and tabulated by the nsa to congress in the appropriate fashion. they are compliance issues that -- where action was taken to rectify them. what this illustrates is that there is in place at the nsa a very strict oversight regime. pete kienzle was asked about the -- keying -- pet king was asked about the reports. he said there is not he said, if it works, and you have 99.9% compliant errors, and this comes from an internal report -- he went on to say it was all available. there is nothing there that bothers me. that shows me that the system works.

we should be proud of it. this was a conclusion reached by a republican member of congress who has experience with these issues, indicating his confidence with the oversight of these nsa programs. i recognize there are members of congress who have said there should be a additional oversight or greater transparency members -- transparency measures, and the president is willing to work with those members of congress to do that all stop >> how is concert -- how concerned is the president that the current military government of egypt may use access to the suez canal as a bargaining tool? >> i have not seen that prospect raised. suffice to say we value the working relationship we have with the egyptians, a relationship that goes back decades, the we have been concerned by some of the steps taken by the interim government to not follow through their commitment to transition back to a democratically elected civilian government. we have made those concerns

pretty clear not just of them in private conversations, but to all of you in public announcements of the president and other senior administration officials. >> how much support does the president intend to receive from nato allies and regional allies as he moves to perhaps other initiatives? >> related to egypt? what i would say is that obviously these other countries will be making a determination on their own about their own national security interests. because you are talking about allies, it is reasonable to assume those interests will largely overlap. we have been and will be consulting with allies as they confront this policy challenge as well. >> you just quoted from senator feinstein, but if i recall in the washington post article, she commented to the washington post that she was not aware of the compliance audits until the

washington post asked her about them. my question to you is, are you informed about what she saw? was she telling the washington post something different? >> if you have questions about her comments, it you should check with her. i read to you her on the record statement about this issue. what she may have been referring to in that report -- >> what did the senator mean when she was quoted? >> i do not have the store in front of me. i know that some members of congress have suggested that they did not see these nsa reports that were reported on by the washington post. but what they did see and what many of them were briefed on were the regular reports that are due to congress from the nsa as part of their oversight function. reports on a regular basis are made to members of congress and intelligence committees about

some of these issues and some of the broader issues that allow congress to fulfill their responsibility to conduct oversight over the nsa. that is cooperation we are committed to. if there are members of congress who have ideas about how we can strengthen and improve that oversight in a way that yields greater public confidence, we are willing to work with them to make those changes. >> the president would consider making those audits public? >> i do not have specific proposals and i do not know that anybody has proposed that. we are talking about classified confidential programs that are critical to our national security. if there are people who have looked at this issue, that come to this from the perspective of conviction that have the best interests of american national security and the privacy rights of americans at heart, we are eager to sit down at the table and work with them to put in place measures that will inspire greater public confidence in

these programs. these programs work better in protecting our national security when the american public has confidence in them. if there are steps we can take that will inspire greater public confidence, we will work with congress to get that done. >> on a lighter note, i want to ask about the appearance tomorrow with the nfl and golf teams. where was the idea come up with to honor 18 4 decades after the fact? >> to be honest, i do not know whose idea it was. but marking the 40th anniversary of their super bowl victory seems appropriate, considering they won that super bowl at a time before nfl super bowl champions regularly visited the white house. his is an opportunity for them to get the kind of white house visit that contemporary super bowl winning teams get to enjoy. i can tell you the president is certainly looking forward to it. i will look into it.

>> there are members of the team who said they will not appear because of political differences with the president. is the white house disappointed? bikes people are certainly free to make whatever decision they want to make. >> at the end of the week, will the president be proposing something new on college funding or education more broadly? >> it is three days away, but i welcome your interest. i think it is going to be hopefully, both fun and informative. i can tell you the president does plan to have -- the president does plan to have some new proposals he is going to be talking about. maybe later. not at this point. but in the next couple of days, we will have some more information. the president is going to be talking about his few that we need to rein in the skyrocketing

cost of a college education that never has a college education been more critical to the economic success of middle- class families in this country. and if we are going to make sure that middle-class families continue to have access to economic opportunity, or students need access to a high- quality college education. we need to make sure that more middle-class families can get access to that college education, and that families trying to get to the middle class can also have the chance to afford a college education. >> the whole thing is college not more broad? >> the procured -- the focus of the proposals of the president will be higher education. >> host: [indiscernible] [laughter] >> unfortunately, we are not going to miami. getting on a bus for a couple of

days and seeing america sounds like fun. >> i think fun is an interesting way to describe it. >> is the vice president going to join him? >> the current plan is for the vice president to join the president in his hometown of scranton. is should be fun, right? >> that is fun. >> see? >> [indiscernible] egyptian authorities after nearly 600 people killed on wednesday. the turkish government has recalled the turkish ambassador. my colleague was captured by egyptian forces [indiscernible] . -- egyptian forces. [indiscernible]

serious acts to stop this violence, rather than just symbols. >> the president did deliver a statement on thursday where he strongly condemned the violence perpetrated by the interim egyptian government against peaceful protesters. that was a violation of human rights that the president strongly condemned. we have indicated that we are going to continue to review the assistance that is provided to the interim egyptian government, and we are going to continue to call on the interim egyptian government to follow through on their promises to transition back to a democratically elected civilian government. these are conversations that are ongoing between senior administration officials in this country and senior administration officials in egypt. the review of that assistance is ongoing.

our position on the violence we saw last week in egypt is very clear. one more. steve? >> we are almost six months into the sequester now, and we are facing another deadline. so far, the white house strategy has not worked. there is nothing moving through congress that would roll it out. is there going to be any change in strategy? is the president going to be demanding a sequester fix before he will sign a new spending bill for the next year? are there other things the white house is considering to try to get congress to act? >> i understand that we are at the white house briefing, so you are justifiably reviewing the strategy of the white house when it comes to the budget. i would point out that house republicans have tried to advance some of their proposals through their own conference that would factor in the sequester in a basic budgeting

exercise and they have been unable to advance that agenda as well. we saw the recent failure of the transportation bill in the appropriations committee in the house, and that is among house republicans themselves. again, your interest in our strategy is justified, but their strategy is also relevant. it is clear that even on their own terms republicans are struggling to cobble together a strategy that members of their own party support. you are asking me how we will get members of the other party to support our strategy. the terms are a little bit different. there was an interesting story in the washington post today about the impact of -- you guys are just killing it. it is good stuff. there was a story about the impact of the sequester on the head start program, and how there are thousands of kids who will not be able to benefit from the head start program because of the sequester, that more than

a million hours of instruction was eliminated. the impact of the sequester on basic education programs is something the president is seriously concerned about. he is seriously concerned about the impact the sequester has had and could have, moving forward on our national security. the president already articulated his concern about the impact the sequester will have on economic growth and job creation. we have seen some pretty concerning studies from the cbo indicating that job creation will not be as strong and economic growth will not be as robust because of the sequester. this is a problem that needs to get fixed. but at the end of the day the framers of the constitution delegated budgetary authority to the united states congress. members of congress from both parties are going to have to come together and find a way they can pass a budget that will

protect these critical investments in the middle class. the president put forward his own proposal. it seems like ancient history, but the president put forward his own proposal that would protect critical investments in education, takeover to investments in infrastructure, and do more to reduce the deficit down the sequester would. republicans have put forward a proposal that republicans themselves do not support. at the end of the day, congress has to come together and figure this out. in four years, we saw house republicans suggesting that the best way for us to resolve some of these budgetary issues was through the regular order. they insisted that the senate pass a budget, the democratic- led senate pass a budget. the democratic-led senate passed a budget. the next step is the appointment of tom freeze. -- fries. the person who is the leading

