according to a nasa study, it takes 10 days for the air from the middle of the gobi desert in central china to get to the eastern shore of my beloved virginia. the air is coming back over here. so what we need to be doing is we need to be looking for things that resolve this issue of the pollutions and so forth on a global basis and we don't need to be killing jobs in the united states of america while we look for those solutions. we need to make sure we're encouraging those jobs? the -- those jobs in the united states of america. mr. kinzinger: wouldn't it be nice to have conversations like that all the time. people believe that coal is bad. i disagree. they believe it. and i'm sure my friend from virginia would love to debate them. i remember hearing rhetoric about our parties supporting black lungs and that rhetoric at's meant to fuel

instability, anger and division. that's what is disappointing to me. mr. speaker, as i look to the president to lead this country, i want to look at a man who, of his past and who he is, a very dynamic person. came from very tough circumstances to become president of the united states. i wish he would say, you know what? my job is to lead this conversation about jobs and the economy. my job is to lead this conversation, look, we tried stimulus spending. i really thought it would work, but it didn't. some republicans, why don't you come to the white house? why don't you have a conversation with me? i haven't been invited for years. maybe we aren't going to find any agreement, but at least we can respect each other's opinions and say what do we need to do to get our economy back on track. why is it 7% of our neighbors don't have jobs, many of them

are underemployed in jobs they don't want. why is that? what can we do to come together? mr. gardner: what we have been able to do for jobs, i know the gentlelady from alabama is leading -- interesting if you are engaging in this conversation around the country, wherever you are over the next several days, weeks and months as we talk about the economy and beyond then, sending a tweet forjobs. # but you talked about what we can do and the gentleman from virginia knows it is about energy. we talked about a manufacturing renaissance and articles in the papers about businesses located in germany but looking to relocate in the united states. they said the cost in india is four times what they were paying here. traveling to my district,

eastern plains, western slope, the energy we can create there that is allowing this to happen, whether it's coal or natural gas or renewable energy, we have incredible opportunities to create these kinds of jobs that we know will put food on people's plates that will allow people to go on vacation, to afford gas to put in the car, to find a better way. these are the kinds of jobs that we can continue to foster. but we have to have a president that doesn't pivot to jobs once in a while but is getting the regulatory mess out of the way and provides certainty. talked to a restaurant owner and he owns three different bagel shops and he is going to have to sell one of them, because he doesn't know how to comply with the new health care plan. that's not the certainty we are looking for. don't stop what's going good,

the manufacturing renaissance, energy development and opportunity and let's fix what's going on wrong. mrs. roby: i want to share a few numbers with you, since the president took office, the unemployment rate has remained at 14%, that is workers stuck in part-time jobs or dropped out of the work force all together. and during that same time we have watched, as i mentioned earlier, the national debt go .8 trillion. and so the president also promised one million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016. but factory employment has continued to fall. 4.3 million americans have been out of work for six weeks or more. and 4.3 million americans have

been out of work for six weeks or more. the point is we started about talking about the "washington post" article where the president came out and said he is going to pivot back to jobs and the economy. to the gentleman from colorado's point. should have never left the issue of jobs and the economy. and here in the house, our majority has been working tirelessly as the gentleman from illinois said to say look, we have these commonsense solutions. this is about my kids and yours and about the future of this country and we have an opportunity as leaders here in washington representing all of the people that we do back home and a responsibility to do all that we can to get the federal government out of the way so that people like your constituents back home in colorado with the bagel stores, can open another bagel store instead of having to worry about

closing. mr. gardner: let me add to that. mr. kinzinger: the president can talk about the rains act, some of those things. i make a promise here today, if the president comes to the republicans and says, give me some ideas and we give him ideas and he takes them, i will not go out and say that is a victory for republicans. let's get the partisanship out of this and say it's not to be republicans or democrats, but americans. mr. speaker, i would say that the president has made in his mind a valiant attempt to save the economy and unfortunately, it hasn't worked. so come to us. let us give you some ideas and if you adopt our ideas, i, i personally promise that i will not go out and say the republican party rolled the president or the democrats. i will say america just won because we worked together to get some big things done.

mr. gardner: that's what this country needs. i'm working in a bipartisan fashion with a democrat from democrat from vermont on an energy efficiency measure. the president talked about performance crabts to create jobs and lower the amount of energy consumed by the united states government, the largest consumer of energy. we do it without government mandates or subsidies but doing something that is going to create private sector jobs and save dollars and use less energy. and the president is doing this and we are doing it here. these are the kinds of opportunity to work together here that are creating jobs and they are not to bow down to a certain element of an agenda but moving the country forward. mr. griffith: if we use our use our sources, if we energy resources, i am convinced that the united states of

america can remain the number one economic nation in the world well into the next century, recognizing we just started this one, but we have to make sure that washington doesn't get in the way and completely stop that economic engine. mrs. roby: i just want to thank all of my colleagues, mr. speaker, for joining us to talk about these important issues and l rom about pivotting back to jobs and the economy. we in the house remain focused for jobs and the economy for all american families but also pivotting and remaining focused on an all of the above energy approach and repealing obamacare and make those decisions about what's best for me, a fairer, simpler tax code that we know will help all americans. we've got to ease burdens in regulations so that businesses can create more jobs instead of having to worry about the once they are going to lose.

this is about making life work for america answer and easing the pain because of the bloated government that refuses to admit that we have a spending problem. this is about refocusing our efforts here in the house and making sure we are remembering the people that sent us here, the families that we have talked about tonight that we want to ensure that government is not hurting, but government is getting out of the way so they can thrive in these united states of america. with that, mr. speaker, we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. jeffries: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials into the record on the

subject of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jeffries: it's my honor and privilege once again to anchor this c.b.c. special order, where for the next 60 minutes, the members of the congressional black caucus will have the opportunity to speak directly to the american people on the important issue of race in america, where do we go from here. the events of the last several weeks have startled many throughout this country, most recently, the verdict down in florida where mr. zimmerman was acquitted in a result that shocked many all across this country, a verdict that was viewed by many as unjust. few weeks prior to that, the

supreme court struck down an important provision of the voting rights act, an act that had been the most effective piece of civil rights legislation in this country, which has helped to bring our democracy to life and designed to make sure that all americans, regardless of race, have an opportunity to participate in our democracy in a meaningful way. the debate over the farm bill has left many people troubled by the fact that the snap program in an unprecedented fashion was left out. and if we don't come to an agreement here, our failure to step up and help those who are hungry will disproportionately have an impact on many in the african-american community. these are just some of the

recent events that have come together to put is in a position whereas the president recently indicated, it's time for us to have a meaningful conversation a direct conversation, a forthright conversation, an honest conversation. and that's why the members of the congressional black caucus are here today. we have made tremendous progress in america. we have come a long way in this great country, but we certainly still have a ways to go. the road to equality is still under construction. and we are here to try and lay out a road map for how we can get closer to a more perfect union here in america. i'm pleased today that we have been joined by the chairwoman of the congressional black caucus, the distinguished gentlelady

from ohio who has been such a tremendous, eloquent, forceful leader in her position as chair of the c.b.c. and i now yield to her such time as she may consume. ms. fudge: i thank you so much. and i want to thank you, congressman jeffries, for leading the congressional black caucus special order on this very important topic tonight, a topic that has once again captured national attention and sparked a dialogue in communities across this nation. on friday, president obama helped provide context to the emotion african-americans and particularly african-american men have had around the tragedy of trayvon martin. over the weekend people of all ages and races gathered at government buildings to stand together to rise up for justice and in honor of trayvon. to many, the verdict we all

heard on saturday july 13, was a miscaurge of justice. a consistent failure of our system that we have seen occur in this country one too many times. but tonight, i want to broaden this conversation on race and justice in america. i want to talk about how the emotion and discontent we are seeing from the african-american community and people of other races in this country is about much more than the zimmerman verdict. many of the emotion we are eing is in response to the continual attack on the rights and closing of doors to opportunity for millions of individuals in this country. i'm not just talking about african-americans tonight, but people who come from poor families, who are trying to find their way out of a cycle of poverty. i'm talking about students who are doing all they can to pay for school, but who have to choose between being in the classroom or paying back loans that are becoming a source of

profit for the government to help decrease the deficit. i'm talking about thousands of students from historically black colleges and universities who had to leave schools because of changes to loans that parents took out to help them their education. these were made without any consideration about how they would hurt young people. i'm talking about immigrants of hispanic, african, asian and european descent who are working but have no rights. i'm talking about people in communities across this nation who must now fight harder to have their voices heard, because others will use subversive and permissible tactics to make it harder to vote. and yes, to the supreme court of the united states, this is still a problem. you see what we are experiencing is not just about zimmerman or race in america, it is about a system that should be just in creating and protecting the

conditions for everyone to succeed, but instead it continues to favor some over others. . . so inequity and treatment under lawsuit comes to an end and so that all people are treated equal. today we continue that fight and ask america to join with us. not so that one group of any particular race can win, but so that in the end we all win. i yield back. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished chair of the c.b.c. partbjective here today is of our mission in the congress, really just to make sure that all americans, regardless of skin color, have access to the american dream. have an opportunity to pursue life and liberty and happiness here in america, unencumbered by

any barriers connected to the color of their skin. that's our hope in america. that will make america all that it can be this great country even better in a quest toward a more perfect union. i'm pleased that we've been joined by the distinguished gentleman from new york, the lion of lennox avenue, a legendary member of this great institution, congressman charles rangel. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: let me thank my from the colleague great burrow of brooklyn, the city of new york, and my colleagues for coming down to the floor. when we started the congressional black caucus in 1971, i guess most people say, why do you need a black caucus?

13 of you of color have been able to break the walls of racism and discrimination to reach the halls of the united states congress. obviously you don't have to say that you're black. what we tried to do then, and i guess we are still involved in that struggle, is to try to make certain that there's absolutely no need for any group of people to have to identify themselves for protection and for aggressiveness on programs because of their color. i tell the gentleman from new york, i guess you were about born when we started the caucus, i wish by the time you got here, and you were looking for the congressional black caucus and i would be able to say, that's all

over. that's when we were not treated as full americans. that's ancient times. the same way i had thought that poll taxes and things of that nature that my late predecessor had been able to overcome. when comes the question people feel so awkward to say race was a factor in the killing of young mr. martin. why would they feel so awkward? it is so easy to understand if two people have a problem, one was minding his business, the other was stalking him, one had a gun and the other ended up dead, and he'd already described to the police who he was following and it was a person of color, i don't think i've heard anyone challenge if the colors were reversed, it wouldn't take all of the weeks, days and weeks

that it took just to arrest somebody. and the reason that we're asking for the justice department to examine this is because the justice department has been successful in examining a whole lot of criminal activity where the local communities somehow didn't see it. and george, as it's family in stanford calls him, obviously was a part of that family. i would think anybody would like somebody that's not a part of that family to go in and see what happened to trayvon. but having said that, if you want to know where do we go from here, we don't have to explain why blacks are killing blacks. if we say that's an epidemic, if we say that's a sickness, if we say that's a disaster, i ask my fellow americans, what the heck do you do when you find a disaster? i think one of the things you do is try to stop it from spreading. and find out what do these areas

have in common? first of all, why is that members of the congressional black caucus have more of these than other members in the congress? we now want to talk about color because it's not an issue, right, right. but are we talking about the poorest communities that we have in the united states of america? what's that got to do with it? are we talking about communities that have the lousiest education system in the united states of america? rangel, i don't see why you're bringing that up. are we talking about sick people physically and whether they have mental problems, they call them crazy, instead of disoriented, rangel, you're going way off now. legislationng about thank that actually -- the investment of the united states, less money goes into these communities than communities of wealth? listen, you put all this together, rangel, that doesn't

explain why people shoot each other. well, i don't know why people shoot each other. but i know one thing. who doesn't shoot each other -- young kids that are inspired to get education, they got families, they got a country that's the wind behind their wings, they want to make a contribution to this great country. they can walk anywhere, talk anywhere and nobody's going to be following them, talking about you look like someone that may hurt somebody. now, we can't stop the problem unless we talk about it. and if you talk about hurricane sandy, if you're talking about fires, you're talking about disasters, why can't we talk about this? this is costing america, human beings, it's costing lives, it's costing money, it's costing us embarrassment. we're losing in terms of having stronger productivity, we're losing in terms of competitive -- competition, it's not just the communities and their families that are losing,

america's losing. the same way we would not hesitate to reach out to any village or any town or any state that has any type of an epidemic. so, don't just look at the color , look at the economic circumstances that's in the community that has it. and if you want, you might want to look up and see what member of congress represent this. they say that sometimes we look to cut our districts. well, take a look. we didn't look to cut our districts. our districts looked for us to represent them. and the day we become color blind is the day that the constitution should say we walked out of this body. so our job here is to give congress sight. color isn't a dirty word. it could be one of the most beautiful words that we have in the united states of america. different colors, different

cultures, different languages. different ways that we can enjoy being with each other, learning from each other. and so if we have a problem in chicago, in dallas, in harlem, let's share that problem and wherever there's a problem, anyplace in these great united states, that all of us can come together and try to bring people up so that this country doesn't have to take a backseat to anybody when it comes to saying, this is the land of the free, this is the home of the brave and when you shoot someone down, you don't have to look at the color of the victim or the perpetrator, just as discrimination and color should not be a cause for lack of justice. let me thank my gentleman from brooklyn forgiving us this opportunity. we're taking it.

i was with the family this weekend. the mother said she lost her son but will dedicate her life to make certain she does all that she can so that no mother and father would lose their son. she didn't say black. she didn't say white. and the president said that you have to walk in his shoes. anybody that's a father that loses a teenage son, the more that son looks like you, the more pain that you suffered. i'm about to take my seat but i was just reminded, when i went to korea and we were going up the lines, we saw all kinds of dead people. south koreans, communist korean, north koreans, and our colleagues that were white soldiers that had died before we got there. but my colleague from brooklyn, before we get up to the lines, two trucks, stuff flew off of them because of the speed they

were driving and in those cars were black dead soldiers in our uniform cross-length like they were logs on the way to grave registration. i don't have to tell you, we felt a lot different in lookinging at those people who looked exactly like us. i turn back, yield back the balance of my time and thank you so much for this opportunity. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentleman from new york for his very insightful, passionate and wonderful remarks as it relates to the situation that we in america find ourselves in today. the way forward as well as an understanding of why we've arrived in this position. before i turn the floor over to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, i just want to thank the congressman from harlem for mentioning the fact that we here

in america do have a compassion, i think, to -- capacity, i think, to address multiple problems at the same time. we can multitask. it's wrong when a child is killed in the sinner city, it's wrong when a child is killed, 17 years old, walking home, down in stanford, florida. and we have an ability to address all of these problems. but there's some in this country that criticize those of us who in problems of injustice america, by immediately pointing out that in inner cities all across this country, in brooklyn, in harlem, in houston in chicago, there's black-on-black violence. we understand that, it's our children who are dying. that's why the c.b.c. this friday will be in chicago, convening a summit to discuss the problem of violence in an

inner city community, in places like chicago, illinois. but that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to injustices that exist in our parts of the system. we're pleased that we've been joined by the distinguished gentlelady from houston, texas, who has been working hard on this issue, on many issues of concern and injustice here in america. so let me now yield to representative sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the distinguished gentleman from new york and let me thank our chairperson, the honorable marcia fudge, and all of my colleagues that are on the floor tonight to accept the challenge that has been given over the airwaves by many people. i want to thank mr. refugees -- mr. jeffries for pointing out, as i sand here as a mother, i would make the argument of a son, of a black son, i can

affirm that any child's life is of great value. in fact, we spent the weekend in houston reaffirming the value of a child's life. and i want to cite and compliment bishop james dixon and pastor john caldwell, pastor henderson and nash and lawson and many other pastors that were there who obviously joined with so many, including my colleague who is here on the floor of the house, congressman al green, and i heard nothing but an ampleation of the value of life -- affirmation of the value of life. and i'm glad that you reaffirm that african-americans do not coddle a crime of any kind. a crime that happens to be between two african-americans or in essence two caucasians, it is noted, if my facts are correct, that 84% of the crimes of those perpetrated on white americans

are done by white americans. 86% of the crimes done on black persons, black americans, are done by black people. it might be that it speaks again to the isolated, segregated neighborhoods that we travel in. but the one thing, mr. speaker, that is unique, you can count the fact that those african-americans that perpetrated crimes are incarcerated over and over again at a higher number than any other population in this nation. the premise of what we are discussing tonight, and i would hope as we finish, that it would also be a pleading that we have a discussion on race. let me cite these numbers since i started out with the idea of incarceration. incarceration is not an equal-opportunity punishment. 1,08 per 100,000

