 minutes before the secretary comes and we pause for her remarks. i wanted to sort of throw out a general question to the panel and get your perspective. we sort of started this part of the conversation with the comment elliott made about how

rare it was in this building before the 1970's and 1980's to have that conversation about whether the internal affairs of a country mattered to us or whether our relationship was purely geostrategic. and the compact, if you will, between the american people and the people of the countries that we deal with around the world. so let me throw to the panel the general question of how much does the nature of a government matter? and the nature of the way it treats its people and the compact it has with its own matter to u.s. foreign policy? matter to the relationship that we should as a state have with that country, and to the american people -- do the american people really care about this? who wants to kick off. >> i'll start. i think the american people do really care. and i think that the reality is, is that the traditional argument

of national sovereignty changed after world war ii come into being of the united nations and the adoption of the international covenants and civil, political rights. there was an agreement that countries did not have and responsibility to protect the right to do whatever they wanted to their citizens. there were other international new orleans -- norms that had to be respected. the other part of it internally is that u.s. interests are not advanced by closing your eyes to those violations. and i was thinking about before that will when i saw jung under house arrest in korea in 1978 and made it clear the united states government was concerned, even though we had a major strategic relationship with korea, that the way which they treated their citizens was important to us. that later when he became

president and invited me, it made a difference. when chillians who had been political prisoners came to washington and met with us in the bureau and later they became ministers of government under lagos, it makes a difference. our ability to see now that the victims of human rights abuse are people we should identify with. advances not only our own values but our national interest as well. >> elliott? >> things coming up from the american people. sudan is a good example of that. actually the american people, particularly churches, were paying more attention to human rights abuses to sudan than the u.s. government for several years. it's still the case. if you look at church or synagogue websites, you will often see what's going on. well, there is a reading group, here's when the services are, and then there is the sudan action group. all across the country.

so the notion that people are indifferent i think is not borne out. the opposite side of mark's good examples, if you look at public opinion polls in europe, attitudes for the united states, the place where the attitudes are the worst, is greece. one of the reasons for that i would argue is because we supported the dictatorship, military dictatorship that took over in greece. we did not object to it. it was quite clear we didn't give a damn. and to this day that has affected the greek perception of the united states. and it's decades later. >> congressman? >> i would just say that i think one of the tensions that continues to exist is this whole issue of -- we have a country that commits terrible human rights abuses but yet it's an important economic ally or important strategic ally, what do you do?

and sometimes it leads to an inconsistency that quite frankly is troublesome and i think undermines our credibility on the issue of human rights. i think human rights is not only a moral issue but national security issue. elliott mentioned an issue of attitudes in greece. i think when we are on the wrong side of human rights, it ultimately catches up to us. whether it's in the short-term, medium-term, or long-term. the struggle that goes on that we continue to have with every administration -- as with every administration, how you apply the standard of human rights. should we -- we have different agencies in our government that ustr cares only about trade, maybe disagree with that. we had a recent debate on colombia free-throw. it was all about the economics, economics -- free trade. it was all about economics, economics, economics, it was hard to get the human rights part of it on the table which i

regret. whether we should sell arms to bahrain given the fact that bahrain has not been treating their people well. i think we shouldn't. i also understand some people think there is a strategic military advantage to doing that. so the policy goes forward. again, there's always this struggle about what we should do. where our policy should be. it's not enough, i don't think, to say there are human rights abuses of a particular country. i think when people abuse the human rights of their citizens, there ought to be a consequence, they ought to be held accountable, and we ought to be consistent on that because when we are not we lose some of our credibility. >> i want to talk about triggers for u.s. response to human rights beyond bahrain. first is the relationship between communities. argentina was triggered because of the disporea of russian jews from eastern europe, the jews

went to canada, united states, and argentina, which you are standing on the docks in germany boarding a ship, all those destinations look like good futures at that time. so when your nephew is kidnapped, murdered in argentina , that becomes an issue in the jewish community in the united states. second, n.g.o.'s. the n.g.o.'s capture the information, which i provide and others provided, and they amplify that and they transsubmit that. the -- transmit that. the media, the media came to argentina and they saw a story, and because in international story because they were not only american jewish relatives being killed there, there were french nuns, swedish social workers, british social workers, so it became a question of the murder of your national citizens if you

were in western europe or if you were in the united states. and the pictures and images were indefensible at that time. the next is the congress. you need leadership in the congress among the staff and among the members and in those days that was really very instrumental. but it was the amalgam of having the abuse and then having these institutions which work in the body politic of this country, the community relationships, the n.g.o.'s, the press, and the congress all these things coming together make human rights polcy. >> i think one of the things listening to you talk a little bit about the tools and appropriate role of u.s. government, media, n.g.o.'s there is this tension. how much of a role should we play? how much of a nag should we be?