advocate for the regular order budget process is now doing more than anyone to gum up the regular order budget rss. >> the senator right before the break, set out his own marker, and said the sequester is going to stay and tell the president comes forward with a plan for alternative cuts. until now, the white house has said we need revenue in addition to spending cuts. is the president going to continue to insist on tax increases to get rid of the sequester? >> i want to go back to this because it is important. the marker that speaker boehner laid out is not even supported by members of his own party. numbers of his own conference, the people who voted to make him speaker, do not support that. again, i welcome your interest in our strategy about how we are going to put forward a budget will stop ultimately, it is the responsibility of congress and

we have seen congressional leaders on the republican side unable to build support in their own party for their own strategy. it is pretty clear who is responsible right now for where we stand in the budget process. the president has said he is willing to work with republicans in congress to try to find common ground. the president is not going to sign a budget agreement that undermines important investments, that does not act in the best interest of middle- class families in this country. that is what the president is going to use to evaluate a budget deal. >> the sequester has to go. something has to be done. >> i am pointing out to you that there are house republicans who are unable to pass what is among the least politically risky appropriations budget, because the sequester was too onerous and they were unable to budget under that criteria. for the speaker of the house to insist he is going to stick to

that seems, at best, unreasonable considering he does not have the support of his own party to do it. >> the president would not sign something that undermines -- >> that is something the president has set a couple of times. >> he has said the sequester undermines a bunch of things all stop >> it does, including the head start row gram. >> will he come back in september -- >> i appreciate your interest in our budget strategy, but i think there are elements of this that will play out down the road. thanks everybody. we will see you tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> this thursday, president obama begins a two-day bus trip through upstate new york and pennsylvania, where he will talk about making college education more affordable for the middle class. here is more about the trip from a reporter we spoke with earlier

today. >> i want to go over a bit of the schedule this week. to do that we are joined by the deputy white house editor for politico. thank you for joining us this morning. >> thanks for having me. >> start us off with this bus tour. it is supposed to be part of this middle-class push the president is doing, focused on higher education issues, but obviously going to talk about other issues as well. >> that is right. it has been the economic agenda ahead of the budget showdown, with republicans coming up very quickly. this particular spring, he seems to be focused on college costs. he will go to upstate new york, including syracuse. he will be making a stop in scranton, pennsylvania, hometown of vice president biden on

friday. >> talk about other stops the president has made on this summer tour. he has made a couple of proposals already, including one on corporate tax reform for stimulus dollars. where has that gone? where have some of the other proposals gone that he has made this summer? >> what we have seen from this tour that has taken him across the country, including two chattanooga, tennessee, and phoenix, arizona. what we have seen would suggest new proposals. some may take the form of executive actions the president can take without congressional approval. others are proposals he is running by congress. but he is not necessarily expecting action from this congress on any particular proposal the president might advance. he has covered a whole spectrum of the economic agenda, including healthcare spending student loans, home costs. the phoenix stop was focused on

home cost issues. and eight different array of economic issues, all tied up in this narrative. >> how important is this time for the president? congress is away from washington. members are in their home districts. in the last couple of weeks of august, what can he do, in having the stage to himself here in d.c.? >> this is the usual trend for the president over the summertime. his approval ratings have dipped over the course of the summer. that is not unusual for this president. at this moment, he has sort of got the stage to himself. it is hard to overstate the importance of framing the message ahead of these fights. we have seen polls over the summer. when it comes to the budget showdown, the president does retain an advantage.

it is important for the white house to hold on to this advantage ahead of the expected fight with congressional republican negotiations expected to continue over the budget, and the debt ceiling showdown, where the white house has drawn a very firm line. >> before we let you go, give us the latest on the white house and the situation in egypt right now. >> of course, the president interrupting his vacation for the only public statement he gave, which was about the situation in egypt spiraling out of control. we are seeing the white house hemmed in. no good options for the president. increasing congressional pressure to cut off aid to egypt entirely. we are continuing to see a piecemeal approach from the white house. the cancellation of a joint military exercise. the symbolic move. the apache shipment is another move that weighs in the balance at the moment.

not necessarily expecting any dramatic moves from the white house. at the same time, we continued to see these messages being sent to egypt. >> thank you for getting up with us this morning. >> thanks so much. >> later this afternoon, the new america foundation hosts a discussion on electronic surveillance and human rights. we hear about an individual's writing have access to the internet, and the right to privacy. >> retransmission is hugely important to our television members. there are two ways you pay for local content. you pay for it through an advertising model, the historic model of television broadcasting or now a growing stream is retransmission consent. it will find its level, like any market. right now, cable pays itself far more for its content than it pays to broadcasters.

the truth of the matter is, our content is the one people watch the most. if you look at the hundred top shows in any given week, 94 of them are broadcast content. it is worth something, and it is important that we fight and win this battle on retransmission consent, because candidly, it is vital if the congress wants us to continue trying to foster localism and provide all the things that we do to earn our licenses every day. you have to have a way to finance it. it is advertising. it is retransmission consent. >> issues facing the broadcast industry, tonight on "the communicators." >> we are standing inside hardscrabble, which is a two- story log cabin that grant built for his family in 1856.

julia, in her memoirs, lets us know that she does not like it one bit. she found it crude and homely. but true to her nature, she will make the best of it. as a young married woman she would want to be mistress of her own home. she just thought he could have built something as nice as whitehaven, and was a little perturbed that her father had talked grant into building a log structure. julia would have brought with her finer things. as a privileged child, she would have had fine china, fine furniture. there would have been comfortable chairs and a broad table. at this point, she would have five people eating in this dining room. what is important about hardscrabble for them, even though they do not live in a long, is this represents their first home together. julia would gain a great deal of confidence as a wife and mother. it starts here.

>> this week the encore presentation of our original series, first ladies, looking at the public and private lives of our first ladies. this week, julia grant to caroline harrison. all this week at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> and now, educators and policy analysts discussed education policy and the future of the k- 12 curriculum, and look at what is being done to address education standards, increasing values, and the discrimination of faculty members due to philosophical beliefs. part of the conservative summit this is about 45 minutes. >> we have seen two different ways to do the panel, friends, and i will leave it to you this morning. guy and mike spoke from their high stool perch. just now, we saw the young

voices panel take their turn to make an opening statement here at the podium. what do you prefer? would you rather speak from up here? >> i would not. >> ok. >> hello, everybody. john, my compliments. i beg your pardon. my compliments on this conference. great speakers. great subject matter. a wonderful coast to coast audience. this is terrific. i am honored to be part of it. i am aware of the fact that there is a crisis in higher education. textbooks cost too much. that is not a crisis. that is a problem. tuition is too high. that is a problem, not a crisis. it is a serious problem, though not a crisis yet, that students graduate from college with way too much student debt. a problem, not a crisis. parking is inadequate on nearly every campus on america.

that is a detail. it is not even a big problem. students gain 15 pounds, the freshman 15. the crisis in american higher education, in my opinion, is that there is 22 million students in american colleges and universities and 21.5 million of them attend colleges and universities which are so far to the left that they cannot see the middle of the road with a telescope. [applause] i mean, the reality is -- the reality is that they are not just liberals, but many of these schools, and i am talking about famous important, wealthy colleges and universities, are actually subverting the values not only of america, but of western civilization. i do not say that on these campuses where 99% or maybe 98%

of american students attend, that every single student reflects those attitudes, nor every faculty member, nor every staff member. i am talking about what the germans would call the zeitgeist, the spirit, the overall tenor. won the colorado christian university campus, we say that jesus is lord. on most campuses, they say that jesus is a joke. not everybody says that, but that is the general spirit. it is ok to follow jesus, but do not tell anybody about it. do not cite jesus as an authority. do not look to the western tradition of either judaism or christianity. it is not the thing to do. on the campus of colorado christian university, we say the bible is inerrant. in the campuses where most students go to school, the bible is considered irrelevant.