latinos, 409 are white. the united states locks its black males at a rate 5 funny 8 imes higher than what -- 5.8 times hashe than south africa under apartheid. black males were only 851 per 100,000. in 2006, black males are 4,789. i would say to my colleagues and to the speaker and to my colleagues here, what are we to think when the scales of justice are even unequally balanced. and the pain we felt at the loss of trayvon martin and the simplicity of an arrest and then ultimately in a sanford jury,

state trial, that we could not even find with much evidence to rove that there was not enough commonality of cultural connection that they could not see that something should have valued the loss of an innocent child who was walking to get home. maybe it is the words of frederick douglass that he said n april 16, 1883, it is a real all a.m. -- calamity for any man to be accruesed of a crime. but it is for a colored man to be accused. justice is painted with banaged eyes. t a mass of iron could never blind american justice when a black man happens to be on

trial. that is something that we have to move beyond in america. and e.j. dionne article said this should inspire all of us to keep our years on the future and ot blind to the persistence of racism or to our triumphs of pushing it back. it does not help when those who are not like those of us who are on the floor, members of the congressional black caucus, want to push back to those who raise estions of justice, which by the way if you impact the criminal justice system, you are going to impact whites, latinos and african-americans. if you address the question of mandatory minimums and rehabilitation funding and providing housing and opportunity for work for those who have come out of prison no matter where they have come out, the federal or state system, you make it better for all. but every time we raise the

question of improving issues of justice, we get called or get labeled as being raceist. so i want to say to our friends, can we not be called american, because that is what the congressional black caucus stands for. in 1997, john hope franklin finished a report that called for forging a new future. america's greatest promise in the 21st century lies in our ability to harness the strength of our racial diversity. we have not done that. and that is why the congressional black caucus is here to be able to accept the challenge that the president made as he indicated to america without fear, it's not only that trayvon may have been my son, he may have been me. the president said something very powerful. he said we must, all of us, members of congress, governors, pastors and plain civilians and

young people must do some soul-searching. we must find the possibility of being a little bit more honest and ask yourself this question, as much bias ut as much as i can based not on the color of their skin but the content of their character, that would be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy. so tonight, mr. speaker, and in joining with my colleagues, i'm going to stand and ask for that kind of discussion. i want those who are standing on the street corners yesterday in houston, texas, shouting out that people were raceist because they were concerned about a court decision that they didn't think was fair. i'm concerned that all of those people who were marching would be labeled across america and all the cities that they were, peacefully without arrest or incident, would be called un-american. that's where we have to bring,

if you will, our souls and find that we take from it the bias that we might perceive to be blocking us from understanding the richness of our diversity. so i would argue we are blessed because we have asian and white people and latinos and african-americans, blessed because of the diversity in sexual orientation and blessed on people who are short and tall, and people who are wealthy and middle class and those who are impoverished as a congress. and we can stop the devastation of the snap and provide those individuals who are impoverished to do better. timely, let me say this. this past week we honored an icon that moved me because of the diversity of those who are honoring from senator cornyn from my state and maxine waters

and eric cantor, senator durbin and on and on and on, leader pelosi and clyburn and hoish, nd i'm sure i have missed many thers, what a vast diversity who rose to honor nelson mandela as we look to fix the inequity of self-defense laws as we look at racial profiling that exists extensively in this country as evidenced by the hate crimes legislation in our texas, the killing of an individual who was dismembered, an african-american male, minding his business walking along a road or the man who was killed in mississippi who went to the hotel and wept out to his car and killed because of who he was. the number of cases that we have

that we have not understood the greatness of america. so we have to change stand your ground laws and intend to introduce that legislation this week. and i look for bipartisan support. senator mccain said maybe we look to review federally what stand your ground laws are doing, the extension of those, that carries this power out into the public where you do not have to retreat. i read these words of mandela, he said our struggle has reached a decisive moment. we call on people to be able to intensify the struggle on all fronts. but he had another quote that i would like to read, and he said honor comes when you pursue and are determined in your struggle. and he mentioned the fact that even with how milling yation and even with insult and defeat, if you continue in your struggle, then there is honor due. let me thank mr. jeffries, for

laying out the opportunity for the congressional black caucus to answer the question, the road to equality is under construction. and let me thank him for allowing us to rise to the floor. equality will come to us when school districts will not be closed when we raise up education. equality will come when we rid this nation of poverty when making sure we have the kind of nick programs and equality will come. justice should roll down on all of us and we address the question of criminalization of african-american males and others so justice is equally applied and as others will come to a place that is welcoming to serve their nation. for that reason, i yield back my time with the great hope of the same message that came in the treat is by john hope franklin that he shared the committee on

race and said america's greatest promise is in her diversity. i call upon my colleagues, friends in texan and let's sit down at the table of harmony and talk about race as we love each other, because that's what this is all about. thank you to the congressional black caucus. mr. jeffries: thank the gentlelady from texas for a thoughtful and eloquent remarks. we want a justice system that is color blind. that should be our goal, our objective, our mission here in america. we can't have a set of laws unequally applied over enforced with one group that looks a certain way. underenforced with another group that looks a different way. that's not the type of america we want. and one of the reasons why so many folks were troubled with the verdict down in florida is

that it appears that the stand your ground defense seems available for a self-appointed vigilante who shot down a 17-year-old until cold blood but is not available for a battered woman who simply fired a warning shot against someone who had a history of abusing her. we want a set of laws equally applied to everybody. we are pleased that the distinguished gentlelady from new york, my neighbor back at home who has been a fighter for justice here in the congress over the last six-plus years has joined us. let me yield to representative clarke. ms. clarke: let me thank the gentleman from brooklyn, my colleague and closest colleague in the new york state delegation. both of our districts being in

brooklyn for leading us in this special order today, race in america, where do we go from here. for more than a year, many people have tried to give voice to trayvon martin and to present his perspective into the debate concerning the injustice of the criminal justice system and black males. with his remarks on friday, president obama provided trayvon martin a voice by sharing his experiences. he offered america a perspective on the experiences of other african-american men, women, boys and girls and he gave voice to millions of americans who felt the pain of the martin-fulton family as their own. when president obama introduced racial profiling into the conversation, he held up a mirror to the face of all americans, to a truth that some

comment ateors have tried to ignore and many more are in deep denial of. for despite the promises of equality in the declaration of independence and the constitution, our practices have been inadequate to our ideals. our beliefs, the best traditions of our nation, have not become a reality for millions of americans of african descent. the tragic death of our youk young man, trayvon martin, followed by the acquittal of the man who pursued him and killed him, has reminded us may seem as though african-americans and others have achieved full equality, we are still victims of racial profiling in violation of our laws and morales. the lives of black men and women are not accorded the same values as the lives of white americans.

this is the reality for far too many black americans compounding he 21st century racial tone is knowing that our lives have been devalued, our exercise of the liberty to which americans have been entitled have been devalued and diminished, such as the right to vote. with millions of americans, i was deeply disappointed with the supreme court's decision to prevent enforcement of the voting rights act. we cannot forget that prior to the enactment of voting rights, democracy did not exist with the deliberate denial of the right to vote to black people. mr. speaker, while the supreme court's recent decision and the trayvon martin case are crucial to this decision, they cannot ddress the problem of racial

inequality. the discrimination of our judicial system, the educational system and the lack of jobs and economic opportunity, especially for the african-american community. tonight, i just want to quickly hit on the issue of racial profiling in our justice system. . . the war on marijuana in black and white demonstrates even while usage is comparable, blacks are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. in my district in brooklyn, and all over new york city, african-american young men are harassed simply because of the color of their skin. the exsive use of stop and frisk known in new york city as the stop and frisk program, it has been prove than this program disproportionately targets

african-american and latinos. these two groups comprising 87% of all stops while only about 50% of the city's population. according to the new york city civil liberties union, the number of stops of young black men neared the entire population 133,119 as k men, in the to 158,406 population in the year 2012 that. means that there was some young men that were getting stopped more than once. increase the number of stops 600% since 2002, when commissioner kelly increased the number of stops, when he became commissioner, reaching a peak of almost 700,000 stops in the year 2011. they have almost a 90% fair rate. only 12% of the number of

massive stops result in an arrest or a summons. and in less -- and it has been less effective in getting guns off the street than a random searches of all new yorkers would. it is a clear violation of civil rights and civil liberties, of african-american and latino men. so, where do we go from here? well, members of the congressional black caucus introduced and sponsored legislation on racial profiling and that will represent a comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at large. i want to encourage my colleagues to take a look at this legislation. this is where the conversation can begin and this is where the healing should start. this can be done through the changing of policies and procedures, underlying the practice of racial profiling,

and through -- like the president said -- working with the state and local governments on training that helps enforcement officials become more aware of potential racial and ethnic bias. i urge my colleagues to go back to their district and to hold town hall meetings and discussions on race. speak to your constituents, speak to your families and friends, have conversations at home and in your neighborhoods. we must not sit back and watch the progress gained by those who came before us, who worked diligently and often made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and the rights that we all enjoy today. we cannot permit these sacrifices to be forgotten or erased from history. today we must take a stand against further racial injustice of all kinds. enough is enough. ou know, it's ironic because

when i think about my age and having come of age in the 1970's in the united states of america, there was just a lot more -- a lot more optimism about us becoming a more perfect union. and to arrive in the house of representatives in the 21st century, and see the type of die gregs that has taken place in our nation, to know that my nephews that are millennials are going through some of the same issues that young men in the in0's and 1960's were facing a desegregated nation is extraordinarily painful. we are an enlightened civil society and we have an obligation to do what we can to make sure that all americans are worthy of all that this nation has to offer.

and that means that we have to have an honest conversation about the inequities, the racial injults -- injustices that continue to persist, while not as blatant as they were in the 950's and 1960's, still fester and continue to be a blight on a nation that is poised for greatness. with that, i yield back. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentlelady from new york. the conversation about race is not an easy one but is necessary here in america and one that should be embraced because of our society is one of our greatest strengths here in america. we've been joined by a classmate of mine, distinguished gentleman from new jersey, representative donald payne, not only one of the sharpest dressed members of congress, but he's got one of

the sharpest minds. so i'm pleased to yield to him such time as he may consume. mr. payne: mr. speaker, let me thank the gentleman from new york. it is really an honor and a privilege to stand here with him as one of the freshman members in the 113th congress, to discuss an issue that has plagued this nation for centuries. i am here tonight to talk to you about an issue that has interested me for most of my life -- livelihood, most of my life. and it is the issue around people having respect for one another, irrespective of their racial makeup. i grew up in newark, new jersey, which is a town, the largest

city in the state of new jersey. with many suburbs surrounding that metropolitan. and our travels in and out of those communities were fraught at some times with peril for young men. . that was 40 years ago but fast forward to the past 18 months and what do we have? have the same situation before us. a young boy armed with a bag of his profile ink, -- is profiled and followed, a car follows him, then the individual gets out of the car and follows the young man on

foot. ows, at 17, i wonder how i would have felt if a car had followed me, a grown man gets out of the car and continues to follow me. it is a situation that i have thought about over the past 18 months because of my triplet children two are boys who just turned 15. so they are right around trayvon martin's age. and i wonder, have i taught them enough to be safe? will they find themselves in position? and i'm hearing the out-- and on hearing the outcome of the verlander that saturday evening -- never dict that saturday evening, one of my sons texted

his mother to say what had happened and why it had happened, because we taught them in this nation that justice prevails. d how the victim becomes the guilty party in a situation like this, i still cannot understand. because it became about what -- who and what this young man was and what he had done and what he d been doing rather than the perpetrator following him. i was fortunate to be in new ork during the time of the 100 rallies across the nation in finding justice for trayvon martin. i proudly stood with trayvon marden's mother -- martin's mother on saturday. a dignyified woman. in all of this crisis and sorrow

that must be in her heart, she has remained a dignyified individual and only asked for justice for her son. not that people should act out in a manner in which the masses thought that they would, but to have a peaceful demonstration about the injustices that came out of that case. stand your ground. did trayvon martin have the right to stand his ground? he was the one who was being followed. he was the one being profiled. when did his rights, when did he lose the right to defend himself? we are in a difficult time here in this country. but it seems like we always get to this point at some time and we start the conversation.

but we never finish it. we need to have an open discussion about the conditions that we find ourselves in as americans, all of us, we need to understand both sides of the issue. all sides of the issue. so we can move forward with this great experiment called the nited states of america. it is the greatest nation in the world. it is true. and many come here to live the american dream. many nations emulate the united states. but we have a long way to go in this nation as well. the injustices that we're facing are widespread and threaten some of the most fundamental rights of this country. so i ask my colleagues, let's have that discussion. i ask the citizens of the united states to let's have the discussion so we can form that

more perfect union. i have had situations in my life in i've found myself not the exact situation of trayvon martin, but issues of racism that were perpetrated on me. but i'm not bitter toward an entire population. those were individuals. we have to come to grips with prejudging people in this country. and i would justlined to -- i would just like to end with something dr. king said. in the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends. and my father, the late congressman donald payne, who was a great teacher, ewe moon --

humanitarian and felt all people deserved the right to freedom, justice and equality, taught me a poem very early on in my life and i will end with that. and it said, whether you have lond, fleecey locks or black complexion, it cannot forfeit nature's claim. skin may differ from black and white, skin may differ in black and white but it is all just the same. were i so tall as to reach the pole it's or span the oceans with my hands, i must be measured by my soul, the mind is the standard of a man. and with that i yield back. mr. jeffries: i thank congressman payne for his very eloquent remarks and for noting the conversation that he had with his young son, a conversation that had been taking place in the aftermath of

this verdict and how it holds all across -- in households all across this country, with parents and their young sons and daughters, trying to make sense of an inexplicable verlander in the eyes of many -- verdict in the eyes of many. mr. speaker, how much time do we have remaining in this special order? the speaker pro tempore: 10 minutes. mr. jeffries: thank you. i'm now going to turn to the distinguished gentlelady from the virgin islands, representative donna -- dr. donna christensen. mrs. christensen: thank you for yielding. and it's my, you know, pleasure to join the c.b.c. for another special order and thank you for bringing this issue of race in america before the american public tonight. because racism in america is so pervasive in so many aspects of our lives, it's impact of course was most recently and painfully felt in the killing of young

trayvon martin, as we've spoken about this evening. nd of course the insensitivity and the slow response of the justice system, our prayers and thoughts are with his parents, his loved ones and our families who face their own fears for their children. i want to speak briefly about how race in america affects health care of african-americans larks tinows and other people of color. . according to the u.s. commission on civil right, despite the existence of civil rights legislation, equal treatment and equal access aren't a reality for many. care for theseit groups, including discrimination. in the last health care disparities repart of 2012, it reported blacks received worse

ar than whites and worse can than non-hispanic whites. asians received worse kear than whites for about one quart over quality measures. and it goes on and on and on. but in just -- just to be very brief, i want to show you one example of how racism affects health care of african-americans and latinos. i think this is a stark example of how it happens. this is an emergency mortality octor study done by a d not too far from here. you can see that whether they're insured or uninsured, african-americans or latinos arriving at an emergency room with the this -- with the exact same injury are more likely to tie. when compared with an

uninsured white patient, black patients with equivalent injuries but without insurance had a 8% higher risk of dying, uninsured hispanics, 130% higher risk of dying. so even if trayvon martin had lived, you wonder what would have happened if he'd arrived at the more than room. so i just wanted to add the impact of racism in america which continues to this day and how it affects the health care and the lives of african-americans and latinos, the affordable care act as we talk about where do we go from here has begun to change this by proceeding coverage and access to care but you really have to find ways to chame the heart of america. and we can't do that by legislation. but we thank the c.b.c. for all of its effort the efforts that will take place in chicago and

across the country and i thank you and i will yield back. >> i thank the gentlelady for those powerful remarks and observations and i yield to the distinguished gentleman from houston, texas, who has been a fighter for civil rights and equality prior to arriving in the congress and during his tenure here in this great institution, representative al green. mr. green: i thank you for the opportunity to speak and i do want your constituents to know that you have been an awesome congressperson from the awe many eighth district and if they are as proud of you as i am, you shall have an opportunity to continue to serve them. i wish you must success in congress. i would like to thank the president of the united states of america for his comments on this issue of blacks, especially black males in america. i believe that the president

understands that although the arc of the moral universe is long, it bends toward justice. but it doesn't bend toward justice without some assistance. it doesn't have the kinetic energy to do so without some help from mortals. and i think that the president went a long way toward bending the arc of the moral universe toward justice with his comments as they relate to the plight of african-american males. i'm grateful and i'm thankful. with reference to the trayvon martin trial, we live in a world where it's not enough for things to be right, they must also look right. and it doesn't look right when a -year-old boy leaves home to go to the store. on his way back home, unarmed,

encounters a person with a firearm. is killed. and is done so with impunity. it may be right but it does not look right. and because it doesn't look right, we have to understand that although you can have a fair trial, you may not have justice as the outcome. i believe that this trial was fair to mr. zimmerman. i don't believe it was fair to trayvon martin. and i don't believe that we can y that this was a just decision. now there are people who will differ with me and say you shouldn't say this. many of these same people would say that o.j. simpson had a fair

trial. but that he didn't get justice -- he didn't get a just verdict from that court. and the same people who don't you e, us, to protest, have to understand that if it was right for the farmers to come here in their tractors and protest the conditions related to farming, then it's right for me to protest. if it was right for the veterans at the world -- after world war i to come up here and set up a tebt city in protest, it's right for me to protest. if it was right for the tea party to come to congress and stand along the way across from one building to another and protest, then it's right for me to protest. and by the way, enge it was right for them to come to congress to protest. i support their right to protest. if you think it's wrong for me

to protest, you've got to cheage the second amendment to the constitution of the united states of america. we have the right, we must exercise the right because an injustice has taken place. and because time is short and there is at least one other speaker, i want to mention this as my closing roork. there's something bigger than trayvon martin and mr. zimmer man taking place in this country, inteed, in the world. there is something bigger than us as individuals and individual cases. jay patrick kinney has appropriately put this together. cold a poem styled the within that addressing something we have to confront this coldness. his poem.