how much aid should we withhold? what are the most effective levers? and that conversation has changed then and adapted and grown 1970's, 1980's, and today, would any of you like to speak about what you think the most effective mix of pressures, inducements, encouragements might be and what you're most proud of and what you think has been the biggest failure that you have seen as you tried to find this mix? >> i'll start. first i don't think that there is a single appropriate, this first, this second. i think you have to have -- this is one thing i think should be done. you have to have a strategy where the state department and interagency comes together and says, this is the current situation in a given country, the human rights are being abused, these are the tools that we have available, which is

going to be the most effective? whether it's diplomat communication, whether it's telling them that we are going to halt grant military assistance, f.m.f., imet, unless there is something changes that we can't maintain a military relationship with a government that's using those tools to torture or to abuse its citizens. we have to look at range of issues publicly and privately. symbolic acts. it's important when a secretary travels and meets the community, people know that, extremely important. it's very important when the ambassador goes out and goes to events that reflect human rights. obviously the assistance relationship. in the end i have always believed that it's not the question of the dollar amount of assistance, it's the question of the relationship. use different mechanisms to

demonstrate to a government that the relationship with the united states is going to change for the worst if they don't change their attitude with respect to the way they treat their citizens. do it both bilaterally and multilaterally. you use the tools available at the human rights council, at the human rights commission. you use the tools available. >> can you talk a little bit about -- sometimes the instrument has been too blunt, too hard if you cut off everything they stop listening, they don't have a reason to engage with you. how do you find that mix of encouragement and pressure? >> well, i agree with mark. there is no formula that applies in each case partly because we have a different relationship. some countries are dependent on us for legitimateation or foreign aid, others are completely independent of us so are you going to have less

clout. it seems to me the most important single thing is not -- i agree with mark it's not the dollar amount. it's the message. first is the message coming from the top? it's very nice for the -- with all due respect to mike and all of us, for the assistant secretary for human rights to say you have a human rights problem, but it's very different when the president says it or secretary of state says it. that's a bigger deal. >> elliott, looks like we have our guest of honor. [applause]

>> well, i'm proud to introduce my boss who needs no introduction but who ever day gives me the strength and support i need to do my job. hillary rodham clinton. [applause] >> good morning. told mike as i walked in, this is a standing room only crowd here. i love that. welcome. it is a real pleasure to have you here for this occasion. i want to thank all of our special guests, including congressman jim mcgovern, who has been such a champion on behalf of human rights and the role that the congress should play and the tom lantos human rights commission. congress' support for this bureau goes back to its very creation. i also want to thank the four former assistant secretaries that you see before you. elliott abrams and -- i guess

they are not here yet. some are coming. richard, harold, lauren and also tex harris, mark schneider, just a real star-studded cast, and my great major league, ambassador newland. and there is one other who i want to mention. that's former assistant secretary pat darrian who did so much to shape this bureau from its infancy. she couldn't be with us today but she sent a note that read, pronounced dead at birth. it was wonderful to see we have not merely endured but more than occasionally have prevailed. that's to all of you -- best to all of you, i only wish i could be there. we do, too. it is amazing to think how far d.r.l. has come in 35 years. it did have a rocky childhood. plenty of critics at post and in this building who thought you had no business pestering

anybody about human rights. that would only get in the way of real diplomacy. even getting an office on the seventh floor caused howls of protest. but no one questioned the value of d.r.l.'s contributions anymore. there can still be healthy tension which i always think is good and helps create the environment for better decisionmaking. but the story of this bureau is the story of leaders and people who really believed in the mission. it is also the story of a way of thinking that has become absolutely fundamental to furthering america's values, interests, and security. and the way that we conduct our foreign policy today. d.r.l. works hand in glove with colleagues around the building and around the world. and it also helps us think more

thoughtfully about how we are going to respond to the extraordinary range of changes and challenges that we face in the world today. i want to thank my -- mike publicly for being such a great leader during such a challenging time. [applause] it has been just for me a joy working with mike, whether we are trying to nurture reform in a country like burma or support the democratic transitions in the middle east and north africa, or defending lgbt rights or empowering workers or expanding internet freedom everywhere, mike's creativity and savvy have been absolutely essential. so we put more effort, more people, more money into the work

of defending and promoting human rights than any country ever has . and that investment is not only the right thing to do but as we like to say around the state department, the smart thing as well. for one it makes us stronger leaders because when we stand up for universal principles, it establishes our moral leadership. it's true that our wealth and our military might remain defining features of our power, but those things carry more weight because of who we are and what we stand for. when we celebrate an emerging democracy or criticize a repressive government, words do matter. and when activists are harassed by their own governments, they turn to us for help. and i don't have to tell any of you what kinds of complications that can occasionally cause. but that's who we are and that's who we want to be. and we should never forget how