moral relativity is the de facto religion of most college emphasis. we say capitalism, or sometimes we might say free enterprise, or entrepreneurship -- on most campuses, the preference is for something quite different whether you call it socialism redistribution of wealth, communism, social justice, or whatever it is. it is quite different than the traditions of american and western civilization. we think it is appropriate for men to live separately from women until they are married. on most campuses, mixing sex in dormitories is increasingly common. we say what is true, whatever is noble, whatever is beautiful -- if there is anything that has merit, focus your thought on this. on most campuses the focus is on things that undermine all of those values. if i have left you with the impression that colorado

christian university is a little old-fashioned, that may be we are a little reactionary, i have communicated to you what i intended to communicate. [applause] and if i have raised in your mind the question of whether or not many of our colleges and universities contribute to the cultural decadence that undermines the air and morality and future of america, i have told you the truth. thank you for listening. [applause] >> thank you, president armstrong. peter would, i think of your work at the national association of scholars in the context of the bravery, the indomitable spirit, the unwillingness to accept that something cannot be changed and turned around, in the same spirit as wilberforce saying the slave trade must end.

how lonely it must feel sometimes. tell us about the view from the national association of scholars about the crisis in american education. >> coming to colorado, i guess i do not need to make the case that higher education is a mess. the state that gave us ward churchill knows that. but it is a more complicated mess. there are questions of the budget matter, and what we can do about it. i will answer all those questions in their entire ready but let me first say a little more about who i am. i am an anthropologist. i study savage tribes. right now, i am studying a particularly savage tribes, the only known tribe of cannibals so fierce they want to devour their own civilization. i am of course talking about the american progressive academics. i had the national association of scholars, which, in its own words, seeks to foster

intellectual freedom and sustain the tradition of recent scholarship and civil debate in america's colleges and universities. those are fighting words to the leftist professoriate. the outgoing head of the american association of university professors, carrie nelson, recently said of us that we engage in sclerotic wailing about western civilization, and opposition to politics in the classroom. being opposed to politics in the classroom is a bad thing. another historian writes of us as seeking an ideologically -- to restructure and privatize higher education and being relentlessly derogatory toward the hard-working and underpaid professors. ok. so there are two different views here, to simplify. one is that american higher education is the best in the

world, that it is only getting better, that its achievement in bringing critical thinking to students are unsurpassed. the other, which i represent, is that american higher education is in rapid decline, coasting on its civilizational capital and not replenishing that capital. does any of this matter? this goes to the question -- are our best days still ahead of us? the answer is that that is a doubtful proposition. our best days depend on us being more than a civilization that has prosperity, material wealth. we can have all the cheap energy in the world and jobs for everybody, but still be unworthy and profoundly miserable at a certain level. it would not profit us to have the world and lose our soul. our goal should not be making life easier for the short-term

but making life better for generations. the only way to do that is to take higher education seriously. that is something the conservative movement has singularly failed to do in the last couple of generations. to truly thrive, american higher education has to uphold virtue. think of what victor davis hanson was telling us. austerity and abundance without virtue is imperial rome at its worst. it is decadence. it is hollywood. and it bears a certain resemblance to the contemporary american college campus. conservatives like to say that colleges indoctrinate. a few of them do. mainly, they shape students in subtle ways. they make subjects disappear. they make ideas seem irrelevant or out of date. they marginalize and ridicule. make of what jenny was telling us earlier. those are the ideas that matter

on american campuses. they establish an order of approbation. some things are good. some things are bad. the bad ones you ignore. they celebrate identity politics over everything else. i am going to have to hold off on my answer of what to do about it until a little bit later. >> take a little bit more and preview that for us, heater. >> what we need here is a robust sense of american conservatism that can save our civilization. we have to take hold of the issues in higher education. we all know what they are -- the racial preference regime, the higher education bubble, the rise of the new form of flattening education called the common core, the use of the sustainability movement as a way of indoctrinating students in a hatred of capitalism and free markets. the use of our student loan fiasco to create even more

dependency among american students. the rise of a soft disdain toward america, a new form of anti-americanism. that is the briefest list of the maladies we have ahead of us. what do we do about these? we make them part of our political agenda, where they right now have just the most tenuous hold on the interest of politicians, who think that the way to fix higher education is to shovel money at it. that is the worst way to reform it. [applause] >> thank you, peter would. i met the doctor, a medical doctor, as you heard, when he was sort of in the shoes of jenny beth before she was in the tea party. before she was thinking of running for school board. he looked at the situation and said, something has to change.

maybe i should be part of the change. we want you to look at some of our presenters and say, that could be me, where he or she has come from, and what they are now contributing. i would like to do the same, or i know somebody else who could be doing the same. we had an elected region of the university of colorado who was a faithful republican. happens to be a friend of mine. that he was a go along, get along individual who somehow decided it was ok that the faculty rather than the elected regents or appointed president would really run the university of colorado. pick the story up, jim. >> thank you all very much. thank you, senator andrews and anderson, for asking me to be here today at this spectacular summit. i was particularly gratified to hear the perspectives of the young people in the prior session. i learned quite a lot. that is going to be helpful to us.

i am not speaking on behalf of the board of regents. i am speaking on behalf of myself. i am certainly not speaking on behalf of the university of a whole. since becoming a regent in 2008 i have focused on several important issues. the first is the financing and budgeting of a $3 billion organization. the second is my favorite, which is returning the colorado buffalo football program and basketball program to the national prominence that it used to be and will be soon. anybody out there that questioned me, keep tuned. it will happen soon. i promise. finally, the most important issue has already been addressed so well by prior speakers. that is addressing our deficiencies of intellectual, philosophical, and political diversity, involving our faculty. i know this group is more interested in that topic.

two of my fellow regents have partnered with me in our effort to address the critical issue. tom, and sue, who is in the room today. give us a wave. she has taken the baton from tom , and has become a roaring engine propelling us on. a year after my election, tom and i were successful in proposing a guiding principle to include intellectual diversity. as we are unelected bipartisan board, this was no mean accomplishment. unfortunately, over the next several years we were unable to perceive any meaningful change. there is no question in my mind that our faculty have become quite homogenous, almost to the point of a groupthink in their liberal or progressive political and philosophical stance. somehow, i doubt i need to back

up his contention in front of this particular audience as we all understand this is a significant problem, a flip in many if not all our major universities across the country. groupthink is about as far away from the pursuit of truth as we can get, and absent a genuine intellectual diversity of our faculty, our students are robbed of the rich, delicious soup of a stimulating educational environment. frustrated by no discernible movement we asked our chancellors to report to us on any progress in meeting the intellectual diversity guiding principle. we were told that all is well. not to worry. progress is being made and the quality of education remains superb. my response was, it is clear to me that conservatives are just not welcome. as you might imagine, this sentiment was not well-received and was challenged.

about five weeks ago, at our public meeting in boulder, we proposed resolutions to elevate discrimination against individuals because of their political or philosophical view to the same level of concern and potential disciplinary action as we consider discrimination against individuals for their religious preference, their race, or their gender identity. [applause] thank you. i will show you my bruises here. this second resolution was to obtain a campus climate survey of the university, were formed by an unbiased outside entity, to assess our degree of intellectual diversity, and to determine whether discrimination is occurring against members of our university community. this resolution passed unanimously, and will be expeditiously implemented. [applause] more bruises.