six humans trapped by happenstance in black and bitter cold. each one possessed a stick of wood, or so the story's told. their dying fire in need of logs, the first man held his back because of the faces around the fire one was black. the third man sat in tattered clothes, gave his coat a hitch. used to d his stick be help the rich? the rich man sat back and thought of all he had. saw it only asan revenge. their logs held tight in death-still hands was proof of

human sin. they didn't die from the cold without they died from the cold within. i yield back the balance of my ime. >> we are approaching the close of this special order but to close us out -- mr. jeffries: to close us out in the remaining time we have, mr. mark veasey from dallas who has tone a tremendous job as a member of the freshman class. mr. veasey: thank you, congressman jeffries, i appreciate you letting me talk about this important topic. we need to talk more about equality and have a conversation onries and injustice in this country. i liked a lot what representative clarking your colleague from new york, when she talked about the over -enforcement of african-american males particularly when it comes to stop and frisk and other members that talked a lot about

the verdict in the trayvon martin trial that really, real dihi did discourage a lot of people. that was starting to gain hope in our criminal justice system, thought things were getting better. and i'm concerned about what's going on right now with voting because in my home state of texas, there's been so many laws that have been enacted, laws that have been attempted to be enacted that would scale back many of the gains that african-americans have made when it comes to exercising our suffrage. discriminatory practices that i didn't grow up with when i was a young man but that many people that were before me had to deal with and thought we had made the progress and so, at some other point in time i want to continue to talk about this because whether it's trayvon martin or the over enforcement of african-americans and the disproportionate number of african-americans that end up as

part of the criminal justice system and protecting our voting rights act, we need to talk about it more because i, too, believe we can do better as a country and a nation and i want to thank you for holding this hour and everybody in the black caucus talked about this very important topic this evening. thank you. mr. jeffries: thank you to the gentleman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

1rk the house stands in

>> of the modern era. we will hear from author and historian carl anthony, followed by a panel of women who worked with jackie kennedy, betty ford, and barbara bush. and the journalists who cover them in the white cap -- in the white house.

this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> tonight, we will be looking at the traditional role a first lady plays and the choices she makes, her personal life, her life with her husband, her life with her children, her life as hostess at the white house, as the leader of special causes and charity events and so forth. how, in the context of the white house, all those sorts of decisions potentially carry various kinds of political implications and repercussions. either as interpreted, or perhaps over interpreted, by the press, and, on the other hand, sometimes intended by the white house. of this, i an idea

recall one of my most favorite anecdotes from the eisenhower administration. them take the programs from the television set. lucille ball,53, -- the actress, was accused of being a communist and was brought to appear before senator joseph mccarthy's senate committee on un-american activities. -- heardnhower heller about this and was furious. she never particularly cared for joe mccarthy, but this was one step too far. as she told president is noower, lucille --

communist. [laughter] the eisenhower invited actress, lucille ball and her husband and the other cast members to come to the white at a benefitorm for president eisenhower's birthday. ms. was just days before ball was scheduled to appear on capitol hill. at the vices later, president dinner, a traditional dinner held annually in those days, the entire united states senate was always traditionally invited. one senator, however, was not invited by mrs. eisenhower. that was senator joseph mccarthy. as lighthearted as the anecdote may now seem, at the time, it

sent a political message. it was the use of her role as a hostess by the administration, not so much by mrs. eisenhower, that was nottement quite coming out against mccarthy. mccarthy was of the same political party. but it still made its point. firsthe very beginning, ladies assumed public projects, or what we later called special projects. martha washington, for example, during the american revolution, had sown closed for revolutionary war veterans and then later, as first lady, developed the idea of allowing them to come to her personally any financial needs or any material needs. thatdea was then planted

somehow a first lady should have one area of the population that was needy to be her particular point -- at the same time that somehow, the washington ministration immediately sent a strong message by the coach they chose for mrs. washington. coach made in london it fixed with goldman dalliance pulled by cream- colored horses, tended by grooms. it was very consciously formal. many people thought it looked a little bit too royal for the first president of united states. that was nothing nothing compared to martha washington's reception. they were a strained entertaining style where she without muchget

small talk. roome sat around the quietly. it was an american version of the inglis royal court. -- english royal court. there was criticism very quickly from the press and political figures. the register wrote, we find strange,e are not just distant things. i suppose in a few years, we shall have all the paraphernalia to give the superb finish to the grandeur of our american court. senator william clay said, she of the old country, but here i think they are hurtful, from the small beginnings, i fear we shall follow -- follow on until we have reached the summit of court etiquette and all the frivolities practiced in european governments.

whose dolly madison personal choice of the low-cut, high wasted napoleonic tresses -- dresses that caused quite a bit of stir. the first time a president wife was censored from her personal choice in fashion. it was not the scanty mess of it so much as it was the fact that it was the french style, popular in the polian court. withinly not very popular the old-time federalists of the washington and adams administration, who severely criticized mrs. madison as looking like a nursing mother. [laughter] nor were her virginia style entertainments quite popular with the more formal british -- ster

,rs. madison's successor elizabeth monroe, caused a true political fury with her decision not to make first call, and this, of course, a drastic change from what had been the habit of dolly madison's. her new rules as hostess were more federal style than democratic, and it caused a diplomatic uproar. it was the subject of two cabinet meetings and it struck at the very heart of the issue of democracy. mrs. munro was essentially operating as the american answer to european clean. will we -- queen. , as a cabinet wife, very carefully used the role of

social politician to curry political favor for her husband. as she said, she was always smiling for the presidency and he prepared her calling list with, as she said, as much formality as if he were drawing up an important article to negotiate in a commercial treaty. , born in englandm÷ldl÷÷, educated, was used more by her husband for political purposes, rather than she really using the role to serve his political purposes. i bear, the more is expected of me to answer such expectations. i am decried in encumbrance unless i am required for any special purpose, for a show or some political maneuver.

arrangements are made, and, if i object, i am informed it is all too late and it is all a misunderstanding. " the united telegraph criticized the ungodly presence of a pool table in the white house. the adams faction made it worse -- this ist was adams cool table, and pool tables are a common appendage in the homes of the rich and great in europe. rachel jackson, on the other hand, was from the west, overweight, uneducated, uncouth, many said, a religious zealot that preferred church going to parties. she certainly did influence her husband when he was in charge of new orleans, put in charge of , in instituting all sorts of social edicts banning

music and sale of liquor on the weekends. she was also technically a bigamist. she had not obtained a divorce of her first -- from her first husband at the time she married andrew jackson. this fact was brought out during the 1828 campaign. it became part of a full-scale lyrical attack and -- clinical attack and it was the first time a presidential candidate's wife's personal life was used for a political purpose. angelica van buren follow. was the daughter-in-law of martin van buren, married while he was in the white house, she honeymooned in europe. victoriathe courts of and king philippe of france. she formed friendships with them and turned to washington with a regal, entertaining style. this occurred during the panic of 1840.

by. van buren was attacked congressmen ogle of pennsylvania in his famous gold spoon speech on the floor of the house, in which he talked about the royal appendages of the white house and how mrs. van buren had hoped to copy the gardens of buckingham palace back at the white house. needless to say, van buren was defeated. julia gardiner tyler followed in the style of angelica van buren. appearsphotograph, she as the first president's wife, first incumbent presidents wife, to actually be -- have her image captured on film in the early form of photography. , hadnstituted a wild style imported dogs from the council at naples and rode around in a

very regal horse and carriage. she redecorated the white house and, better than using government money or the money of her wealthy friends, she used her mother's money to redecorate. by the criticized religious press as a bad .nfluence on the other hand, she very skillfully used the traditional role for her husband's political purposes. she very clearly -- coyly would scribble a toast to one of her husband's enemies at a dinner -- dinner table and asked him to raise his glass to, protect this and tyler, two. -- too. by atyler was followed woman quite her extreme, nicknamed sahara sarah. banned liquor, music, and dancing in all the

rooms of the white house. her sober style was hailed by the religious press. her social scheme in the white house fit into the larger screen -- scheme of her husband 's manifest destiny. she used slaves openly and claimed that slaves, from her religious perspective, were predestined to be slaves and it was all god's will. it was all god's will for the united states to expand its borders from the west coast down to the southwest. soanyone's personality affected negatively her husband 's administration, it was certainly jane pierce. mrs. pierce suffered greatly from depression and had three sons. her first two sons died when they were very young. her third son was 11 years old

at the time franklin pierce was elected president. andoverin ride between massachusetts and boston, the train went off the tracks and mrs. pierce saw her last son crushed before her eyes. she considered this to be god's not providing of any kinds of distractions for her husband. four years, she did not appear publicly. when she finally did appear publicly, she was always dressed completely in black. >> it did not help her relationship with her husband pall set a permanent over the quality of the administration. the depressing entertaining style, she had black decorations on the table and

stiff wired flowers presented at each of the woman's seats affected everyone. as one guest said, her woe gun face broke animation in others. t's no exaggeration to say that in that period of time, which was a crucial period of time right before the civil war, mrs. pierce really did psychologically affect the whole sense of that ministration as one that was ineffective with a great sense of malaise to it. she followed by harriet lane, the niece of james buchanan. harriet lane was the first first lady to welcome a member as e british royal family a formal guest at the white house. this being edward, the prince of wales in the year 1816.

youthful, popular, she had listened to the mockingbird named after her, dedicated to her. e made the low neck lace bertha popular. it was her personal relationship with the royal family which raised question about england's role during the civil war. england, of course, remained neutral. there were many people who said at the time that was because of ms. lane's personal friendship with the royal family that they did so. she entertained the prince just during the beginning of the secession movement about a month before abraham lincoln was elected president. with mary todd lincoln in the white house during the civil war, her perfect of state china which had been done by other first ladies, her decorating the white house, which had also been done by other first ladies was severely criticized as action incentive to the needs and the conditions of the

country. mrs. lincoln said it was part of her duty to dress in fine and expensive clothes as a way of lifting the morale of the nation. she felt truly this was her duty and felt that loyal republicans who owed their jobs to her husband's administration should help defray the costs of her gowns. entertaining in the blue room, mrs. lincoln was harshly criticized for that. how could somebody be spending money on champagne and on food at a time when money was needed for union blankets and guns. and yet she was criticized for not entertaining and halting the public concerts when her son died. there was no national sympathy of any kind when mrs. lincoln's son, willie died in the white house because everyone was

losing family members to the war. but the issue of one's personal life, one's family members came up in an even more harsh way with mrs. lincoln because she, of course, had come from a southern family and many of her brothers and half brothers and brothers in law fought for the con federal rassy. when her sister, the widow of a con federate soldier visited the white house, it caused so much trouble and talk in washington that emily helm finally had to leave. mrs. lincoln's personal friends were questioned. there were stories of her being friends with a drunken russian admiral and her friends with all sorts of questionable journalists in washington. her project on behalf of the reed slaves for the freedman's bureau for the education and employment of slaves was also turned into a political issue.

by the 1870's, the white house, the families themselves became much more attuned to the public's responses to their perceptions of white house family life. and so you had lucy hayes and the news that lucy hayes would spend sunday evenings with her amily around the piano singing jimenezes. mrs. hayes' clothing and hairstyle was compared to the madonna herself. she was seen as a pure and simple image during a time of the gaudy gilded age. she also banned liquor and earned the nickname lemonade lucy. this cartoon of the day shows lemonade lucy smiling in a water bottle and frowning in a wine bottle. but the bun on liquor was more

than a personal decision for mrs. hayes, it was a political decision. rutherford hayes had been elected in part by the support of the prohibition party which was very powerful at the time and made an agreement with the prohibition party that if he would ban all spirits in the white house. there was a backlash against this and much criticism of mrs. hayes for instilling her personal morals in the nation's home. her successor, lou key that garfield refused to continue the ban on liquor, but certainly she and the president were conscious of the hearth and home image that seemed to sell so well on the campaign trail. the family man was seen as the good candidate and mrs. garfield certainly cooperated against her own visceral action

to publiclyities about her good, solid, family life. fashion, again, became an issue with frances cleveland. temp s cleveland who, her rans was not to personally drink, she would drink water and turn her wine glass down. she permitted liquor to be served to those who wanted to drink it. her popularity and eventually the limited access that the white house provided to the press turned into a very ugly situation when rumors began that the president beat his wife. this being the first time that rumors concerning a presidential marriage became common public gossip and made their way into print. it was said that mrs. cleveland was thrown out of the white house on a rainy night by her

husband. well, in response, mrs. cleveland began wearing very low cut gowns. her beautiful shoulders and arms and neck visible to everyone. this in turn prompted the women's christian temp rans union to send a strong protest and begin a campaign to get mrs. cleveland out of those immoral bare shoulder arms, and bare arms gowns. reporters also decided to focus on mrs. cleveland when she was out of washington for the summer and it was a slow news month and they had to somehow presence in washington back home, so they reported that mrs. cleveland did not like the bustle and would no longer be wearing the bustle. very shortly after the bustle disappeared not only in washington, but on mrs. cleveland herself.

americans were beginning to feel that they had a right to dictate the personal style and the prnl choices of a first lady. the use of the family for political purposes reached a great height during the harrison administration. baby mcgee, the grandson of president and mrs. harrison was used by the family in photographs and in press stories as a popular sort of popular sort of mascot, if you will, of the add medicine station. mrs. harrison's domestic skills and china painting and orchid raising were highly touted. when news were given out about her attempts to fix the white house, it was all put under the sort of umbrella of being a good domestic engineer when in truth it was a political struggle that she went head-to-head with the house speaker on for huge

propriation to essentially demolish the white house. the wings and new buildings and a heart museum and a tour center and a government center. it eventually never came to pass because of president harrison's refusing to make certain appointments to the collectorship of maine and so mrs. harrison's "house bill" didn't pass because of political animosity. william mckinley's mother was ed in campaign paraphernalia as a symbol of the close mckinley family since the couple themselves had no children. the president's obsession with his wife, either the demands on his team and his attention was turned into a pious devotion of being he was called a saintly

husband. it was marked the first time that a biography, a campaign biography was issued on a president's wife. it was done so to counteract all sorts of rumors that mrs. mckinley was insane, that she was crippled and that she was catholic. emember, this is 1896. the theodore roosevelt family with the white house young children. not since the garfield days had such young children been there and mrs. roosevelt received a tremendous amount of mail from the public actually concerned in dictating to her what should be the proper education of the president's children. as she said, one hates to feel that all one's private life is public property. she wrote the president, you can't think how much diapers vadse the country about the

children's education. i receive dozens of letters from schools and tutors every day about it. the white house, the notion of a first lady decading the white house truly took on a political purpose during the theodore roosevelt administration when during the renovation of 1903, he firm of white, mrs. roosevelt worked very closely with the architect in constructing essentially what was a stage setting, giving america an imperial look with the classic white columns and the emblems of the flag and the eagle, giving the image of america as the world superpower it had indeed become and also by the early 20th century, the notion of a first lady's charity project took on a sharply political and publicly political turn with ellen wilson, the first wife of

woodrow wilson. she, of course, had been a parent. studied at the arts student league in new york and she supported the mountain art programs of appalachian families. but her housing bill, the slum clearance bill of 1913 was seen in the black community in washington as racist. it occurred just at the time that jim crow was instituted here in washington and her attempts to place bathrooms, restrooms, and first aid stations into government offices was seen as part of the overall wilson administration's segregation plan. florence harding's support of the veterans also had a political motive behind it. mrs. harding supported the veterans with visits and would frequently hand out candy and cigarettes and write letters to their mothers and girlfriends at home. her husband had vetoed the

bonus bill and mrs. harding who privately opposed this publicly kept on a strong face in terms of supporting the administration's decision by making these appearances on a regular basis to the wards as if her appearances to the wards were in fact counteracting the reality that the veterans would not be receiving a bonus. under florence harding, a lot of the traditional role, the center monal role of first lady took on a highly political tone. the traditional role of tree planter, mrs. harding began the custom of regular tree planting, but it was for various organizations and special interest groups that had supported her husband during the 1920 campaign and through his administration. the hardings very much created an image of wholesome maintain

street old fashioned midwestern image. we are just folks, as mrs. harding said, shown here touring a better homes in america model. the truth was, of course, that there were poker games going on upstairs at the white house and although this was prohibition, that they were serving liquor in the previous quarters of the white house to their personal guests. this did not reach the public's ear, but the news that a jazz band had enter attended them brought down tremendous and harsh criticism from all sorts of religion groups and religion newspapers. mrs. harding's personal friendships were also criticized. she was great friends with the multimillionaires evelyn walsh mcclain, who besides owning the hope diamond and being married to the owner of the "washington post" was a morphine addict. jeff smith who was a great friend of mrs. harding and mrs. mcclain frequently seen around washington was the largest

bootlegger in the district of columbia, eventually died of his own hand of suicide as the teapot dome scandals were breaking. and while the hardings truly made an effort to present the image of a devoted middle-aged couple still on the throes of a youthful romance, the truth was, of course, that warren harding had a rather public eye for beautiful women. the press knew it at the time and in fact many of the reporters had covered harding's 1920 campaign heard about it, but they wouldn't report it. the next picture shows president and mrs. harding at the horse show. you can see where mrs. harding's eyes are and where mr. harding's eyes are. by last count, he had five mistresses. one it was a senator's daughter, one was a government clerk, one had a daughter by him, one had a son by him, one committed suicide over him and one was his wife's best friend back home.