much it means to the world when we stand up not only for our rights but universal rights. this work not only makes us stronger, i would argue it does make us more secure. as president obama's national security strategy recognizes a world that is more democratic is a world with fewer adversaries and more partners. creating this world is not easy. and it's not always clear how we get there and, yes, there are the inevitable tradeoffs. by necessity always will be. but the mission remains the same and it's what brings our d.r.l. team to work every morning. now, i have heard that some people say that makes them, quote, idealists and it's rarely meant as a compliment. the narrative, the counter narrative seems to go, this is a

complex world, we have to deal with all kinds of people who don't share our values, yes, we do. and we will. we must. there is no doubt about that. but we will come from a stronger position knowing that governments that don't respect their own people's aspirations not only may in today's world not endure, but cannot be the kind of reliable, long-term partners that we and the rest of the world so need. and they make the world less stable, not more. you know our interests are best served when people live in societies that treat women equally and stop gender-based violence, protect the rights -- i think that deserves a round of applause. [applause] protects the rights of religious and racial and tribal and ethnic

and every other kind of minority, and respect the dignity of every individual. to me that is hardly an idealistic, soft world view. i think it is tough, realistic, and essential in advancing america's interests in the 21st century. so i am very grateful for the work of everyone who is serving and has served in this bureau. i'm deeply proud of it. oh to be 35 again. and with the hope that as you move through the next 35 years you stay as vigorous and robust and committed as you have been for the first 35 years. ths a well deserved -- this is a well deserved celebration and one that this administration and this department is very proud to join in. and we wish everyone here the

very best as you continue this essential work. and to the activists and advocates and the reformers and the protesters and the demonstrators, well, we want you to realize the aspirations that do represent the universal human rights of every man and woman and the united states will continue to be your partner. thank you all very much. [applause] >> well, if you didn't know it before, now you know why it is not human rights abuse tour for hillary rodham clinton. and she is off to deal with one

of the biggest humanitarian crises weff on the planet right now. she's going to see joint special envoy kofi annan to talk about syria. elliott, let's pick up where we were both on the question of tools, pressure, and also anything you have to say in reaction to what she said. >> almost everything we do is symbolic in the sense that there are cases like south africa or iran where the sanctions really damage the economy and are meant to really damage the economy as much as we can. very rarely the case. it's more usual you are doing something symbolic. here's an example. when the bush administration refused to enter into negotiations over a free trade agreement with egypt because they put iman in jail for the

run against mubarak. i don't think he wanted free trade. it was a symbol. the messaging is important. i think it has to come from the president and secretary or there are mixed messages. one we have a great problem with and i'm confident without asking that mark did and i'm confident without asking that you have today is the interagency problem. i noted, for example -- you-all know there has been a regression in human rights in the last couple years in vietnam. and we have said so. you have said so. the department of state has said so. human rights report is very clear on this. i ask myself the question a couple days ago. there's secretary panetta in vietnam, is he talking about human rights? i don't know the answer. i think i know the answer, but i don't really know the answer. that's always the problem. even if you get the secretary of state to say what you want her or him to say, and then the secretary of defense doesn't say

it, or if you get your ambassador to say in country x, look, this is very important, but your station chief is saying, don't worry about it. or a visiting general from whatever it is, is not touching the subject. it's mixed messaging. so i think what's critical is how do these human rights abuses affect the relationship of the united states? and you'll get that mostly in what the president and the secretaries say and what other critically important officials say so that the whole relationship is affected in this way. and it may sound like this is not important, sanctions are important, but this is not important. not true. look at the russian reaction to the bill on the hill. that bill is not going to bring down the russian government. the putin government. but they are really, really

concerned about it. they are concerned about it because it is a statement by the congress of the united states that what is happening is unacceptable and despicable. and that really matters to them. it matters to people all over the world when the congress of the united states or the executive branch makes that kind of statement. >> that's a good segue to asking congressman mcgovern about two things. first of all, the tension within the congress because just as you have to have unity in the interagency, there are sometimes divisions within the congress as to whether -- how high on the agenda the issues should be and whether they are national security issues. it's that guy mcgovern, he's a human rights which is different than the guy who appropriates my foreign military funding. to speak a little bit about that. but also to speak a little bit about when the congress feels the need to actually apply the tools over the objections of the administration and whether that makes us stronger or whether we

look divided overseas. >> first of all let me say i'm really proud that hillary rodham clinton is our secretary of state. and some of the statements that she's made, specifically with regard to lgbt rights, as reverberated around the world. and this incredibly profound way. i think it is important. people at the top talk about human rights and are explicit about human rights. one of the challenges -- you question -- your question originally was what is the most effective tools to deal with human rights abusers. that's not always the question that congress or the administration deals with. it depends on which country we are talking about. that's where some of us who are human rights advocates get very frustrated because sometimes the issue s. how are we going to get a trade agreement or how do we