we hope to know its results this winter. during the several hours of discussion and testimony that resulted from the introduction of these resolutions, professors mark berra line and robert nagle, highly respected, articulate conservatives, and testimony describing their own experiences and observations. both described the uniformity of faculty with strong leftward bias. i am just about done, thank you. >> doing fine. do not keep us in suspense. we love how this story is unfolding. >> subsequently, the american association of university professors has registered objection to our board actions including our plans to obtain the survey. you may read these comments, published in the journal "inside higher education," published during the first week of july. among other concerns, it was

claimed that our campus survey was merely an ideological survey and may lead to a political litmus test in our hiring or in our assessment of our faculty. my response is that nothing of the sort is intended or allowed by our current laws as a region. my counter concern is that it appears to be quite eager to uphold the fine principles of academic freedom as it benefits and enhances the careers and the agendas of its member professors. obvious consequences are the current strong formal tenure system, and the cans off mandate to university administrations and governing bodies. however, the aup -- aaup and university faculties in general have been loath to take responsibility for the integrity of our most cherished principle of academic freedom.

throughout the free world, we expect academic freedom protections and privileges will apply to all participants within higher education. unfortunately, faculty hiring and firing practices have resulted in homogenous faculties. what a tragedy for higher education. what a formula for subpar education. thank you. [applause] >> i must've been hearing things. that was fascinating and encouraging in the same way a small, flickering flame would be on a dark and cold night. the fire has to burn higher, but you got it lighted. but i must have been hearing things. you did not say that the resolution passed unanimously with democrats and republicans including moderate republicans passed unanimously? >> it did.

for technical reasons, it was referred to the laws and policies committee for further processing. >> i want to underscore for our delegates at the summit -- this is extraordinary to obtain a bipartisan unanimous 9-0 vote on something as unprecedented as open public self scrutiny of a major liberal-dominated state's flagship university faculty, as far as intellectual and political diversity. the very fact that the aaup, which is just a union -- do not be fooled by the highfalutin name. it is no different from the nea union. they are so terrified. what a compliment. that moderates could come together on it -- another round of applause for an amazing accomplishment. [applause]

welcome back to a ccu platform. i know you as a soccer captain, as a ministry leader in your spare time on campus. and i will never forget -- step on up there. i will never forget when, on fire with her political philosophy, learned in the ccu classroom, took on the former speaker of the democratic house. she did not just take him on. she took him apart, and his fallacies about his assumption that government could create wealth by redistributing. well deserved that you are at the heritage foundation now. shift us to the k-12 level could you? >> i would like to talk as a former student of colorado university about how i came to understand the purpose of university. one of the things john andrews talked about was the atrocity we have with a push for pre-k, a

before kindergarten movement, for college and career readiness for pre-k students. what four-year-olds need to be college and career ready? the purpose of education is not just occasional readiness. there is something about the moral development of the people that is at stake. i learnt that at ccu. this panel is called self- government or serfdom, education in crisis. it would be a myth if i did not talk about exactly what that meant. the founders said, we would like to be a self-governing society. conditional upon that is an educated citizenry. not only an educated citizenry but one that is moral. this is not going to happen from a national level. the founders knew that. that is why they opened up the civil association.

states, localities families, take hold of what education should be and ought to be, fostering that civic virtue within children. this is not the state of education today, especially with k-12 education. we are no longer a self- government. we are subject to a serfdom. college is often too late. not all college students -- not all k-12 students are as lucky as i was, to be able to have the kind of restorative education i got at ccu. i'm going to talk little bit about the history of the administrative push. in 1965, this is the biggest push for centralization of education. congress passed in elementary and secondary education act. it was compensatory education spending, meaning it would be best if taxpayer dollars would be pumped into the education

system to educational outcomes. this was not the case. what it did was create a washington leviathan of k-12 education. its reauthorization, the no child left behind act, saw the same thing, with 600 pages of adderall regulations pushing k- 12 educations, and a $25 billion price tag. from 1970, we have spent a total of $2 trillion on education with very little to see as far as educational outcomes are concerned. this is education expenditures tripling since the 1970's. academic achievement has virtually flatlined since then. half of our biggest cities in our nation, we see that students -- 50% of students did not graduate high school. it hovers around 50% here in denver. the third of fourth graders cannot read. and achievement gap between

white and minority students persists. we continue to be in the middle of the pack, compared to international competitors. we are currently spending $10,000 per person, with little to show for it all stop that is 237 years after our founding. we have come to a fork in the road. on one side, we have educational freedom, in the form of school choice. on the other side, we have the greatest version of the washington leviathan, common core education standards. milton friedman whose birthday is next wednesday, by the way was the father of the school choice movement. the school choice movement came under the idea that educational opportunity, giving parents the opportunity to move their children out of the zip code defined areas, would allow competition and greater opportunity. we have seen this in the form of vouchers, tax credits, and education savings accounts.

the biggest threat that has not hit us, the common chord national standards is a washington leviathan push, the idea that spending more money would equal more educational outcomes. we have not seen any of this since 1970. the $4.3 billion of federal incentives and no child left behind waivers for children who signed on to the common core are not likely to induce further educational outcomes either. the threat to school choice is also at stake. we see a ct standards being conformed to the common core national standards. a few results came out. $16 billion will be the price tag over the next 13 years, or the next seven years, for common core alliance states. what is the common core contain? math standards that are poorly sequenced, do not use standard

algorithms and america sees paths in front of us. education versus common core national standards. are we going to be a self- governing society, or are we going to be a people governed by despotism? it has to start with education. [applause] >> brittany corona, thank you very much. ideally, my colleague, the assistant vice president for academics, chris leyland. talk a little bit about what is wrong and how to make it better and the ccu a beachhead for change. [applause] >> i love my students. i paid them. i come with many hats on today. one of the hats is the honor to work as a professor for higher

education in a place like ccu where you have heard a lot about the ills of what is happening to the professors, and what is happening in the classroom. the second hat i wear is very timely because it is this weekend. there has been a charter school strategic planning conference going on for the school that i head up as president of the board. the questions are exactly the same, whether we are talking to parents of kindergartners or talking to parents of graduate students. the other hats i wear -- i have been a state school board member. i was one of the founding members of the charter schools institute board, which is an authorizing board in colorado. all of those hats have come to a head as we begin to talk about -- what is the biggest problem? parents will tell you, i look at all the problems. we have heard of the problems in the last few minutes. it is almost too much.

francis schaeffer recalled what happens in terms of cultural shift as being a paradigm shift. we do that because of accommodation. we end up somehow accommodating what you mentioned, the zeitgeist, whatever the spirit of the ages. in education, we have done two things to accommodate. we have gotten incredibly busy. we have let the family structure go away a little bit. the second thing is, we have allowed education enterprises to take over all the responsibility for what we should be doing as parents. last hat i wear is, i am the dad of 4 boys, from 20 down to 12. an understanding there is an investment we have to take. one of the ways i want us to do that is to understand there is no magic bullet. i do not believe there is one policy or one move. i believe in school choice. i believe we ought to, on all

fronts, we willing to fight for those kinds of things. we want to turn our education system back to where it should be, in the household with the family and the parents. that means getting the parents involved from the beginning of the whole process. i want us to be able to address some of those questions. one of the ways in which i watched accommodation occur when i first sat on a public school board -- textbook companies would come in. it was a relatively small rural district, so money was tight. textbook companies would come in, and they would say, we want you guys to use our textbooks. if you use it, we will give you all this stuff. they would lay out this booty of equipment and resources. i have watched the administrators gloss over like

they were a kid in a candy store. what struck me was, we never bothered to ask what is in the textbook. what are the ideas that are foundational to this textbook? do we agree with them? does anybody bother to review this? every single one of those people and i think this is a mantra of the education enterprise, especially from the federal government era -- the mantra was, you need to do this because it is new and approved -- improved. the reality is, new and improved is rarely either of those. i do not think we need new and improved. i think we need to return to tried and true. [applause] >> thanks very much.