grace coolidge and her love of the contemporary fashions of the 1920's also served a very helpful purpose for the administration, the coolidge administration's public relations. as someone once said, she did the front door job. she favored this at the time man teller sort. there were a lot of editorials in papers like the "new york times" about mrs. coolidge being sort of with it and fashionable and that this was sort of a good thing for the country. in fact, the retail dry goods association publicly praised her as an ideal early christmas shopper, a boon to the industry. she was given an award by cartier and worth for her style in dressing shall the first time an american woman had received such a high honor, which was sort of equal to the

nobel prize for a clothes horse and during the economic boon of the 1920's, her shopping sprees for hats, furs and shoes were reported and used by the white house press office as an example of a woman up to date with the times. mrs. coolidge, of course, also did a lot of photo opportunities for women's groups at the time. i think this picture shows her cutting the cake for a celebration of the visiting nurses association. she reveled in the role of hostess for women's groups which asked to visitor be photographed and she granted as many requests as possible. it was more than a photo tune, however. it gave consistent focus on her part to working and professional women's organizations without her having to make an overt political statement about women and their political roles.

her project was an involvement with the deaf, the clark school for the deaf. this picture shows her with helen keller at the white house. behind this was the political purpose. some of the very first government attempts to service the handicapped occurred during the coolidge administration. during the great deposition, republican president her better hoover had an emphasis on involvism and rather than government help in getting people through the depression who were needy. mrs. hoover was seen everywhere doing everything at least once, even sewing for the needy as she is seen here with some of the ladies of the red cross, the senate wives. as president of the girl scouts, she used that group for a political motive. the girl scouts in her

possession as president, they were used in her radio speeches. she was the first to actually deliver radio speeches asking them, the young children and other children to become sort of a charity core with adults to donate, time, food, money and clothes and implore their parents to also do so for their less fortunate neighbors. there was also political liability now in the guests when invited to the white house. when mrs. hoover entertained mrs. oscar due priest, an african-american congressional wife to a congressional wives tea, she was excoriated in the south, even censored by the texas la russa for as they said defiling the race line. -- texas legislature for as they said defiling the race

line. eleanor roosevelt is send with hen yeta necessary bit the housekeeper signing a pledge to ave food, rubber and useñg eftovers during wartime.od] her entertainment for the king england received tremendous criticismment of course, she served them hot dogs because she thought that was the quintessential american lunch food, but she also had various ethnic entertainers, african-americans playing american music and many people criticized her for saying this lacked dignity for the king and queen of england. mrs. roosevelt was guided, however, by her wise social secretary edith helm. as mrs. roosevelt said, she initially thought that the hostess role was a useless burden utterly few tile and not a particularly inspiring occupation. because of the deposition, she

thought it was wrong to think very seriously about purely social matters. but edith helm who worked under edith wilson came to coax mrs. roosevelt into this role. as eleanor roosevelt soon realized, being hostess, she said had real meaning and value. the white house had a deep significance as a form of the people's hospitality to representatives of other countries and to add a sense of nership and to whom it symbolizes the government. interesting enough, throughout presidential campaigns, f.d.r.'s presidential campaigns, mrs. roosevelt played a very self-he facing role as she told a reporter, it was proper that a candidate's wife be on schedule, offer no personal opinions, remain undisturbed at commotion, limit personal appearances and lean back in an open car so the people can see him. she also knew the value of a

good photograph. besides her involvement in the inutia of government and the bureaucratic reports, she also posed at a soup kitchen dishing out soup. there was no question that the notion of the good will photo carried a strong message by this time. events outside of the white house that a first lady involved herself in also began to taking on political meaning. best truman, after attending an event, a tea she had been enviolated to at the d.a.r. was criticized because by a congressman adam clayton powell because the d.a.r. still had a restrictive policy and had not pianist to ife, play there. he criticized her as the last

lady of the land for choosing to attend a tea party outside of the white house at a restrictive organization. mamie eisenhower played it very close to the vest when it came to politics. she stuck pretty closely to raising money for the american heart association and although that was benign enough, even she did not escape censure for what were purely personal decisions like her bangs which were criticized as child issue, like the entertainment of lawrence welk and guy lombardo, which was seen as pedestrian and mainstream and not proper for the white house. when she entertained, there were questions whether she served liquor because of old rumors during war-time that she had had a problem with alcohol. when she took trips to elizabeth's arden's home in arizona, there were rumors that mamie went to dry out. some of the things even printed at the time. and when she took a railroad

trip, a free railroad trip for a private vacation, it was discould haved afterwards that she had broken the railroad act forbidding officials from free transportation. on , certainly fashion tooko much more of a political statement under jacquelyn kennedy. it must be remembered that in 1961, $11 million was spent annually in the united states on the clothing industry and $4 million on accessories. in fact, when jacquelyn kennedy went on a hat list, president kennedy yelled what was alex rose, who was the president of us milliner's union do to in an election, jackie. catholic women wore more veils to church instead of hats because mrs. kennedy did. her interest in contemporary art and jazz all reinforced the administration's impression and the image of the kennedy administration as young

americans taking over, a youthful energetic add menstruation. yet her focus on the importance of american culture and the quality of american culture versus european culture also carried a political message for she, of course, wanted to provide eventually for some kind of public funding for the arts and humanities. that was the idea behind her very interesting guest list of america's most renowned artists and poets for a dinner she held for the minister of culture from the french government as prize the nobel peace winners' dinner. mrs. kennedy in her white house restoration also reflected a social movement of the time. it helps spur a national history in accurate historical restoration of mansions and some people tried to find politics in this, the placement

of the proper trats and what were the politics of the presidents who were in the portraits, the fact that the blue room was no longer blue but now white with blue trimming, that it was too french and not american enough, even though she was emulating the monroe period which was french. jacquelyn kennedy was very smart. she appointed henry dupont as chair of her white house restoration committee. due upon was a very well known republican and made the statement that her project was a bipartisan nonpolitical issue. nonetheless, it helped to spur the formation of many local historical and preservation societies. her lafayette square restoration was also part of a much larger movement of the 1960's, that of urban renewal and urban planning because it was as part of mrs. kennedy's view in the notion of a restored lafayette square that it should be an area of mixed

use, meaning commercial space, government buildings, that this should be the historic homes should be integrated into a realistic urban plan. in the same manner, lady bird johnson's efforts on behalf of beautification were to promote a program called discover america. as she explained, the united states had a balance of payment problem at the time and president johnson wanted american money spent in america. go and see your own land, these great national parks, he told her to tell them, particularly those parks not heavily visited. the role of hostess in the post world war ii era took on a much more important political meaning. there was more entertainment of world leaders. it was important for musical themes and national an themselves to be accurate, that performers reflect the interests of the guests being

entertained. one had to be careful about the lyrics of entertainment and the implications of entertainment. foreign protocol and customs on men and women had to be followed. the times of meals and the restrictions of menus because of religion views. there was more involvement of the social office with the state department. had to vited also reflect the businesspeople in the united states dealing with those nations at the time. even mrs. johnson's attempts to provide the first, to establish the first arts festival at the white house could not escape being politicized when several of the artists decided not to attend and wrote an open letter to the "new york times" protesting lyndon johnson's vietnam policy. one of them, a poet, got up and read his poem "hiroshima," i hersy, e name, john

the poet who read that poem in front of mrs. johnson. in one of her women doer run chosen. eartha kitt stood up and confronted mrs. johnson on her husband's policy. pat nixon's trips overseas as the president's good will ambassador also carried important political messages. her trip to purru during the earthquake came at a time of difficult relations with the government. at the time the president had courted the soviets, seized american held properties there and was leaning toward an anti-american stand. now he used the presidential palace for the first time to entertain mrs. nixon. as he said, her coming here has meant more than anything else president nixon could have done and the newspaper of peru said material aid and moral support of northern american people was

provided in the example of solidarity in mrs. nixon. at his independence velasco declared that u.s. solidarity with peru was signified by the visit of mrs. nixon. ar trip to africa served political purpose to liberia, ghana and the ivory coast. she met with officials and discussed rodeeshia and policy and economic aid. she addressed the ghana national assembly and relayed information to those nation's leaders on nixon's upcoming trip to china. volunteerism projects on college campuses, also did not the day.e politics of mrs. nixon was showing by being on collegeeers campuses that not all of the youth was protesting, some were

volunteering. but it focused attention on who were supportive of the president and served a beneficial purpose for the administration's domestic agenda and domestic image. betty ford, after the first plane load of refugee children 1975 crashed, killing 200 of the refugee vietnamese children that it was decided important for her to actually appearance atl the airport, at the hangar, actually, in california, where the second plane load was coming allayd i think in part to some fears and notions about the immigration, gave a very eloquent speech to those vietnamese immigrants who were scared and frightened just

coming to the united states, telling themm and that, like so many other generations of american immigrants, that they, too, would be welcome in the united states. again, a political purpose, an important political purpose. deliver thisord message was much more effective and much more human way of conveying a political message of administration. rosalynn carter was criticized style in somef ways but nancy reagan was certainly criticized for having style.h the china gift, for example, that the foundation provided to the white house in mrs. reagan's in a month of tough thession and budget cuts by administration. the same day that the china was announced, unfortunately for them, was the same day that the

administration decided that qualified as a vegetable for low income school lunch programs. accepting gowns on alone from -- loan from termed, in part, by the reporting of those gowns and the revelation of those into a sort of greedy symbol at the time. on heria spin essentially created her into a an image of the callous side of reaganomics. whether that was fair or not, it, again, proved, that even the ofan's personal choice clothing had an important hertical impact, and even "just say no" program. she went to do a just say no appearance, mrs. reagan always protested by an organization called normal, the

national organization for marijuana legislation. it provoked controversy in questions about alcoholism and in adults. when she talked about support for home drug testing by parents of kids, a lot of people raised the issue that this was a violation of rights. at the 1998 democratic convention, jesse jackson "you can't just say no about such problems." bush's literacy program took on political implications. addressing issues like homelessness and drug addiction, motherhood, as being taken care of or at least assisted by illiteracy, the administration perhaps might controversialome questions about those social issues and whether federal action or funding might have helped. mrs. bush enjoyed the traditional role and continued many of the customs

years, by 1992, made even her marriage by the press as a question of legitimacy as to whether the as close as it was claimed to be, the same thing, of course, said about the clintons. bill and hillary clinton, shown lastis second to photograph, dancing at the aaugural ball, shows her in particularly traditional role. certainly she brought a new chef and there was a focus that he brought on more regional no longerooking, french cooking, it gave a focus perhaps,er diversity, of american regional cooking but questions about her personal friends, her marriage, her law partners, the thompsons, producers. there was no longer any escaping

fact that everything a first if it wasr said, even a personal choice, had a implication. this last slide just shows you a formal management diagram of the east wing staff during nancy reagan's years. you how large and how important an entity the social is.ce at the white house it's just as important as the projects office and scheduling and press. tonight's short film is actually news reel of mrs. hoover speechese of her radio with the girl scouts during the we will roll that now and i will introduce our panelists. >> now, mrs. hoover, as a

girlsentative of the scouts of america, i wish to present to you this report of joinirl scouts efforts to their elders in helping unemployed men, women and their families, in this difficult time when so many of our fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers, jobs.o our motto is, be prepared. we have tried to show our leaders, friends and country that our girl scout training as prepared us to give service to those in despair. our efforts have been very small in comparison to what the grown-ups are doing but in our home and school, we have tried to bring relief and cheer to those who have needed our help. am very glad that as your honorary president it has fallen to me to receive this report of scouts and this recent

program of relief to those unemployed. i give to you the messages from various persons and to and to the girl scouts, to all the organizations, the women and the girls, helping during the months and will continue helping as long as the need lasts. ever faithful. most appreciative of the achievement of the organization operating.u are all the women's division of the emergency -- the spirit will be due to the way in which the women make it and he they would meet this with the same spirit with which they met their

ofponsibility in the time save our country and fellow country men and women. went on to express his appreciation for your and allion with him agencies in his own way and time but i know he is most appreciative. >> actually, why don't i start anyway. wing weigh in on any of the social decisions made during the kennedy years, the menu, thers, the kinds of people who were being invited, the kinds of decisions that perhaps was more or lessó mrs. kennedy=?f???ñ??/ and yourself? how frequently and what kinds of on?sions did they weigh in >> well, the west wing tried to

many times but mrs. kennedy and i formed a phalanx and we managed to the power away. they gave us the names of the politicians that needed to be invited but the guest list was really formed by mrs. kennedy and by our office. we did all the things about the food and the flowers and the and the west wing did manage to get in the there dinner guests plus themselves. there was a constant barrage of men in theom the west wing to put themselves on the dinner list. has always wing tried to tell the east wing what to do, from every president and that i've known. lucy winchester, for instance, during the nixon administration, finally had to go to pat nixon and say, i can take orders from

not the west wing, i'm going to resign and pat then put but up to that time, bob halderman, wasn't he the shots? i know pierre salinger did it in the kennedy administration, tried to. he certainly fixed my wagon two times but -- and i'm sure he'd never been to a function, he didn't knowledge about these things that we had or that the in every case and i'm told the same thing was true in the johnson administration look, thisd to say, is our baby and you got to butt out of it. [laughter] there was one first lady that period you covered the white house who you think quote/unquote traditional role to the greatest political advantage?

you don't want me to go back to abe lincoln, do you? think -- thinking along those lines earlier and i think of all things considering probably lady bird because she had tremendous political sense. helped him wonderfully in campaigning. was campaigning was whenthat possibly he was running for senator, she had to travel some distance to speech,peech, to give a and had an accident en route and sheinjured somewhat but pulled herself together, thumbed a ride, i believe, got there and made a speech. many people would do that? and then she picked out things it -- theu touched on country. raft, too, with 50 other unoutdoor

and that was one for the books, i can tell you. the water in the rio grande was so shallow that the raft i was in and liz carpenter was in, she get up, and so did all the men. just one other woman and myself to drag itd they had over the -- you know, it was so low. hysterical but lady bird as completely rounded as hostess, campaigner, political and of course the president made his daughters speak during campaigns. he'd call on them. didn't make any difference if and 16 or 12 and 14, whatever the difference in get up andhey had to speak so he really expected has

and they did.rm >> mrs. bush was very successful, the image of mrs. bush, in a lot of the goodwill things she did and i'm thinking specifically one we talk about with her was the time she went up and threw army into the salvation pot when they were trying to do thingsth salvation army at the mall. that -- wereink photo ops andxcxcxc the things shec participated in, the event, were they calibrated by her more as political events or as sending messages for the administration in a gentler way? i think certainly the salvation army, do you consider that a political thing? i don't. no, i think most of -- you had

some things you do for the party but when you are in that it'sion, the presidency, official versus political most of the time. there doing things for administration and you want to benefit the administration but you're doing things for all the your guest lists are bipartisan although perhaps you have some contributors on there probably and people doing with those countries but you're the president of all the people and first lady of all your calculation there is to make an impression worthwhile. that's in that case, the salvation army, at the time she held the baby. that was definitely planned because at that time people were got aids byt you contact and you didn't. they didn't understand so this breakthroughhd$$$d$$d cynicalúdaaaaúaaaaúe

can be.eaddpdd$ of these someppddddq politicians, once they get in, do want to perform a public service. this is the problem of ourútú have nos right now, wed running those who are but it would be very nice to see they do get in office, fact, they do want topñ@ñr pem something for"! our society is true so we can't say everything done is political once in office. >> that said, i open this you, youup for all of know, mrs. clinton, within a being appointed to chair the president's commission on beenhcare reform, there's this past autumn all sorts of clamor about the fact that she is now assuming more of a traditional role, making doingll appearances and nonpolitical things. do you think that that her as being a nontraditional kind of first

lady is what ultimately has hurt her image or brought her numbers down? by doing morehat quote/unquote traditional types which are photographed and reported on throughout the nation, covered on the national night, that her numbers are going to come up? changed and has first ladies represent that. barbara bush did a lot of work a grandmotherngp@ lover of dogs and else.hing@@ú@úp was raised as her mother was raised. the same kindú@ of wife and hostess. the home, the children, the entertaining with style and panache. that was her heritage and she it again in the white house. right after her administration, during the johnson years, the whole world erupted like volcanos. women who went to work and got divorces and

demanded equal rights. and weflower children had free love and free sex, boy was it great for the young. i missed all that. [laughter] andthe whole world changed it became a whole new concept of women and i think mrs. clinton woman.epresents the new >> she's receded into the background because they've told her to recede and she's playing cool but i can't imagine that back in remain in the the woodwork. i can't imagine that. it's her own self and another world. chelsea will be like her mother. our daughters were like us. our mothers were like our grandmothers. look at what's happened to women and it's a revolutionaryg, exciting time. the next first lady, god knows

what she'll be like. hillary still did something no other first lady had done, by setting up that enormous healthcare commission of 400 people and then saying it could not be -- she would not release the names of the people and it covered one minute and the next minute it turned out they did have certain so they shouldus have been open for coverage so it's been very sticky, that thing, and she's brought on herself and also when she didn't frankly tell the of theirut what came investments or about her futures investment when she said well she did it on her own and ladder she admitted someone helped her. didn't make money in the investment, in fact, they lost, but they did make it. when you're in the public eye say one thing flatly one day and then say the reverse people then question you on everything.

agreejj with tish. think we're the last of people who to grow up and live did and i think0apd0b an important ! " # #"# ! !x differentiation to make and i think that the world is much, much more complex. it, our economic our system, is all sort of chaos, revolutionary and] evolutionary change going on in are intems in which we and i think that therefore you have the white house and the reflectssy about it this, that the issues are so complex that the public is angry and frustrated that there aren't solutions and i think a lot of this reflects in how we feel about this -- maybe about the sayingncy and people are the presidency is unmanageable. well, maybe being first lady is too, in today's world. >> there is no definition of the is arst lady, itñ?xt?p no-win situation.

you cannot come out there criticized.g she wasn't elected, there's no mention of her in the constitution, she's not paid and she can't do right because we expect her to be perfect and we don't know what perfect is so we look good but we don't want her to be a clothes horse. greatt her to be a hostess but we don't want her to buy china, we want her to be opinionatedbut not so no matter what you do, you know, you can't win. [applause] >> i want to say, in lots of i have a great deal of "role."with the word now, maybe i come to this trouble from working from the inside, but it seems to me what really happens here are how these people lead their lives. i mean, what their styles are, how they feel about their children, their children's involvement, you know, putting photograph, in the

i forget which -- >> harrison. i didn't see that as a ploy -- maybe they -- i can can see just wanting to have the grandchild included, not doing specific political purposes. >> in the kennedy years, the press was always on mrs. kennedy photograph those two beguiling children. she didn't want it. she wanted to guard their but then onceall a year she would do something flamboyant such as putting them sled, the old 19th century sled when there was snow south ground, she hitched up the pony and off they went, mrs. kennedy in this old wonderful sleigh ridin lawn in the southa snow. of saying towayp the press, leave us alone for now, we've done this for you. i think the first ladies do that consciously. they do want to help the press

get their story, they want to cooperate but they want to have it their idea. there's a symbiotic relationship between the press and the reporters -- i mean, and house.te you write stories and sometimes excluded -- i have been excluded from white house dinners, i was thrown out of the nixon white house. >> bad manners? [laughter] >> i drank my finger bowl.lf is a siml n beotic relationship that goes on now the president8

things and asking questions, i think there's been a social certainly, too, butr woman reporter would have with a the white house828 philandering presidents in it would have gotten out and been more widely reported and i think that's why you have a lot of these discussions that are on.!!!!!! i think we are examining our own that's how we're examining more of the lives of we president and his wife as880 look more deeply into families

for dinner and who's coming to and you can't get beyond that and here you have a first have poweresn't because she wasn't given power by the constitution but she's given power by the press and to write about her no matter what and what they write about her becomes quite dimensional so you don't see beyond that and it's hard for us there's a lot of jealousy. she becomesññ?÷>÷ñ÷ controversy, if you can stand it, it's very positive and usually if you're on the right come out oking to5? dealou have to be able to=-ñ? with it and it's very tough. ford was such a success because she told the truth and extraordinary in politics, it is so rare that everybody here liked her immediately because she came out and said and they knew it was the truth.

>> but she also did something was very successful and susan and sheila having both is shefor her and that had it both ways in the sense to speak outable on equal rights amendment and buttonn and use hot issues and at the same time a devotede image of quote/unquote traditional what -- wife and mother, a woman who has her husband's concerns children's concerns, who liked to entertain, was involved in the menus, still playing the fashioned role and yet maybe the press gave her the that. because she did >> one of the best social reallyries ever and i do, i think you were great, nancy. you should hold your hand up and they did was -- and i don't call this political -- was to parties as a way that you're american,

that you bring in different people, you mix,bbbb b u became a   @úú b b v likebñb÷@bç the ç"b   ú well,ys, use that, as influence the whole world. >> and people gave dinner crazy and copied your menus and so forth as they house do with the white but today entertaining is dropping down. people are not having anyone over for dinner anymore. they're not, they're not going to the trouble and so it's very lady, it's even more important that she talk about the entertaining and the buttons are entertaining there's got to be more and more and more because we need to do more and more and have our friends over. >> then what happens when the did, fors what they reagan, whichncyço is drawing the harsh economicçí realities of maybe the average american, then the press picks andn the parties and this that and they're criticized and it turns against them

politically. >> you're damned if you do and the whiteyou don't in house. aboutt was interesting nancy reagan that was they were not this great loving family. some of herpeak to children. she never had her grandchildren to the white house and the press ignored it and that was very interesting and yet they carried werehis idea that they really somehow or other they were the grandparents or but theywe all needed never had their children over image.er presented that >> they were very close to each other. >> well, what about their children? >> the children were all -- she said to me once, i said, why is it, nancy, you're the first first lady whose children i've the white house. she said, well, betty, all our haveren are grown and their own lives and are living elsewhere. true -- no, it is true that the four children who some

grown, most fully of them, i guess, they were all adults, but they were younger children but we all know what patty davis is like so --. >> i think the first ladies have been fantastic. haven't had one as long as i can remember and your history is that'setter than mine, been scandalous, that's badly hostess.nd a lousy they've all been warm, loving, great first ladies. lucky. we are jolly no, i feel that way! done a lot of better than many of their husbands have been. [applause] >> it's an outrage that they the presidential plane. they should be allowed to, i mean, on their own. get paid. >> i don't think they should be

things, no.personal >> they get no salary and if they're going to do anything that's official, if you mean a wing go up and have ding in new york or something, no. or to meet some other man -- [laughter] but i do think, when lady bird, the president do not commerciale took a plane, she sat down, at one airport, i think it was atlanta, and had to wait three hours, and ,inally bought one at 3:00 a.m. and the exhaustion for someone who did so much for all of us

for the country -- >> it is better now. i think things like the libyan crisis, there are real security factors here. >> they do not want to bunt off that they do it. [laughter] >> also, you tie up a lot of plea -- a lot of people. the fact of the matter is, it is not that simple. first of all, they go in and everybody has to wait and you become a big show while you are doing it. it is not a simple thing. there are a lot of reasons. >> eight secret service men going with you. pat wanted to ask you about nixon during watergate. thewere with her in appointments and scheduling. i am wondering if there are any times that during those

it waste months thato , everylarly difficultññgñm;m to an eventtçñymçmççkççl the press would ask. to her in saying she would or would not attend an event? >> she went ahead and did her schedule. onen remember that outburst when asked something about the most recent water kate, she said, i love my husband, and she really had it up to here with it. andwas always grace us they went ahead and was always grateful. i remember always -- interviewing her at watergate and she was sitting and watching the redskins game and knew i would ask about was thee because that

unspoken agreement, if you wanted the tv footage about her watching the redskins game, you watergate. about -- when she agreed to make an appearance for the trimmings of christmas season, people said, what do you think about watergate? what about such and such? she would hold her head high and say, i know the truth and the truth sustains me. everyone thinks she knew the truth. i do not think she did but she thought she did. and she said, the truth sustains me. julie was the same way, too. she had a press conference. withdid a tv interview

her. again, it was the wire services that changed things. i am going back to saying when helen came to the white house in 1960 two cover jacqueline kennedy because male editors thought she was a story, that is when reporting really change. before people did write about what people wore, she then started interviewing people about political issues and asked her about the scandal of the day. .verything changed since then, washington society existed no more. she would go and sally would write so-and-so got drunk. people stopped inviting people to parties. >> also, the press used to make the first lady and the

president really mad at those white house functions. would corner all the heads of state and top guns and corner them and make none of the guests -- the senior ranking guests could have access. it was always a war between the president and the first lady. >> i remember you had a meeting with all of us and said, will you please not surround of the special -- guests, the movie stars and the celebrities and he [indiscernible] [laughter] >> very well ahead. >> people magazine and the people magazine mentality and reporting came along right at fordeginning of the administration, the last months

of the nixon administration. you began to see with betty ford naturens of a personal reported in several people magazine stories that you would never have before people ask. the personal detail questions about marriage, the intimate questions about children, nobody dared to ask mrs. johnson or mrs. nation -- nixon whether the johnson girls or nixon goes whether they smoked marijuana but they asked the ford children. >> there are a lot of factors. the development of the media. of the people were tired nixon administration and the lack of information and the lack of candor. they wanted candor and frankness

and they wanted to know about the people because character says something about performance. there. was i knew her from day one. she was ready to ask. >> i do not have to defend "people magazine" anymore. let's just say, i think what happened, television happened in america. there were people sitting on television answering every question. if you'd say to the present united states, which i did, how do you feel about people playing , andall without a helmet let me tell you, i went to yell law school. i am really smart. and i would say, who is crazy? me for asking the question or him for answering? therefore, i was surprised they would answer the question but you would go out and answer the

question. , andt "people" magazine there was a huge brouhaha when they said they would see the white house aides in the carter administration smoking cocaine or whatever. issue ande a huge they did not have people to do it. the question was, why do people answer the question? [indiscernible] >> he was sitting there. we>z were having an interview. that is a perfect example. it is not abuse that our public officials are put to. the kind of question football without a helmet. theye night he was named, could not walk and chew

gum at the same time and that is what people were saying. therefore & & & $ (, you talked, how do you feel. i cannot defend him for answering it. ford me tell you,le i went to yell law school. i am really smart. and i would say, who is crazy? me for asking the question or him for answering? therefore thing became very bizarre because when he tripped coming off the rone, and i was there and denied the president tripped. then we had videotape. we played the videotape back. we thought he had been shot. suddenly, the president disappeared from view. we were very frightened. it turned out he tripped. then mrs. ford talked about it. there was a coffee table. [laughter] withe had a wonderful way the press. when they would ask the really tough questions, he would say,

joe, i cannot believe you asked me that, then he would go, right over there and another reporter would ask the next question. i could not believe my ears when president clinton answered the young 16-year-old girl about underwear. >> you are exactly right on television, people say anything, then you feel you have no privacy. you have to answer the question that somebody asked you. >> i want to let people in the audience know we will start taking some audience questions if you come to the microphone. go ahead. in jacket he -- jackie kennedy's tour of the white house, i think it was charles -- asked her, they were in the

east room, and she was talking about the gilbert stuart portrait of washington, and she was very knowledgeable and this was the first time this kind of thing had happened and she said, are you trying to connect the ,rt with policy? she answered that is such a tough question. i really believed it was because of her efforts that went in johnson signed. >> absolutely. >> why could she not take credit for that? ,> she was an old-fashioned traditional woman. she used to lobby congress all the time for her programs. she would call up the speaker of the house and say, will you do a favor for me today? in a whispery voice. speaker would go right in and put through any legislation she

asked. [laughter] even though she was an old- fashioned girl in that way, she had a lot of power and she used it on congress. >> she did. the whole cultural thing. it was really jackie kennedy. it was jackie's idea. >> the reason she could not take credit for it is because even today, for a to be ambitious, it is not permissible. women cannot be ambitious. things just happen to us. "i just happen to cover the white house". i am very serious. planning is known as scheming. credit for ite or else you are widely criticized for it. >> i asked barbara the question and got sidestepped. was jackanted as much?

killeen kennedy ambitious? >> she wanted the white house. she did not like the political world, smoking in her living room and ruining her draperies. she wanted the was jack killeen white house as much as he did. she wanted to be the first lady of land. they are all dying for it. first lady i have known who did not is beth truman. there is no question about it. she did not like it and he could have run again even though they passed a law that you could not have two terms, seven years. fdr's unfinished term. he could have run again. -- talking to

presidents. [laughter] >> in your bedroom. thinktold me he did not he should run again because of the law. in a sense, it was almost seven years. it was really beth truman. i have seen her at a party. i think it was a party reception to the club in march and talk to her briefly and was so sure he would not run again. she didn't. -- didt a lot of time not like the white house. >> nixon campaigned beside him throughout. i think she never really dreamed of being in the white house. she would shake 4000 hands in one afternoon.

not have the ambition. she did not have it. >> we will find out in heaven. [laughter] >> 1960 election, she was ambitious. 1960. from what i have read and from what i know, in 1968, she was not. she did it because she wanted to. she once said, i've given up up everything i've ever cared for in my life to make my husband president. the california governorship, she had really had it. >> my question concerns questions to first lady's that probably should not be asked, and questions that should not be answered. if a first lady lady declines to answer a question, she will probably get more negative fallout from refusal to answer

than if she intrigued answers. is that a correct or incorrect assumption? >> it might be the way she handled it. things got personal. -- she should not handle it that way. out andld come right say, it is tasteless and bad and disgusting. [applause] >> i do not think first ladies get asked terrible questions. you ask politicians terrible questions, but i do not think they have been asked terrible questions. , it isia is so me now unbelievable. now, it is unbelievable. a woman should be able to --

a president should be able to express his or her opinion. you are in a position to affect change. this is a symbolic office, but you have the opportunity to really do good and to not take advantage of it is a real shame. it does happen too often, perhaps, to the first ladies. i would like to see them answer legitimate questions and express their opinions and do something very meaningful for society. we had someone on and she was incredible in terms of the detail. [applause] anddetail and the projects the social issues she is involved in and the style questions and entertaining never came up. whoyet, you had a woman came into this position in 1977 and yet, as she said, they remembered the things, she did

not serve liquor, she did not necessarily designer clothes. the down style, , >> because, what you do as well as what you say reverberates. it makes an effect, so no matter what it is, you have to be aware it will land somewhere. there are all sorts of messages in there. well. put that very it is not only what you say but what you do, particularly with the first lady. next question? >> tonight, i saw on the the news, a quick segment concerning mrs. clinton. talking at aer school. it may have been a school with low income children. it had to do with something involving dresses for

schoolchildren. i thought, it is nice she is coming out now again in the public and they are trying to do something concerning her image. what struck me was the last line the newscaster said was that the poor children had to wait two hours to eat their breakfast. , inought, my question is terms of your knowledge and involvement with other first ladies, how many times does this happen where the first lady is out to do something good and the press distorts it and it comes out not the way it should have been? a second thing is, a frivolous question, in terms of the image of first ladies, what do you think of all of the focus when mrs. bush had her pearls and also mrs. clinton, and all the trying in the image of to have a sense of her fashion?