we are about to go to your text- in questions. we will move quickly through a number of them. i want first to ask president armstrong to tell you about something that is part of the ccu distinctive -- i think i have one here. a laminated card that contains 12 or 13 strategic objectives of colorado christian university. one of the advances and challenges to the administration and every student was to focus on the strategic objectives, particularly about how we would impact our culture. think about colleges you attended or sent your kids to and wish you had not that would not be able to write down what

they stand for on two sides of a pocket card. or if they could write it down they would be afraid am embarrassed, because they knew that donors, trustees, and parents would run to the exit. so refreshing that colorado christian university declares what we are about. say a word about the strategic objectives. >> we have adopted strategic objectives, both for purposes of giving us a compass by which to steer the institution, and for truth in packaging, so anyone inside or outside the university knows who we are and what we stand for. the first is to honor christ, and share the love of christ on campus and around the world. second, teach students to trust the bible, live holy lives, and be evangelists. these strategic objectives are exactly the opposite of what students will get from television, the general culture the movies, and so on.

we are in that sense, countercultural. other objectives have to do with academic achievement, with teaching students to learn, to speak for themselves. i am convinced we do not need another generation of young men and women who get most of the thinking and ideas about religion sex money, and politics from oprah winfrey and jay leno. i think we have to do a lot better than that. and we have a series of objectives on culture. it is our intention, explicitly, to impact our culture in support of traditional family values, the sanctity of life, a biblical understanding of human nature, and for smaller government rather than larger government, for free markets, for the original intent of the constitution, compassion for the poor, and support of western civilization which was basically drummed out of higher education in the 1980's, but it is coming back, and we are one

of the schools that is bringing it back. we are clear about who we are. it is interesting that in an era when most private colleges and universities are declining in enrollment at our enrollment is rising and rising quite rapidly. we believe it is because we are frank to say we are not for everybody. we want every single student that god is calling to ccu to come and be with us. they are coming in greater and greater numbers. our enrollment is up 8% in a year when most schools are down 2%. our gradual student enrollment -- graduate school enrollment is up 25%, and think it will be up again. we are not misleading people. we are rallying them to return to the ideals that are the greatness of western civilization and our beloved

country. >> thank you. somebody, via text, essentially has asked us on the panel to put up or shut up. if shoveling money at higher education is the worst way to fix our system, what are some of the best ways to fix our higher education system? i would paraphrase it for the panel, and kind of do the lightning round. give us one sentence or one thought. let us try to what is something you should urge your college or alma mater to do to make it better? let's start with peter. >> said real admissions standards that show the students you care about the content and not just picking

their pockets for tuition dollars. >> i want the parents to engage. we drop our kids off at orientation and we do not ask critical questions about what it is. i will hear things about things that are read by my sons, that kind of thing. it is worth a phone call. and i like to be able to have the administrator talk to parents whether we agree or disagree just to engage. >> britney, maybe this question comes to a party given by way of contrast, having had such a good experience. what are you hearing that makes you think about your degree? >> everything that he is saying about western civilization to my different type of education and what it ought to be. not being purely information

driven robots, but rather, to be as knowledgeable citizens. we need a switch to a fair balance accounting as far as interest rates are concerned. part of the reason we will be shoveling a lot of money into higher ed is because we do not have an understanding of the risk for student loan debt. >> jim, how practical would be for people love what they have heard that you and your fellow regents are setting in motion with the survey, and perhaps ultimately voting in a strong statement of principle how interested it with baby to go back to state-funded schools and say, how about following the lead of cu? >> if we can get it done, i think it will happen. where does the survey come in? we hope to get it by our winter

retreat in january. and what is the outlook for passing a strong statement of -- >> and what is the outlook for passing a strong statement as unacceptable as racial? >> i think it is a matter of massaging the statements by fall and then it simply adopting. >> as you are talking to heads of other colleges, christian or otherwise, do you have a sense we could be part of a positive contagion to other institutions? >> absolutely. i believe shovelling the money at the problem is not the answer. i think it is problem to deemphasized -- it is time to deemphasized the massive institutions and whatever funds that legislators wish to make available for higher education give them to the students as vouchers, and then let the

market sort out the outcome. [applause] and with respect to private institutions and public institutions like ours, everything in the world is going up in cost. it is likely to happen. it is possible for -- for students to bill that expands without going into debt. we believe in working your way through college. we believe in programs to get students jobs in areas of their vocational interests, so that if they are an accounting major they get a job and an accounting firm. if they are filed your health sciences a job in a hospital. -- if they are biology or health sciences, a job in the hospital. it gives a better educational experience, give these students an inside track to get a job when they graduate, and gives them the money that makes it possible for them to graduate with little, or at least much

less certain debt than they would otherwise have. [applause] >> for our last topic, let's get in a time machine and look at 15 or 20 years and it may happen even faster than that. last night, we heard from ron patrick of the k-12 online education innovator, and as the name of the plot -- implies they operate from kindergarten through high school. i think this one is very well phrased. is there a potential for lower costs and better quality college education that also teaches american values using more internet and last brick and mortar? what do you think peter? as far as the online education not just changing some of the economics, but favorably act --

favorably impacting the content as well as the political diversity and openness that jim is working on? >> i am conflicted on this one. i think that 10, 15 years from now, there may be as few as half of the colleges and universities that we have right now. a great wave of creative destruction is going to come through and we will find ourselves faced with the task of figuring out how to do college education that preserves and transmits values and civilization in a medium that is not with the friendly to that, eliminating the personal relationship between the well- educated teacher who cares individually about his students and replacing that with the mechanisms that online education provides seems to me both

inevitable and somewhat scary. >> what is happening on line iscu and its -- on line with cu and its peer education institutions? >> there is a lot of interest. i do not know how that will play out. i certainly support, if you will not tell the other regions or anybody else, what senator armstrong has said about the state and the awarding of moneys in the form of a voucher and let them decide which university or college is best suited for them. the toughest job of the board of regents, in my opinion, is to control the bureaucracy of the university of colorado. it is very analogous to a large

government bureaucracy. it is made up of lifetime employees of the university. naturally, they want to embellish their own salaries and benefits, and they want to see the university advance. and in their minds sometimes that is something aggrandizement of the university. it is a real challenge for us and there are tremendous pressures placed on us. but over the last few years there has been some pressure to bear, and our hope is that we can hold down these tuition increases and there would be some strategies to that. >> i made the analogy earlier specifically in introducing to you peter wood of the national association of scholars the wilberforce analogy. i want to conclude on that. you have both seen the movie "amazing grace." it was marvelously brought to the big screen.

christian statement, morrill reformer, liberator. -- christian statesman, a moral reformer, and the greater. but he would not move his way into -- until the logic and moral provision prevailed. and something moved in the curve -- british parliament against all odds. and in that tradition, we need to turn around what is not only wrong, but dangerous to the survival of our nation and are very civilization. in the wilberforce spirit, we thank jim geddes, ccu graduate

britney qana -- britney cohona and bill armstrong. thank you all so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we have more live programming coming up later this afternoon. we will hear about an individual's right track access to the internet and the right to privacy. that will be live starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. >> we are standing inside hardscrabble, which is a two- story log cabin of the first family in 1856. julia in her memoir lets us know that she does not like it one

bit. but true to her nature, she will make the best of its. as a young married woman she will take care of her own home. but she just thought that she could have some the as nice as white haven. she would have brought with her minor things because as a privileged child, she would have fine china. there would be comfortable chairs and a broad table, because at this point, she would have five people eating in his dining room. even though they do not live in a very long, what is important about hardscrabble is that this with their very first home together. she gained confidence as a wife and mother. >> this week the encore presentation of the originals series first ladies, influence

and image, looking at the public and private lives of our nation's first ladies. weeknights all this week at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. trex earlier today fence secretary chuck hagel held a briefing with the chinese defense minister. the secretary announced he will push for higher level contact between senior u.s. and chinese leaders. it is in the hopes of building trust and avoiding military miscalculations. he also talked about the ongoing violence in egypt. >> -- >> the mubarak report, i cannot help you. as you know, sort arabia