, i did not see the segment tonight, but it sounds to me like she had inexperienced people, maybe. to keep the children from eating , -- theirast breakfast, if that is true, and probably mrs. clinton, if she found about -- found out about it, would be irate. >> no good deed goes unpunished. [laughter] every time you try to do something to be really helpful, you get soft in the face. i bet the children were to see the be able first lady. >> do do you think that happens a lot now that the media is meaner than it used to be? >> everyone is meaner. >> i think it is a tough

society we are living in. it is a lot easier in the felthower, truman, rosen -- roosevelt area. >> they are no longer reporting the news. they are digging for dirt. cannot dump this entirely on the press. what has happened is that the audience has become more important in the story. it is all those people watching television, buying the newspapers and buying the magazines. if people did not, they would report something different. [applause] >> respond and then we have one . %÷añ the question about the pearls, you probably do nottñ when mrs. bush the dña%ñ color of her hair was a big

thing. she had a great way she handled it. she said, if you like my hair and you write and tell me, i have a great form letter i will send you. if you do not like my hair and you tell me, i have a great form letter to send you. it was true. .> maybe they are real i do not know. to handle.know how not answering questions. >> last question. >> ms. mason, as a graduate student seriously considering a career in broadcast journalism, why does the press take silly things and blow them into something big? for example, asking the president, why do you play football without wearing a helmet, and the fact that he

tripped going to an airport or something, and all the sex scandals going on. tabloid trashat sells, does not the media want to take a new approach and focus more on real issues that concern american citizens? does that, the new york times, for the most part, but there are newspapers and magazines that do that. i think, again, that you have to go back to the point that a basic thing has happened in american journalism. the story is no longer the -- it is the audience. it is a perversion as it comes over from business. people are buying the magazines. if you do not like it, you do not have to watch it and you do not have to read it. i think, the media is competing. one of the great unreported

everes is that no one calls nightly news and says, there is not a story today at the white house. areepends on how often you on the air and how controversial you are. the greate of unreported stories. the competition is much greater. when betty and i were reporting -- covering the white house, so there were maybe 10 reporters at that time. how many were there? incrediblehuge competition where the world is much more complex. he got his big promotion. it is television people. he got his big promotion after he was really rude to president nixon and the way he questioned him. without standing up for president nixon, it is the often -- the office of presidency demands respect.

if we do not have respect, who will? we have to. the way he phrased that, it was outright rude. he would stand out and he ended up being anchorman. we cann -- i think blame the media and i'm the first to do that. i also think we blame the politicians because they should be questioned. and that is candid why we are probing in the wrong way. what has happened has been a great perversion of what should be going on. perhaps we need a little self examination. >> i think people get governments they deserve and the wars they deserve and the social service they deserve. if you do not like it, go out and become active in politics.

change the world. i am very serious. >> before you finish, i was going to say, when people say, what policy should a first lady -- quality should a first lady have? the democratic national the lives ofged the candidates had them on the stage, and they were all there except jackie kennedy. she was pregnant. his sister was in unit. they were asking these questions. anyhow, so they asked this

quality should a first lady half. she said, it does not make any difference. whoever is the life of the the candidate who wins, that is all. it makes no difference what quality she has. >> may be -- i mean, in some , regardless of who holds the position, whether it is a woman who worked as an attorney for years as -- as hillary clinton, everyone is going to transfer, whoever it is. >> they are saying what quality should a first lady have, it doesn't make a difference.

>> i want to thank everyone for coming tonight. i would also like to -- [laughter] [applause] to come anded rearrange your schedule in the last few hours and claire in the last few hours and betty in the last week. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] second season of "first ladies" begins monday, september 9. you can watch all of the episodes from season one at c- span.org. join the conversation on c- and follow us on twitter.

a few moments, a discussion of the israeli-palestinian conflict and prospects from middle east, which includes former president jimmy carter. hour, the chairman of the house intelligence committee on espionage. then, we will hear the forum on first ladies of the modern era. now, former president jimmy .arter on middle east security group of worldly these -- leaders brought together by nelson mandela to work on peace and human rights issues and this is one hour. >> good afternoon. thank you all for coming. we are honored to have with us so many distinguished members of

though theven elders club has been formed six years ago by president mandela this is theica, first public event for the club and we are very honored it takes place in washington. of course, we have with us president carter. i do not need to go through the introduction. and the u.n. envoy to syria. president ahtisaari is also -- [laughter]

2 -- the focus for this meeting is the palace dan conflict. this event could not have been more opportune given the theuncement friday delegation is visiting start of thisthe planned engagement. how theyill explore can be helpful. from washington, they would go directly to london meeting with paid. in beijing and paris will follow. today, they held talks with and susan rice, mainly on the middle east and why they are not in a position to tell us what they told them,

exactly. we would be hearing from them about matters regarding the peace process and what needs to be done. i thought i would ask of your impression of where matters stand. expect from the latest initiative of carries and the upcoming negotiations and people are still skeptical whether negotiations will need to break through or whether we will see another endless process. have been a peace negotiator who has been able to bring the two sides together. what can you tell us about the latest round in what can we look for that might offer us firstope? >> thank you

of all for letting us come and thank you for coming to be with us. think it is accurate to say the elders have taken upon ourselves the responsibility of probing -- probing for progress in the middle east. the primaryof charges we got. , tots to the middle east israel, west bank, and gaza. ,s well as to jordan, lebanon and egypt. we have been able to keep in close contact with all those countries and leaders as best we can. on my left, he has been responsible for the peace process in syria. wasre that, the now chair,

the convoy for peace in syria. in many ways, the elders remained quite deeply involved in the struggle for peace. we have a few characteristics. none of us are involved in politics directly. have described us as has been politicians. one of our requisites for membership is that we do not hold any public office. one of our members stepped down when she was elected to the parliament. him,was -- we meet with we choose, and we say what we really believe and we are not constrained by whether or not we will be reelected or put it is -- positions of authority. that has given us a chance to meet regularly, as we wish, with

the leadership in hamas. toalso go to north korea bring some relationships with north korea. we go where we with -- wish. we have an insight we always share at the end of our sessions with leaders directly involved and who still hold public off this -- office. is always sendrt very soon after we get back from in which i am involved from the elders. all of the elders have our own organizations to pursue. mayor robertson is one of the groups. she is the commissioner on human rights. she has been given a choice by

the united nations to deal with the great lakes region, which includes rwanda and the congo and also uganda. she is working on that. she is with us today. she had to leave to go to another meeting. they would be with us today but they have been in russia meeting with the foreign minister to meet and talk about some of the same subjects. to the members of , thatcurity council would be going to moscow. that is what we do in general. great pleasureth and excitement the intense efforts john kerry has made to recommence the peace process in the middle east after five years of a wreck we essence date. no one has known exactly what he is doing because his mission has

been very quiet. we also know from the news media, i am not quoting anything john kerry has told us, but we have known netanyahu has a coalition in israel that is heavily dependent on extreme, white -- right wing groups, but one state that controls all of the area, he is quite dependent in his government for their support. that opens up a very good that we should include a peace agreement based on anything concerning settlements. forming a new coalition is a

possibility. on the other hand, the we shoul. are in adversarial worlds in the holy land and are seriously constrained by their own constituency. if and when they come to the peace talks, they will have shown a great deal of courage, politically and personally, in bringing about this chance they might be embarrassed later when they have to make some concessions. we have very much been head ofd the plo has very low support, politically speaking, from his own people, and certainly not from hamas, who are now concentrated their about the mae effort being made, not just to bring them to the peace table, but also trying to correct some of the devastating blows done against the palestinian community economically. there are so many things that , tobe done about the massive, e abbreviate, to improve and make sure they have some insurance.

so they can at least survive and have an economic life of their own. this is what has been going on so far. we also met with a ceo this morning and he explained what he of the were some attitudes of the american jewish community. from my own experience that if and when progress is being made, which will happen, a solution with an independent and free and safe israel living next-door to a palestinian palestinian state, that they would have support not only on a worldwide basis. think we will reserve my time related to any questions you

specifically might have. this you for giving me chance. >> thank you, mr. president. --ould like to turn down turn now to give us an update of these negotiations in an extremely difficult problem. >> it is a pleasure and an to seeo be here and many friends, very distinguished people. it is always a pleasure for me. everybody here is familiar with the situation in syria. i don't need to hide the

depressing numbers that characterized the situation. 100,000 dead. 2 million at least, maybe three, maybe four, maybe five. the destruction you will see depressing numbers that characterized the situation. on your screen every night. lookmakes cities in syria of berlin, 1945. to say that the situation is bad would be an understatement. andsituation is bad getting worse. it has been getting worse for two years now. the important thing to mention , theis that, at long last russians and the americans have gotten together and a little bit of what they have said is what i've just told you. dangerous, not only for the city, but also for the region. we americans and russians

but a political solution is necessary and we americans and russians are going to work together and with others to see this political .rocess happen we saluted this development with a great deal of hope when it happened on the seventh of may of this year. and secretary kerry have met several times with him since and they will meet again in a couple of weeks. the united nations has met with both of them. we have met with russia twice.

to see what are the conditions necessary to bring about that would make an , a u.n.ional conference with good on syria success. i do not think we have those conditions already there. but i think everybody is working to get those conditions. the elements are there. they have been there for exactly one year. one year and a few weeks. on the 30th of june this last year, there was a conference

organized thanks to my predecessor. the results of that conference was a detailed sketch of what the solution of -- for serious should be. the idea now is to organize another conference that is this time, we hope there will be, we hope there must be, delegations, because geneva has said what is needed is to bring the syrian together so they can put together a plan and a process to implement the decision.

,his is what we are trying to these are the conditions we are trying to make -- create. discussing directly or indirectly with the government of syria and damascus. with the neighbors of syria, because i think it is not a it is dangerously mutating into a regional conflict. ask the jordanians and they will tell you there are two countries -- i do not know what word to use. they are sinking under the weight. you have one million, more than one million in georgia.

someone was telling me the other the second city of importance in the country is now -- 50% ofby almost its inhabitants are serious. the few refugees who went to italy from olivia two years ago, the whole world was up in arms. about 20,000 people. having already more than one million refugees, and, i think it is more or less, every day, continuing up to 6000 refugees.

a little bit elsewhere. so, the situation, once again, it is extremely bad. being destroyed. i was heavily criticized by both sides a few months ago when isaid, what they are doing cooperating to destroy their country. addressed toe plea both the opposition and the government is to show some kindness. into theirle country and also to their i am sure there are many of you who know syria who know how rich a country this is. , in hollis, there is a

church that goes back to the year 67. it has been destroyed. that has alsoque been destroyed. the mosque has been destroyed. the market has been burned. of course, in situations like this, you have a lot of habitats stolen and taken out of the country. it is not only the present and the future of syria under threat. it is also the past. our family history, really, is being destroyed. a how hopeful are we that

solution will be found? >> we are very hopeful. but tos no other way but it will not be easy. >> thank you very much. >> i thought we could ask you about the linkages between syria and palestine, including the roles they could play. what do you make of all of these linkages? >> i was asked by my colleagues to come to new york and talk. what theirt we couldand to fint attitudes were.

i was in new york in february of last year. [indiscernible] [laughter] [indiscernible] >> i met the representative because the american and chinese capitals -- i must say, while i it was there to take

up the special invoice task. i was extremely disappointed the and wereere so engaged starting to talk. they are permanent members and i am an old u.n. hand, as many of you know. i always say permanent members have an important and responsible task. they have more responsibility than ordinary members. from my talks with the permanent members, i did not feel it would have been important. , --out going any further

what has happened and how the situation has deteriorated. but, today, i am much more optimistic than perhaps a few months earlier. for various reasons. with the nothing to do three countries the chairman mentioned. if i see that the permanent members are getting their acts together on other issues, as north korea,oned it is today i see we may have a situation developing where the americans, chinese, can not actually cooperate. every opening that leaves --

leads to positivity will help .n other areas as well there is now a serious effort starting this week. that is an important element here, as well. what we hear lately, not only in washington, but in general, that we finally start feeling we -- hearing we should seriously start with political solutions , and not talk about military solutions. i think far too little has been discussed. if one isill happen really serious, we -- start pursuing military options in

syria. we also have positive development, as you mentioned, the new president in iraq. it definitely keeps an opening. this is the moment we have to actually talk to everybody. and start the dialogue, not only on the nuclear issues, but on other issues, as well. therefore, i hope, as i mentioned now, it will take time. but we will finally start looking for political solutions, which i think we should have. i was disappointed because i thought there would have been .penings as a special envoy, the missions in the past, i know how

brilliant the special representatives are. if they do not have the main after support, they cannot do it. that is something very important for you to understand. i do not think that [indiscernible] i mean support that will have actually led to a concrete [indiscernible] before theong time united states and russia are talking. we hopefully are ending up in geneva, and seeing how we go from there. click thank you very much. -- >> thank you very much. we open it up for questions. there are a lot of people in the room. please make your questions short. minutes ofut 20

question time. yes, please. >> thank you, mr. president. . am a journalist i want to ask you, after meeting with secretary kerry today, what gives you hope that this time around, there is a push forward and it is not a déjà vu that harkens back to previous issues. thank you. i am not referring to anything the president said. it seems to us, having met with him and having been involved with them for a long time, that this -- it has been almost a five-year absence to bring the two parties together. they bring zest to any sort of move toward a combination.

that in itself is a sign. i mentioned earlier, which i need not repeat, how terrible the question is on both of the leaders to not go to the negotiating table, if it involves the most crucial element, and that is portals -- borders. based on lancelot. has been the crucial unanswered question for a long time. know the initiative that began in 2002 has been modified to include the phrase, with lancelot. -- land swaps. netanyahu cannot admit it because he has been

promised his to major supporters on the right wing will abandon his government if he does. he will stay mute on the stand. the united states, of course, will be asked by the palestinians to repeat our ,osition, which is long-term that is 1967 borders, only to be changed with good face -- good faith agreement. that is the key issue. if they can address that in a the symbolicay, right of return will or will not be resolved. the other thing that is always difficult is jerusalem. that is a very encouraging thing. the other thing that is very important is, with a step down, there has been a negative reaction all over the western of theo the possibility palestinians having any economic progress. been announced in the press that one of the major

breakthroughs have been -- has been the israelis and americans are also dedicated to helping the palestinians survive, even if the israelis are cutting off their income from customs and so forth. this will put the israelis -- the palestinians back on the basis of being self-supporting during the troublesome time when they might make concessions not popular back home. i think those two things are the most important, for me. what will happen. it might be the first time and adjourned. i think there has been pressure from the palestinian people and from the israeli people to have a resolution of the issue. those with whom we meet posing any sort of peace talks, my experience meeting with the leaders is that they are willing to accept a

peace agreement negotiated returns aree remitted for a referendum. that can be a major step if the peace terms are concluded at the negotiating table. is a chance to bring hamas on board, even though they will not be on board in the interim. for summarizes my reasons being much more hopeful than i was five years ago. >> what happened to resolution 242? [inaudible] remember at camp david, everybody agreed to abide by 242. of territorysition by force.

the borders to prevail, that would honor the basic thrust of to 42. i think it would take care of 242 which can be modified to some degree. >> do you think that we have a form of two states or apartheid in the united states? don't have two states.

we have separation and the polarization of the constituencies brought about by the massive infusion of money, most of which is spent on- advertisement that creates a division among the population and it carries over washington. is thing i am most concerned the growing separation between the richest americans and the poorest americans. have the basic attitude of people who are different from us. that a number of prisoners thancerated is 700% more when i left office. i think there is a difference in our country but i have confidence the country will survive.

it is a wise and judgmental supreme court. >> [inaudible] caller: [indiscernible] and the price of any quality. nowadays, when i speak in my own

, we don't need any sort of capitalism or socialism. countries represent that their best. subtitles -- the [indiscernible] [laughter] they could have mentioned any of us and the nordic countries. >> can you explain what is the holdup on geneva.