announced a couple of weeks ago that they committed to a considerable amount of assistance to egypt. the specifics of your question regarding saudi arabia, i don't know. you're question regarding the apache helicopters or parts is where we are reviewing all aspects of our relationship. >> effectively -- can we bring effective change to end the bloodshed in egypt right now? and why not? they don't appear to be cooperating. >> first, there is not consistency from capitol hill as you know, on this issue. but more to your point, we have

serious interests in egypt and that part of the world. it is a very complicated problem. we continue to work with all parties to try to help as much as we can work toward reconciliation and stop the violence our efforts in their -- stop the violence. our efforts are of to the egyptian people. it will be their responsibility to sort this out all nations are limited in their influence in another nation's internal issues. i don't think the u.s. is without influence, but it has to

be a collaborative effort focused on what the egyptian people want, supporting the egyptian people. and as has been said before, that's -- that should be done as an inclusive open, democratic process to allow the people to have a role in the future of their country. thank you. >> on august 28, 1963, the march on washington for jobs and freedom was held in washington, d.c. to call for civil and economic rights for african- americans. now almost 50 years later the economic policy institute held a conference last month to discuss its impact. this is about two hours and 45 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen we do expect a full crowd, but things to start on washington, d.c. time. if we do not have enough seats in the back for people coming in, i would ask you to raise your hand to identify seats that are occupied next you, so we can get people seated in an act -- in as expeditious a manner as possible. let me welcome you. my name is christian dorsey. i'm the director of external affairs at the economic policy institute and i will be your master of ceremonies for this afternoon's symposium which is really just a king beating of some of the most talented -- which is really just a meeting of some of the most talented and thoughtful workers as well as

politics in america. this is the brainchild of algernon austin, whom you will hear from later on. let me get some logistics out of the wafers. i see that people did notice the refreshments in the rear of the room. those are available throughout the symposium. if you need to use the restroom, it is best to exit the rear of the room, take a right, walk down the hallway. you'll come to a court or in which you take a left and you will see both the men's and ladies' rooms. if you have need for a wireless connection in the room, you can connect to the alf's public wi- fi and the addi will look for is baker the password is labor,

l-a-b-o-r-.815. in what is truly a landmark, we will have tweeting in this event. you can principate in one of two ways. you can follow at economic policy and you can follow us on twitter. or to join the conversation, you can use the haghtag "unfinished eithermarchmarch." thank you all for joining us today and spending your evening with us.

now, to get us started, let's think about the march on washington. it certainly stands as a seminal moment in the history of the civil-rights movement. but as it stands, is often misremembered, or better to say incompletely remembered as only the demonstration for civil white -- civil-rights that is embodied in what we now call dr. king's "i have a dream" speech. it was much more significant than that. as important as that is. also in washington was the march for jobs and freedom. jobs came first. that was a unifying agenda that coalesced all people of all races, all faiths, and brought together people of organized labor and people from every single region of this country. and though the march had been

conceived by a philip randolph more than two decades before, the 1963 effort was organized in just eight weeks. eight weeks. how were they able to do that? how were they able to in just two months organize an effort that brought more than 250,000 people to the nation's capital? at that time, it was the largest gathering the city had seen by a factor of 10. the 50th anniversary of the march on washington, we are pleased to bring together some of the nation's wars -- most foremost thinker to probably put the 1963 march into context and to examine the issues that are facing people of color today and to do what seems to be so difficult for so many of us that is, have a frank talk about how race affects us, our

public policy, as well as our political discourse. to open as officially, i would like to welcome arlene hold- acre the executive vice president here at the afl-cio. we are in her house today. we would like to thank her for opening up her hospitality, and we are privileged to have her with this program. arlene was approved unanimously as executive vice president to fill out her term in 2007, and then reelected in her own right to a full term in 2009 making her the first african-american to be elected to one of the federation is big three highest offices, and the highest ranking african-american woman in the labor movement. that has culminated what had been more than 30 years of experience as a union and grass- roots organizer with a resume of accomplishment that is far too broad to mention. but it was critical at winning

crucial gains in both the local and national level for workers in the form of negotiating contracts, securing fair wages and ensuring gender pay equity. to get us started, please welcome are being holtz-acre. -- arlene hotlt-baker. [applause] >> good evening to all of you. i welcome you on behalf of our members and executive council. the afl-cio, we are so very proud to be one of the co- sponsors of tonight's symposium, along with the economic policy institute. it is only fitting that the symposium is being held in the house of labor. after mobilizing -- demobilizing

and economic designs of the march can be traced to a philip randolph. and his trusted and brilliant coordinator and organizer, the late bayard rustin. that is how you can have a march in eight weeks it's in good organizers together. 50 years ago, they reminded our nation that millions of our citizens, black and white, were unemployed. the fire for the march on washington -- the fire for the march on washington carried this quotation. "the civic segregation played all people, negro and white and

robert of dignity and self- respect -- robbed them of dignity and self respect." today, 50 years since the march on washington to run millions of working families of all hues, genders, an immigrant status are struggling to find decent jobs and wages that can support and sustain themselves and their families. they want an economic model of shared prosperity for all. 50 years since the march on washington, working families including our veterans still need active and decent and affordable housing. 50 years after the march on washington our families and communities still want access to quality public education for all our children.

and 50 years ago, the march call for a massive federal work and training program, and today, we still need massive investment in our infrastructure. 50 years ago the march called for an increase in the minimum- wage. that is our call today. think about it, 50 years ago on washington, we heard the cries of freedom. and today, we still hear those cries, sisters and brothers. we have a cry for freedom from voter suppression, freedom for marriage equality, freedom to come out of the shadows and contribute and live the american dream, and freedom to walk down the street of america -- the streets of america without being

profiled. [applause] the march is unfinished, and hopefully tonight, we will have a conversation about what we must do to finish the march toward justice and shared prosperity. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, arlene. it is now my pleasure to introduce congressman keith ellison, who represents the fifth district of minnesota in the u.s. house of representatives. he is a member of the house financial services committee and is providing some diligent and progressive oversight of our nation's financial services and

housing industries, as well as wall street. he also serves on the house democratic and steering and policy committee, advising the entire democratic caucus on its agenda. and he is also serving as the co-chair of the democratic progressive caucus, and has worked diligently to make sure that progressive values are at the forefront of the conversation. but that is all biographical stuff. i think to really understand congressman oleson, you just need to know that he gets it. [applause] when the esteem in which the public holds congress is at an all-time low and people feel disconnected from representation, any mention of that has to have an exclusion for present company. because representative alisyn gets it. he gets about making the economy work for everyone and he gets

why the broad prosperity is not shared, and he gets the moral imperative of what to do about it. he is someone who is always challenging his staff and others to come up with the way to solve the most complex problems. he does not run away from them. he is taken leader of his colleagues and organizations and trying to get things done. he works within the confines of the system and find creative warwick -- greater ways to work outside of it. he is a proposal of legislation willing to put things through the legislative process. and he is and inspirer in a community where it sometimes feels that our champions are nowhere to be found. i would like to introduce you representative keith ellison. [applause]

>> thank you for reminding us all that it was not just a march on washington for freedom, but for jobs and economic freedom and freedom of all sorts. it is important to bear this in mind, because we live in a time where i think we are all closed at 80 moment -- almost at a zero moment with a concentration of wealth is coalescing around such a small number of people and the vast oceans of desperate americans are just clamoring for some sort of answers that it threatens the very democracy that we hold dear and we are lurching toward plutocracy

which is rulership of the rich. this is not the vision of the founders, and certainly not the vision of the people who led the march on washington and jobs for economic freedom. and even though it was not their vision, it was our responsibility today to do something about it. we're not here to cry about it. we are here to plan, organize, and inspire ourselves and each other to do something about it. all types of crises we are looking at right now. but there are some good things going on, too. just last week, i had the honor and privilege of standing in front of the union station building, which is federally owned, standing there with workers making $7.25 an hour, but they are not broken down.