>> that is an easy question. divided,try that is that is no secret. in the conference, that is one of the problems. i think no doubt that -- the thingssay

that i said a while ago. there must be and there can be a solution to work together. i think that we're moving forward that way. the opposition is working its .ay slowly they can't be worked out yet.

the thirtieth of june. an agenda to get from where we i call the new republican states. the governing body with full executive powers, it is very clear that we will have an executive body.

the transitional government, it is going to have the full executive powers and it will until the country time comes for an election to take place. there is a lot of double in the details there. it did not speak about president assad in one realm. that would the road lead to the new syria. , have been saying all along and this has been popular with a lot of people, the time for cosmetic changes in syria has passed. demanding real change,

transformation of societies. >> i have a follow up if you don't mind on syria. if you look at these -- [inaudible]

>> you know, when i briefed the security council in november, people were extremely critical refused to say that the opposition was winning at that regime was living its last today. yearnk most people last were convinced that they have lost and the opposition was winning. i think that was not correct. people saying of that the government is winning, the regime is winning.

it is doing much better than it did in november. that is true. but situations like this, making progress and winning are two different things. look at how long it would take you to regain that. there were about 500 people. weeks.d take two or three times it was still in the hands of the opposition. there are 2500 people in them. after five or six weeks, they have not gotten anywhere.

well at theng moment but they are not doing well everywhere. including theend we saystates of america, there is no military victory for anybody. .here is a lot of destruction one day the opposition has the upper hand, the next day, it is the government. you need to get out of this vicious circle to a political process that can end this conflict. take three orcan four questions at a time. the don't want to counter

expert but when fighting has been going on for such a long time, it becomes very difficult for those that had been opposed to accept that they should organize. and to negotiate the interim or transitional government is extremely complicated. i hope they don't keep up the possibility entirely. but asked the un to organize the elections because they are capable of doing that. and there is enough people. >> i have not seen an election

and i want told complement them. >> we won't get involved. >> the united states does not qualify. >> thank you for being here. i have a quick question. people, i have been following the conflict closely. you mentioned the issue in geneva and the holdup was the members that will or will not come to the table. everybodyld convince to get along and come to the table, who would be a crucial member? and how do you convince the

people on the ground that these are legitimate representatives? president carter, you have been a strong advocate for a peaceful solution. it is easier today than when you were president? >> let's take one more question in the back. gentleman with the glasses. >> i would like ask you my sense of speaking with palestinian civic leaders is that there is a lot of resistance. the demilitarized palestinian state, only a token return of refugees, there is more

resistance among the palestinian people then years ago. the think it will be too big of an obstacle to overcome? >> there was no demand on me to be engaged. it ended up being a possibility for peace talks. >> strong enough and courageous enough and wise enough to reach an agreement. effort.eded to make an that is what john kerry faces now, even more plausible that

was back in those days. times, veryoth difficult. the palestinian people and the israeli people want peace thegh, i think as far as palestinians are concerned, the river valley was never mentioned as being controlled by israel until bill clinton was in office. we anticipated that israel would be torn from all of palestine. the green land borders.

that is a difference now. i am not sure there will ever accept israel controlling the jordan river valley as well as a major portion of the west bank. they are talking about land swaps. i met with one of the most conservative leaders, and he pointed out a land swap that was intriguing that the audience might find interesting. israel, anding to let them have it. land would bef granted to form a corridor between gaza and the west bank. a the corridor would be railroad and a highly -- and a highway. wonderfulike a very

future possibility that might occur. mentionedgs that you are very effective. think there is any amount of refugee returning to israel except the very few for a handful or a dozen with a token response. it might be to the west bank or no or else. are difficult, and i think that the referendum is good natanyahu says -- will not approve anything unless he submitted to the people for referendum.

what ever the peace agreement is reached, they will accept it. if the good way because leaders at the negotiating table except the peace agreement, i guarantee that the people will accept the same thing. >> the syrians do not deny that they are speaking oup and divided in some many different ways. the main groups that control the opposition agree.

i think the people and the opposition understand that it will be everybody. in a veryow complicated way, if people have been negotiated where they would be accepted. when we completed, they were aware that you were not fully representative. but come to an agreement, just for 35 people. afghanistan and nobodynt this properly,

will remember. this agreement was signed by 35 people. this is a similar situation. if we have a family representative, we have all lot of work to do. would you like to say anything? afraid that is all the time we have. invited on the reception -- to the reception that will take place on the ground floor. meetings for 10 minutes, and i would like to ask you to remain seated until they are able to leave the room and i hope you join me in thanking a

truly incredible group. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> and the role of the first lady, she becomes the chief confidante. he only won the world that he can trust. he talked to her and they have all the mass. they a company usually a strong man to where he was. i would say that is their main role, confidante to the

president. >> examining the public and private lives of these women and their influence on the presidency. at 9:00rtha washington p.m. eastern. >> in a few moments, the chairman of the house intelligence committee on the threat of cyber espionage. of firstinfluence ladies on the modern era. later, the discussion of the israeli-palestinian conflict. delegate jon christensen, a democrat from the virgin islands will discuss the plans to reform minorities about the health care options available. patricko be joined by

mchenry in north carolina who will discuss the role of the irs targeting political groups. the will also discuss the health care law for the self-employed. live on c-span every day. >> mike rogers warned on monday that the most serious threat is cyber espionage. strategicute for studies, he added the u.s. is not ready to deal with the increasing number of cyber attacks. is 45 minutes.

>> i assumed you can hear me even if the microphones don't work. i am introducing congressman mike rogers, i am stephen simon. can you hear me now? i am the executive director and i am introducing congressman mike rogers with a great deal of pleasure. he was directed the congress in 2000 and came to congress from an unusual background of the fence and law enforcement. he was a special agent before coming to congress. important, even pivotal role as chairman of the intelligence committee.

as you probably know, the intelligence committee does the authorizing of intelligence activities and functions in oversight capacity. doneessman rogers has rebuilding through to completion, and all while, developing a reputation for bipartisanship which is quite a rare and special fang. congressman rogers has grasped the battle that has loomed very large of late, an issue which the institute itself is closely associated. i like to bring congressman rogers to the podium who will speak as long as he wishes, and we will follow up with a question and answer.

>> we ran a little behind, gps.ne had hacked into my lighten up, people, it can't be that bad. what i think is probably the biggest national security issue that america is not quite ready to handle this cyber security, cyber attacks, cyber espionage. there is a lot that keeps us up at night. you can sleepif tonight, we are even. as you look around the world, and unstable egypt and the uncertainty there, it seems there is no good option in syria anymore. we are looking for our best

worst option in this area of circumstance. the russians have played a more aggressive role internationally, dropping some sophisticated nuclear submarines that we had not seen since the 1990's. playing to what we think is good policy when it comes to their blocking the united nations and other areas around the world. we are aggressively pursuing in have been increasing their defense spending, 13% a year since 1989. when people make the comparison about our military versus any other military and the world, the biggest expenses are personnel and health care in the united states defense department. china does not have that burden. buying new technology

in getting leaner and more sophisticated in their military operations. they have aggressively talked about not having the u.s. navy in the south china sea. we have been there for we have a a world we look at every day. these are all things that we worry about. loose nukes, we spend a lot of time tried to figure out that issue. we all understand those issues, seated in history. the locations have changed but the problems have not. now on the front is cyber- security.

we are going to have to change that. we are trying to change that. there has been some hiccups in us changing that dialogue. and about where we are. we have activists -- hacktivists, trying to make their voices heard through illegal acts on the internet. you have individual come in all knockoffs were trying to get in and steal anything they can that is not nailed down and use it to their advantage. your id, birthday, credit card number, steal what they can, move onto to the next victim. organized crime which is a growing threat. the credit card in your wallet hit -- the company will get 300,000 times today. trying to get in and steal a block of numbers in a

bigger way to steal personal information as well as your credit card information and turn that into a criminal traffic. , oneve the next level up we have talked about frequently. chinese primarily, economic espionage where a nationstate has geared its military and intelligence services toward the single focus of stealing intellectual property, taking it back, repurpose thing that intellectual are pretty and againstg illegally u.s., european, asian companies. huge problem. has called itr the largest transfer of wealth illegally in the world's history. many believe it is pushing to trillion dollars in value of lost and stolen intellectual property.

these are the blueprints of companies, they spend as much time as they need to spend. they will have these long persistent threats and they will lay there as long as they need to to find specific pieces of intellectual property to steal and bring back for repurpose and. they have certain sectors of the economy of which they would identify and pass on to their units who are designed to steal that intellectual property. you get up in the morning, if you are the i.t. security guy, it could be a pharmaceutical or a military piece of hardware. it could be on a trade till. you get that list of companies and sectors that you're supposed to target until you are successful.

if you are the i.t. security guard -- guy that is a list of beyond. the weight of that has got to be overwhelming. are you as an individual responsible for defeating a nationstate in its economic espionage activity. that is why we are losing this fight. not because we do not have great i.t. guys but if a nationstate dedicates its intellectual capital and resources to get into your network eventually they will get in your network. that is the problem we are economicen it comes to espionage. let me give you one more bad piece of news. we have seen this especially in china. some of these enterprising young cyber-hackers who are designed and trained and employed by the chinese government, either they are military or -- to steal property.

they are very good. they spend 8, 9, 10 hours a day doing that work. if you are a company that is on that list but your down on that list why not pick up the phone and call the company and say i am free nights and weekends. for a little cash i will be happy to spend my time trying to get in and get that intellectual property. imagine this. problems set.our they have just increased their ability to ward economic damage to the united states. the damaged by 50% overnight. this is a huge problem. the reason they think they can go there is because there has been no consequences i mean no consequences to their economic espionage. it has been a free reign, a free run. china needs to grow 8% per year just to sustain the economic social programming. they are not doing it by

innovation. they're doing it by that. we are the victims of that. we will be lucky to grow by 2% this year just to meet their numbers. you can do the math and understand where that prosperity is coming from, laces like the united states. very dangerous stuff. if you look at the last level, we talked about this on the digital pearl harbor or other things to get people to understand the gravity. that is military style cyber attacks. for the sole purpose of creating

damage in punishing their enemies. when you look at where we are today, so many nationstates are gaining in capability that we had not anticipated or seen in the past their rapid increase in their abilities. some we think is going on their own. some are getting the tutelage and comfort of others, maybe even nations. we know this this will be with us as long as we have computers. that day has come and gone. there is no turning back. the russians we saw uses in estonia or mr. krugman was upset. this was a devastating and ruinous cyber attack. it was a form of political punishment to the small country of estonia.

it had serious consequences. we sell russians use it again in a military style planning. imagine that is a new prepping of the battlefield. now before any of that happens you are going to see a very aggressive cyber attack to be as disruptive and cause us much chaos as you personally can. people try to get gas. grocery stores will not work. the electric grid is off ground. you cannot get this from your financial institutions. you can imagine what chaos that causes in a very short order. it is troubling. that is with us. there was a mandiant report.

they were able to identify a political unit that had property declines in going after things like our electric grid to find that were they to get into that system. not because i do not think the chinese are going to turn off our lecture good but because they were just getting ready in case they ever needed the opportunity to shut off. this sounds a bit orwellian but it is alive and well. the chinese have that capability. it was troubling for us that they have been so persistent to fine places to lay this code into our lecture grid. if they ever needed it they could shut it off. this last piece which is concerning which is where you solve this they have more

success than we had anticipated they would have. that concerns us. how do they keep their capability where they got it? it was significant. it means their rapidly increasing their ability to conduct mischief around the world. why is that a problem? not a rational actor in the economic stage. they're pursuing their nuclear webs row graham. now they are pursuing cyber warfare capabilities. this is a way that is very

concerning to their south korean neighbors. we have seen some very devastating efforts. this cut us a little off guard on their shared capability for a destructive attack. obviously they have been at each other for some time. there have been some strong theological differences. there's been a large clearing house. imagine leaving on a friday and coming back to your office and seen 30,000 machines are not off. you're not going to turn them off. paperweights on your desk. they're able to get in on a file system and damage it so your computer would no longer initiate. it is not likely to recover the data. it would be pretty difficult to do. most likely you'll never get any of that data.

a huge problem. they also destroy data and then the manipulated it. in other words, this is a me owing you a hundred dollars, it is the other way around. i do not know how you go back and try to do that. if you are engaged in the commerce, we are turned around. it is very interesting. here is what is worrisome. we know that they have been aggressively pursuing probing actions on the financial institutions. the sheer number of these was traveling a month ago. it is more than troubling today. it has gone unabated. we found it is not their best

work. they have the capability they have not use. these were a denial of service. they're trying to shut down the ability to process the transactions. they have some of this the first they are the best at protecting themselves from these kinds of things. they have been engaged in trying sincep theft from -- dillinger decided he wanted to rob makes. round the old scheme to percent.tenths of a but they did is they were able to shut down certain banks.

just the last transaction time and the mitigation to heap up with what their attack was cost one bank over $100 million. one financial institution, one attack. not there best work. that ought to make everyone sit up straighter. now you know why i do not sleep that night as the chairman of the intelligence committee. we have to clear transactions on a daily basis $8 billion $8 trillion globally. imagine if someone is successful at causing problems as we move forward. it would be devastating and i want to take questions so that we can have a dialogue here. if people lose faith in the internet, it is one sixth of our economy in the united states today. think about how much you do from shopping to banking to communication on the internet today.

it will only get more engaged in your life, not less. what if we lose faith in the internet as a commercial tool? one sixth of our economy happened through the internet and internet-based applications. if americans say, we're done, we do not trust it, and we are going to stop online banking, we have huge problems. and it only takes once. if they're successful, one major financial institution -- and these folks are swimming. they're keeping their head above water. the government protect these networks and if you read the newspaper, the nsa is listening to everything that you do.

and i need to talk to you in the back, the fourth row, those e- mails, very disturbing. i'm kidding. the only way that the nsa might see that is if they see it overseas first. if we do not create some way to share malicious source code in real time to stop this, eventually will be on the losing end of this equation. and we can only say, so often we are innovative and we're ahead of everyone else and we can just innovates ahead of anyone -- a mcginn just keep innovating ahead of other places against us. or we can allow the federal government to share some very often -- offensive malicious source code so that they can protect their own networks, not that the nsa would be monitoring those networks, and if they can do this normally, then we can react to protect our garment networks as well as finding out the origin of the particular -- the government networks as well as finding out the origin of the particular attack.

we need clarity in our tools and how we move forward to protect ourselves. and protect, i would argue, the last place that would have an open an inch -- energized internet. if we do not do this, that next generation of americans will have a very different attitude toward the internet and will look at it as that one open window in a very dangerous neighborhood. that is no place to be as we move forward. we can talk about anything that you like. i will open it up to questions. >> please, tell us who you are

as you ask a question. >> [indiscernible] >> [laughter] you might want to tell me your story. >> as cyber security, or cybering in general does not have borders, what, in your view, is the most efficient way to deal with this, and a way to partner with the private sector here in the states? do you have any ideas how to include the private-sector internationally?

because government to government or more cooperation with the corporations globally has not happened. >> i have just finished meeting is trying to this -- decide how to deal with the disclosures made by snowden. by the way, most of which was just made -- based on inaccurate information. we need to get the facts on the table, is that we're dealing with what the facts are, not we think is happening. what we decided to do is to have a small delegation from here starting with the you -- the e.u. it is the second most internet commercial the zone in the world.

they have concerns about how we partner. we wanted to make sure we get all that worked out. the government cannot do this on their round. the u.s. does not have the kill switch on the internet. i argue that we should not have a kill switch, like argue -- like china, iran, russia, and others. we need a solution, a partnership and sharing and other things. we need to do that here first, we argue. and then at the same time have the dialogue with first, our european friends, and then try to bring as many of the g-20 nations, knowing that some of our biggest cyber adversaries are in the g-20, but you have to start building it out. our argument has been, we are in a cyber warfare -- a cyber war today. most americans do not know it. your nation felt it, i think, first, bigger and harder than any other nation.

i'm not sure it is the history you want to make, but we are in that fight right now every day. and we have not protected ourselves yet. as we go with this dialogue with our european allies, and i met with the chairman of the justice committee that does all of data privacy. we're trying to work through some things and then push it down to the private sector across the youth. -- across the european union. this is a private sector generated economy when it comes to the private-sector -- this is a private-sector generated effort when it comes to the economy. we have to have a uniquely american approach that protects privacy, protects civil liberty, and still protect our national

property and security interests as well. we do that with the europeans and then spread it out through the g-20. that is our plan. for any of the reporters here, you should grab the estonians. they are ahead of the curve when it comes to cyber protection, mainly because they have worked through such tough times of their own. and your ambassador is fantastic. she should show up everywhere she can, because when she does she wins converts. yes, sir? >> my name is mike webber. i'm a native of michigan. it was a dhs report that came out a couple of days ago that was quoted in the "wall street journal" talking about how this might affect some of the cyber projects that are ongoing, especially scaling back projects

conferences and other critical infrastructure activity. how does this affect cyber in your mind, and what can we do to make sure it is not affecting our activities in a major way? >> two things. the way sequester works is a terrible way to run a will road. it was heavily weighted in national defense. that was a big mistake. at the end of the day, when you're talking about 2 cents on every dollar spent federally, that is what the sequester amounted to, 2 cents on the dollar. how many people think that we cannot find 2 cents in the federal government that probably should not be spent? i argue that we absolutely can. but the way they did it is that they pushed most of the funding in two line items into -- in two line items for funding items, which i think it's a mistake. that money is more about authorization of intelligence

finding that even defense appeared when you take 17% -- some of these line items get hit 17%, not two cents. i will give you an example. one particular place we have a line item for helicopter fuel. take 17% of our ability in this 1 per together line item for helicopter fuel, guess what, helicopters are not flying. that is not good management. it has been harmful. on the cyber things, i have been trying to protect those budgets in the last couple of years. we have grown our investment in cyber, mainly because we know what is coming. the threat matrix was bad five years ago, worse today. it will be really bad and another five years.

we try to protect that in the funding. i think will be ok in the next conference or two. but the effort on cyber will continue to be robust because we want to make sure we have protected that in the budget. knowing that sequester will likely go into effect in the next year. all the way in the back. yes, sir. >> about 18 years ago i issued a report about cyber warfare. that was 18 years ago. what was done in between? the russians set up their cyber command right at the end of the cold war.

why have we waited this long? >> well, we have waited this long to go public about it, which is unfortunate. there were things happening in the last decade or so, but i will tell you something, when i first became a member of the intelligence committee in 2004 and had my first cyber briefing, at that time, the attitude was, we're trying to show you what our threat matrix looks like and we will go through this in some depth. this is a problem, but when we can deal with. oops. i don't know if it was complacency or just lack of interest, but at that time, we were ahead of the game. there was no one even close. that quickly turned. by the end of the first five years of me being on the committee, that threat had flipped 180 degrees to, "hey come out we are losing this fight." -- "hey, we're losing his fight." i think that, a lot of people off guard.

i do believe that we were well ahead of our adversaries. that is no longer true. and then the dialogue of how we get public support, none of this works if we cannot get public support. i think we have seen that with their recent leaked stories coming out. if the public does not buy into what we're trying to accomplish here, it will not work. it is just not who we are. trying to have the public dialogue -- was it three years ago? my counterpart and i decided we would go out and talk about the world's greatest threat when it came to cyber espionage and intellectual property theft, china. we revised government officials at that time to actually announce to the world that it was china, and we could not find businesses were willing to go in front of the committee tuesday they had been hacked, even if

they knew it was -- to say they had been hacked from even if they knew it was china. because of all of the fear of repercussions and trade issues. it has been difficult to get people to talk about this. it has been a relatively recent phenomena that you can get someone to come out and make a speech about china. the stuff that we deal with in the intelligence committee is awfully important. we're a little behind in the fact that we were ahead, fell asleep, got surpassed, and now we're trying to catch up. we still have to bring the public in. the public generally, because again, they do not have access to the information, is really only aware of the sheer volume and a threat that we face every

single day, to our government, our businesses, to your job, cyber espionage and cyber hacking. it is a matter of changing that dialogue. >> i'm looking at an article from the new yorker from last night. today, on profits, the historical average is closer to 6%, but they are now 10%. >> i would argue that if you look at spending, we've never had more cash from corporations in america sitting on the sidelines and we do today. and we kept waiting to get back in the market, waiting to get back in the market. that is while the corporate balance sheets have been fantastic. one reason, they're not hiring at the same rates at all. and they're waiting to try to figure out what series of regulatory actions, both in health care and finance, mean to their bottom line. they held in reserve cash.

i will tell you that you can be sitting pretty well today, but if my innovation, my research and development for that product tomorrow sets me apart, is the next generation of ipad or the next generation of technology gadget is stolen, that is hard to measure in real terms. it is very hard to measure in real terms. but let me just try to do it. many have made public comparison about the f-35 fighter, our newest fighter. in the middle of that whole thing, expenses jumped pretty

dramatically. and then you saw pictures in china that looked exactly like our f-35 fighter. that is funny. how did they do that? i don't think it was coincidence. and across job -- this was a big fight in congress about the cost. someone might want to draw the parallel publicly that maybe if we have lost by cyber theft all of our stealth technology on that aircraft, it was the long gray stealth aircraft -- it was no longer a stealth aircraft and maybe we had to redesign and to keep it is healthy and the most premier aircraft in the world. some might draw that parallel. i would certainly never do that, but some might draw that parallel and that costs real dollars. and you have companies that lost their whole company. there was a company that was supposed to be an electronic certificate, said bct surjit debentures up at your computer and -- that safety security certificate that shows up at your computer and says this is supposed to be mike rogers, yes, that is mike rogers. the iranians got into that

company with something called a man in the middle and hijacked those the certificates. at that time, they were using it for perth -- for political persecution in iran. they wanted to know who people were talking to, so they hijacked the certificates to see to it was. it was the iranians reading your e-mails. that company was gone in about nine months. here is this growing company,boom, gone. what was the value of that company? hard to measure. another name, american superconductor. they decided to do a joint venture in china.

they had a technology that would allow for the conversion of solar and wind and getting into the grid, basically. if the engineers heard me explain it that way, they would probably be all over me. but in a nutshell, that is what it was. the company was worth about $6.3 billion. they do the right thing and do a joint venture with the chinese government. in less than a year, the chinese basically steals every bit of their intellectual property, cancel their contracts, threw them out of the country. that company went from $1.6 billion in american value to about $170 million. and the only reason it was worth that, the seal was very open about this, was because -- the ceo was very open about this, was because he had some defense contracts that they did not see. they were parcelled off. all the employees, all of the value of the company, gone. he does not think he will be here in a couple of years. he does not think he will make it.

guess what the largest company in china is now. the company that sold 100% of their intellectual property. we say, this is the innovation economy, this is where we are going. bond. those big corporations -- this is where we are going. gone. those big corporations, hopefully decide to put cash back into the economy. but a understand how they got where they are, regardless of what this intellectual property theft thing is about. >> and from the national board college.

china is committing intellectual property theft because there are no consequences. could you outline what some of those consequences could be? >> a great question. and again, talk is cheap. any time we just have a discussion with the chinese government, they deny it. obviously, we will have to change that paradigm if we're going to get somewhere. there are several things that we can do. one is, any bilateral discussion with china, that has to be number one, number two, and no. 3 on the list. it is that serious in my mind. we should not get to any other discussions before we get to answers on their efforts on cyber a screen -- . and by the way, the united states ever does not use its military or any other part of the government to steal intellectual property. it does not happen and certainly will not. that is not who we are and it is not what our intelligence services do. some notion when they get out

there on tv and says, at the u.s. does that. no, they do not. that is why we join with other nations states who do not steal intellectual property to give it back to their private economy. secondly, we have a bill recently that says, let's make this really uncomfortable for individuals sitting at those machines stealing intellectual property. we will make sure they cannot get visas to the united states. that they are put on lists where they are not allowed to travel to the united states. you could start looking at financial issues. make sure that their finances do not travel or transactions clear through the united states. the next level down from that, and once we do this public shaming, if you will, of these

individuals, and take very concrete actions -- and these folks have to understand there is a consequence for stealing intellectual property. the next step ought to be looking at, and we did not get this in our bill, but the next step would be to look at countervailing duties for products of companies that we know and can show clearly have been stolen and benefited from cyber espionage and then repurchased back to the united states. you have a countervailing duty regime to make it nearly impossible for them to compete in the united states. the bilateral peace, i think we could have a real impact on this. after the report, i think there were down maybe four days. before that, full organizations back at work. why? a huge benefit, no consequences. >> we've got time for one more

question. >> yes, sir. >> i applaud your efforts to be bipartisan. my question goes to the nature of warfare today. we seem to be responding with economic stations as a course of action. do you see ron responding in kind if our economy was -- you see ron responding in kind if our economy is based on the trust factor? >> i think they're making a conscious decision that they feel empowered, now that they have this capability. i am not saying anything, although i would argue that some of the signatures certainly have a hint of muscovite in them. i think they make this calculation that it is a legitimate response to

sanctions. that is why they are targeting our financial institutions. i have argued that they have probably made this decision, hey, we had this event that was wildly successful. and they have decided the pressure is on. which is why i think it makes them such an irrational actor on this. our capabilities getting better. we will do these probing attacks in retaliation for an aggressive and aggressive sanctions regime. obviously, none of this has slowed them down in their pursuit of nuclear weapons. we would like to have honest conversations with ourselves in this country if, what are the consequences of allowing a country that is already aggressive in cyber warfare and terrorism against u.s. targets, that is already responsible for

at least -- dot estimates about 600 soldiers dead in iraq and afghanistan because of iranian complicity. this is the nation that tried to kill the saudi ambassador in washington, d.c. and so far, they have suffered the same kind of problem, very little consequence. we will have to have an honest discussion. i know we have a frequently in our space is about what happens next. imagine that nation now it's the umbrella of a nuclear weapon. we should ask ourselves some hard questions about what that means. they are aggressive now. could you imagine that umbrella of a quicker exchange option?

which many believe means they could release their conventional and unconventional forces in a we have not even done today in a way that would be disruptive. we have talked with our partners on these issues. they are more aggressive about stopping iran getting a nuclear weapon, clearly, then we are, and i think even than the rest of the world is. this is a very large, very looming problem that will have to -- we will have to get our hands around very soon. they have done nothing in negotiations but by themselves time, and clearly, during that time they have kicked the ball down the field. and these gripping sections have not deterred them. think about north korea. we nearly starved a nation through the years to death because of sanctions. i argued they serve themselves. but the benefits outweighed the consequences. that is a hard equation to break, but we have to figure out a way to do it. thanks. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> has been the problem for the last week. republicans and democrats have raised the issue on the spying program along with some funding.

they want to talk about that on the house floor before the passage. house republicans leaders want to eliminate that and they say that there is some classified things they are worried might creep up in those discussions on the floor in public. they are concerned that some of the programs they do not want cut could become victims through a combination of libertarian republicans on their side and liberal democrats on the other. write thatstory you there are 17 legislative days left before the new fiscal year begins. how is work going on a dozen spending bills that is supposed to keep the government operating past september 30? x they have until september 30 in the fiscal year to renew the current resolution. the senate plans to take up its

first of 12 appropriations bills this week and the house has done three and looking to do for, perhaps five. they have 17 scheduled legislative days. the august recess begins at the end of next week. they only had nine scheduled days in september with the holiday and labor day and the constituent work week. we either will see an incredible last-ditch sprint of activity or we will have to consider watching them put continuingmakeshift resolution for the start of the fiscal year. >> you mentioned overall spending and the defense bill. do those levels stay under sequestration caps after mark >> in a way that would impact other bills trade members on both sides have privately and some publicly suggested that defense programs should be hit

less than perhaps social programs. -- mosts have a problem democrats have a problem with this. that seems to be where they are headed this year. to take a little less out of defense and more from programs trade >> the house is planning to considered to bills. what are those bills about? >> it is about republican messaging. one of them require the epa to do a report on any suggestion, a program that would cost $1 billion or more temperament. these are not going anywhere in the senate. it is for the house republicans to say they are cutting down on regulation and cutting costs to business. >> appreciate your time. >> thank you. in a few moments are special programming on first ladies

continues with the form on the influence of verse ladies of the modern era. and a discussion of the israeli- palestinian conflict. that includes former president jimmy carter. and representative mike rogers on cyber espionage. some live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. confirmation hearings for president obama's two nominees. the previous nominees were withdrawn as part of last week 's deal between senate republicans and democrats regarding senate rules and presidential nominees. that is on c-span3 at 10 a.m. eastern. at 10:30 a.m. eastern, democratic senator ron wyden

will be at the center for american progress to talk about the nsa data collection program, security and privacy. now, a look at republic -- the public and private lives of several first ladies of the modern era. followed by a panel of women who worked with jackie kennedy, barbara ford -- betty ford, and barbara bush. this is one hour 45 minutes. >> we are going to be looking at the traditional role that the first lady played and how the choices she makes, her personal life, her life with her husband, her life with her children, her life as hostess at the white house, as the leader of special causes and charity events and so

forth, how in the context of the white house, all those sorts of carryons potentially various kinds of political applications and repercussions either as interpreted or perhaps over interpreted by the press and on the other hand, sometimes intended by the white house. i give you an idea of this, recall one of my most favorite anecdotes from the eisenhower administration. mamie eisenhower was a great, devoid it -- devoted, loyal fan of "i love lucy." she never missed a show. when she was away she had the signal corps take the programs from the television set. 1953, lucille ball the actress was accused of being

and was scheduled to appear before senator joseph mccarthy's senate committee on un-american activities. mimi eisenhower heller -- heard about this and was furious. she never particularly cared for joe mccarthy, but this was one step too far. as she told president eisenhower, lucille -- is no communist. [laughter] mrs. eisenhower invited the actress, lucille ball and her husband and the other cast members to come to the white house to perform at a benefit for president eisenhower's birthday. this was just days before ms. ball was scheduled to appear on capitol hill. several weeks later, at the vice president dinner, a traditional dinner held annually in those

days, the entire united states senate was always traditionally invited. one senator, however, was not invited by mrs. eisenhower. that was senator joseph mccarthy. as lighthearted as the anecdote may now seem, at the time, it sent a political message. it was the use of her role as a hostess by the administration, not so much by mrs. eisenhower, to make a statement that was not quite coming out against mccarthy. mccarthy was of the same political party. but it still made its point. from the very beginning, first ladies assumed public projects, or what we later called special projects. martha washington, for example,

during the american revolution, had sown closed for revolutionary war veterans and then later, as first lady, developed the idea of allowing them to come to her personally if they had any financial needs or any material needs. the idea was then planted that somehow a first lady should have one area of the population that was needy to be her particular of largesse. at the same time, the washington ministration immediately sent a strong message by the coach they chose for mrs. washington. it was a regal coach made in london it fixed with goldman dalliance pulled by cream-

colored horses, tended by grooms. it was very consciously formal. many people thought it looked a little bit too royal for the first president of united states. that was nothing nothing compared to martha washington's reception. they were a strained entertaining style where she would bow to get without much small talk. people sat around the room quietly. it was an american version of the inglis royal court. -- english royal court. there was criticism very quickly from the press and political figures. the register wrote, we find that these are not just strange, distant things. i suppose in a few years, we shall have all the paraphernalia to give the superb finish to the grandeur of our american court.

senator william clay said, she made use of the old country, but here i think they are hurtful, from the small beginnings, i fear we shall follow -- follow on until we have reached the summit of court etiquette and all the frivolities practiced in european governments. it was dolly madison whose personal choice of the low-cut, high wasted napoleonic tresses dresses that caused quite a bit of stir. the first time a president wife was censored from her personal choice in fashion. it was not the scanty mess of it so much as it was the fact that it was the french style, popular in the polian court. certainly not very popular with the old-time federalists of the washington and adams

administration, who severely criticized mrs. madison as looking like a nursing mother. [laughter] nor were her virginia style entertainments quite popular with the more formal british minister -- mrs. madison's successor, elizabeth monroe, caused a true political fury with her decision not to make first call, social calls, and this, of course, a drastic change from what had been the habit of dolly madison's. her new rules as hostess were more federal style than democratic, and it caused a

diplomatic uproar. it was the subject of two cabinet meetings and it struck at the very heart of the issue of democracy. mrs. munro was essentially operating as the american answer to european clean. will we -- queen. louisa adams, as a cabinet wife, very carefully used the role of social politician to curry political favor for her husband. as she said, she was always smiling for the presidency and he prepared her calling list with, as she said, as much formality as if he were drawing up an important article to negotiate in a commercial treaty. louisa adams, born in england, educated, was used more by her husband for political purposes, rather than she really using the role to serve his political

purposes. "the more i bear, the more is expected of me to answer such expectations. i am decried in encumbrance unless i am required for any special purpose, for a show or for some political maneuver. arrangements are made, and, if i object, i am informed it is all too late and it is all a misunderstanding." the united telegraph criticized the ungodly presence of a pool table in the white house. the adams faction made it worse by saying it was -- this is adams cool table, and pool tables are a common appendage in the homes of the rich and great in europe.

rachel jackson, on the other hand, was from the west, overweight, uneducated, uncouth, many said, a religious zealot that preferred church going to parties. she certainly did influence her husband when he was in charge of new orleans, put in charge of new orleans, in instituting all sorts of social edicts banning music and sale of liquor on the weekends. she was also technically a bigamist. she had not obtained a divorce of her first -- from her first husband at the time she married andrew jackson. this fact was brought out during the 1828 campaign. it became part of a full-scale lyrical attack and -- clinical attack and it was the first time

a presidential candidate's wife's personal life was used for a political purpose. angelica van buren follow. she was the daughter-in-law of martin van buren, married while he was in the white house, she honeymooned in europe. visiting the courts of victoria and king philippe of france. she formed friendships with them and turned to washington with a regal, entertaining style. this occurred during the panic of 1840. mrs. van buren was attacked by congressmen ogle of pennsylvania in his famous gold spoon speech on the floor of the house, in which he talked about the royal appendages of the white house and how mrs. van buren had hoped to copy the gardens of buckingham palace back at the white house. needless to say, van buren was defeated.

julia gardiner tyler followed in the style of angelica van buren. in this photograph, she appears as the first president's wife, first incumbent presidents wife, to actually be -- have her image captured on film in the early form of photography. she instituted a wild style, had imported dogs from the council at naples and rode around in a very regal horse and carriage. she redecorated the white house and, better than using government money or the money of her wealthy friends, she used her mother's money to redecorate. she was criticized by the religious press as a bad influence. on the other hand, she very skillfully used the traditional role for her husband's political purposes. she very clearly -- coyly would scribble a toast to one of her husband's enemies at a dinner -- dinner table and asked him to

raise his glass to, protect this and tyler, two. all of this part of the joint effort on behalf of the annexation of texas. followed by a woman quite her extreme. banned liquor, music, and dancing and all of the rooms of the white house. her sober style was hailed by the religious press. her social scheme in the white house fit into the larger scheme of her husband's manifest destiny. openly as hers white house servant and claimed that slaves, from her religious if, or predestined to be