they are demanding that they get paid fairly. and they are saying that in america, the the richest country in the history of the world, you ought to be able to feed your family. it is not too much to ask. [applause] not too much to ask from the richest country in the history of the world. but before that, i was in milwaukee, and we had people who were working for mcdonald's and burger king, ruby tuesday, and a whole bunch of them, and yet it was about the wage, but they also want to give them their pay on a debit card. and every time these white, $1 is gone -- they swiped, $1 is gone. they cannot buy diapers groceries, pay rent. we cannot live with this. rather than take this and suffer

in silence we're quite to stand up and do something about it. action is what we need today. there are things coming down the pike that i think martin luther king and the organizers of the march on washington for jobs and freedom would want us to do. i think a. phillip randolph would expect that you and i would stand up here and say that this partnership that is coming down the line is a problem and if it is so good, why will they let us see it? i am a member of congress and they will let me see it. these are things that we have got to fight against. these are things that are affecting our seniors. it is taking our seniors money for things they have worked hard for. [applause] this is the benefits that

working people have strong 04. you cannot rob people in detroit of their pensions. if we stand by while they take their pensions, they will take our pensions. don't think it will happen -- will happen to us. they will do it again. inequality is a skirt on our society. and -- a scourge on our society. and yes, we're talking about $7 an hour workers and we got to do something about it, but on this side of it, some people are doing pretty good. between 1979 and 2007, a time frame of all of a less than 20 years, real income went up by the 240% for those in the top 1%. it is a shameful thing. it is a moral issue. we've got to fight back.

our economy is capable of producing enough good paying jobs for everyone. [applause] our economy can do it. this economy can do it. but we cannot do it while we are getting trade deals that are shipping our jobs overseas. they just leaned on us a few months ago for this south. deal that they said would create jobs. the -- this south korea deal that they said would create jobs. it has already cost jobs. i'm not against trade. but these are not really trade deals, but investment deals between international corporations. they're not trying to look at ways that we can buy we've got and you can buy what we've got -- that we can buy what you've got and you can buy what we've got, but they are looking for ways that we can exploit the

workers of the world and then we will use the extra margin that we get not just to buy planes and bigger homes, but to by politicians. which will keep our loopholes and keep down the minimum wage and other kinds of stuff. we are in a moment when there are no allies. it is just us. many of us who are straight, our guay friends said that we are allies as we stand for equalities for all peoples. some blacks refer to whites as allies, because they come down and help fight for civil rights, too. and some men can be considered allies for women's rights. we stand with our sisters and demand that they get equal pay. but in this fight for america's soul and dignity and economic fairness there are no allies.

we are all in this thing. we've got this, because yes, it is absolutely true that african- americans are hit in the foreclosure crisis harder but a lot of white people left their houses, too. and yes, it is true that you may see an overconcentration of women among low-wage workers but there are a lot of men getting paid nothing, too. and it is true that the people who are losing their pensions may be older people, because a lot of young people would like to retire one day. there are no allies here. this is a movement that we all must embrace and we've all got to put pressure on. we need an internet -- an internet -- a national infrastructure bank that we build this on so that we can drive over bridges that do not fall into the river. we need to raise minimum wage to have the $15 an hour, and then we need to index it to inflation.

oh from a better idea, let's index it to executive pay. [laughter] that is where it needs to really go. we need to stop shipping jobs overseas and say no to the t pp. if it is so good, then let's shine a light on it and see it. and need to protect income security for seniors, and we to fight for the right to collectively bargain so that we can negotiate on the job for fair working conditions and decent pay. let's pass the free choice act. this is something we have not forgotten about and we are dedicated to and we have not stopped fighting for. thank you for allowing me to be here. [applause] >> you see what i mean? he gets it. and we are proud to have congressman alison --

congressman keith ellison. we're going to move straight ahead into our first panel of the evening. i would like to invite mr. lang, mr. foster and ms. hold baker. arlene, with apologies, you only get one introduction today. our moderator for this panel is arlene holt-baker, and joining the panel is algernon austin who i mentioned briefly. he works to advance policies that enable people of color to flipper is a big in the american economy and to benefit equitably from all gains in economic prosperity.

he offers reports and overseas reports on the economic condition of people of color. you have probably seen that gorgeous mug on all kinds of media outlets talking thoughtfully on all kinds of issues related to racially economy and issues of justice. we also have an associate professor of african-american studies at the university of kansas. his research interests are particularly appropriate for this panel, as they are working class back -- black history african-american social movements, and he is currently working on a volume titled " refreezing randolph: a reassessment of randolph's legacies related to black freedom." we start off with lessons learned about the forgotten history of the march on

washington. i will turn it over. >> thank you. historically people think of the march on washington as the "i have a dream" speech of dr. martin 13. but what is also an important is the role that labor -- dr. martin luther king. but what is also important is the role that labor played as well as women and other groups. i would like you to share with us the origins of the march on washington prior to 1963 and the role that labor, a. philip randolph and other civil rights leaders played, and what was then called a march on washington movement. i would also like you to elaborate a little bit more on the role that working-class people played and focus on the role that women played. >> you are going to have to stop

me. i will probably answer that over a couple of questions. i will start by saying the media origins of the 1963 march on washington for jobs and freedom actually began in the second world war. in 1941, the united states enters the war against the axis powers, and the u.s. economy which had been mired in depression began to mobilize to war. what we see our african- americans continually being shut out of well paying jobs in the defense industry. and there's the issue of the ways in which african-americans were mobilized in the military in terms of the roles they were allowed to play and not play. a. philip randolph at this time he is at this time becoming, if

not already, the key black labor leader. certainly, the key civil rights activist. he is the president of the brotherhood of sleeping across borders, which is the first of black union to negotiate contract, in this case, with the coleman company. and randolph and his full board argue that's in a war that has fought against fascism totalitarianism, and white supremacy the mother has to be some consistency with the goals being fought abroad and practice at home. this is part of what people refer to as the double v campaign. the victory against racism abroad, but also against jim crow and apartheid in the united states. he said something needs to be done. and what occurs is that randolph

and others form a coalition made up of a number of organizations of the war -- the march on washington movement. franklin delano roosevelt was the president of the time. he said the mader end the discrimination in the defense industry and the armed forces, or the march on washington movement will bring 5000, 10,000 people to d.c. to effectively expose this contradiction in the war effort. and it would make things very difficult in terms of business as usual. to make a long story short roosevelt exit -- issued executive order 8802.

to allow african-american workers to be brought the considered in the defense industry. randolph access this. the march is suspended. and the agency that has created the executive order the fair practice commission, says that -- stays as a watchdog agency tuesday that it is carried out. what happens is that's the -- is that even though the march is suspended, there were challenges that formed in cities across the u.s. the march in d.c. is suspended at the local level, in st. louis where you had one of the strongest march on washington movements in a the nation, as well as other places chicago and elsewhere those local agencies take the fight to a local level. even with the executive order

and its agency that is created businesses do not just complied. they have to be forced on the local level. there is some progress made and by the end of the war, the march on washington movement is suspended. we move forward to the later 1940's where there is similar action around desegregating the military. many of the canterbury's of the time our critical of the fact that no march -- many of his contemporaries of that time are critical of the fact that no march occurs. but it happens on the local level, and their significance in the executive order, which is the first major intervention by the president seizes the emancipation proclamation. it is a very important moment -- since the emancipation proclamation. it is a very important moment.

i want to talk about the latter part of your question, but i want to make sure we move along i do want to talk about the importance of working class particularly working class women in the movement. if you will permit me, i will come back to that. >> yes. algernon we are talking about the history of what happened here but take us through 1963, falling upon what clarence was discussing about the movement. some historians have portrayed it as an unmitigated success. my question to you these civil rights activists, did they feel that they had achieved their goal at the end? >> yes, there has been, i would say, and in complete representation of this. on the one hand, people struggled tremendously. people fought and people died.

and we did have tremendous success because of the 1963 march on washington for jobs and freedom. we did get the voting rights act and the civil rights act, in part because of the pressure of the 1963 march on washington. that was a tremendous success. unfortunately however, i feel that some historians have focused just on the success and had ignored everything else. i feel that if you really want to respect the march and struggled, but you have to vote to recognize everything they hoped to achieve -- you have to recognize everything they hoped to achieve. their recipes 7 -- there were some things that we did not achieve. that is, decent housing.

adequate integration of education. our schools are still quite segregated, and it is increasing in some areas. we still do not have full employment, and that was one of the key demands that motivated a. gillibrand of, the director of the march, and a demand for a living wage to lift the family out of poverty. we are still fighting through that. today, minimum-wage is less than what it was in 1963. there is no reason for this country to have a minimum wage that in real dollars is less than what it was in 1963. it is a little more than $2 less than what it was in 1968. we have had a strong and growing economy, workers much more productive today than they were in the past. and yet, our minimum wage is

lower than what it was in the 1960's. that is a real problem. and you can even look to martin luther king jr. martin luther king is such a tremendous and powerful figure. what we're trying to do in talking about a. phillip randolph is recognizing the other leaders. for the minorities, randolph was the leader. after pressuring fdr to do the executive order, he was the man. it is important to recommend -- remember that history. but even martin luther king was doing what he does. he was fighting for sanitation workers, and he was organizing the poor people's movement. it was clear that he did not think he was finished. and neither, i would say to my you look at the demands of the

march, it is clear that many things they were hoping for they had yet to achieve. >> mccaskill to follow-up to this -- may i ask you to follow- up to this? >> i was going to say that in 1968, the support for the sanitation strike and the poor people's campaign that king was mobilizing at the time, a lot of people see that as mobilizing the movement. and then fact is, those kinds of politics were shot through the movement even from the beginning. the montgomery board -- bus boycott, for better or worse was viewed as the beginning of the civil-rights movement. that boycott is built on black domestics, black working-class women, who rode the buses in montgomery more than any other group in that city. without them, there would not have been a successful

montgomery bus boycott. the actions of the united auto workers, there are actions that randolph himself created, the negro american council. it spearheaded the 1963 march, which was geared toward fair and full employment. the labor movement and its structure should be representative of people in the united states. these things continue all through the movement. i want to emphasize that i think we can see this even more clearly if we move beyond the national organizations and if we look at the local organizing that occurred. you will see chapters of the national associations like the naacp, which often we think as a kind of state organization.

perhaps. but it is a necessary organization. you have local chapters of the naacp being led by trade unions. callaway, for example, who was involved in the teamsters union which was a major progressive force in that city, jimmy hoffa notwithstanding. he is also leading the local chapter of the naacp. the role of the black working class women who were domestics who were long dresses -- who were laundresses, and even at the local level, certainly the clergy, people who we would think that's coming from the stable black middle class and i'm thinking from the 1930's to

the 1970's, working people inside as well as outside the labor movement. even in cases where they were not allowed to organize through the mainstream labor movement, they treated their own organizations premised on a working class agenda, fair and full employment, community colleges, public schools, health care on down the line. the march on washington in 1963 again, is a moment that brings together and represents this grass-roots working space. >> and i was going to bring you back to the role of the women and i think you have addressed that. when you think about the sanitation workers and you think about that history, it was the women, the role that they played supporting in making sure the strike continued.

is there a particular woman or women inthat you could list off for the role they played in the movement? some come to mind for me, but certainly, those who were a part of the march on washington movement that were working class women and part of the civil rights organizations. >> in the literature, we're learning more of the names. the first person who comes to mind is ellen baker. -- elah baker, who played azia vivica roel in the student on -- who played a significant role in the student nonviolent coordinating committee. that organization grew out of her efforts to make sure that young people had a space to organize, to make mistakes, and they essentially became the storm troopers of the movement. they went into the mississippi

delta, where other organizations were afraid to go. and out of the mississippi delta, a sharecropping family. by her own account, went to school only one date in her entire life. i would argue she was one of the most eloquent spokespersons for the aims of the movement. the speech that she gave the democratic national convention in 1964, you can youtube it. if you have not heard it, hear it. it is one of the most eloquent statements i've heard. a courageous woman. but again, if we move from the national level to the local level, the list grows and grows. one of the most exciting things about being involved in the scholarly production of the civil rights movement, we have a lot of really good stuff that

is coming up that is talking about these local activists who are anonymous for the most part with a national movement. and if we go back to where we are today clearly, we are at a place where we have to think of very local terms the action is going to be at the state level. living in kansas, i would argue kansas is a laboratory for some of the worst stuff that is happening. but that is what happens. it could be texas. [laughter] as has been stated by the governor of that state. i hope i have a job when i get back. >> in talking about the role of women and the march on washington movement, there's a new bookal -- a new book by william jones titled "the march

on washington" that is released today and does an excellent job in talking about women in the margin -- march on washington movement. and the thing with -- and the one who worked with randolph in trying to make the permanent committee was pauli murray. she was also one of the pioneers of civil disobedience. in 1940, she was arrested on a bus for refusing to give up her seat. we know that is an important action in civil rights history but she was one of the pioneers and also part of their workers' defense league. she has a long history. she is one of the women that william jones talks about in his book. >> and from an historical perspective, we must recognize there was not one woman that had

a speaking role in the 1963 march on washington. mary had the role of introducing other women, but not women that had a speaking role. but i think we have come far from that today. algernon congressman speake about the need for coalition. all of us speak about the need for a coalition. in the last few years there have been a number of marches, workers taking to the streets in order to be able to bargain. immigrants taking to the streets for immigration reform. taking to the streets for marriage equality. and certainly, we have seen young people, their parents and the community take to the streets around trayvon martin. my question to you is, is there

an opportunity to link these issues together? and do we have what i would call, not just a moment around issues but an opportunity to build a movement? >> that is a really tough question. >> that is why i gave it to you. >> i would go back to backellison's statement where he said there are no allies. the issue is what we're facing is really broadbased. it is a thread that weaves through all of the issues that you mentioned. one of the groups that are most exploited in the labour market today are the undocumented because they are undocumented. addressing their needs from a labor perspective is really important.

young people, again, another group that is suffering tremendously given the weak economy. i think very broadly, we are in an economic crisiscrisis but it has crossed the line. the incarcerated and the ex offender population have again a very difficult time finding work in this economy. the march on washington, you know, was that we need a job. we need to provide a job for everyone that wants to work. i think people across all demographic groups are facing that struggle today. how can we find a job given this economy? >> once we have full employment

it brings benefits across the board. wages go up and some of the concentration of income and wealth that congressman ellison is talking about can be reversed by having a full employment economy. >> when you think about the following up to what has been laid out when you think about the activity that you see in communities today, talking about the need for a local movement to be built nationally, what do you believe are some of the sparks out there that give you hope to continue the march and ultimately finish? >> i will start earlier with what was mentioned about food service workers.

this is part of the kansas city metro area. a lot of activity has begun to percolate on that. if we think about the aftermath of this recent supreme court ruling, it is a crisis that creates an opportunity for people to go back to the woodshed and organize. it obviously has to be around restoring the vote, fighting back against voter id laws? . that is why there have been attempts to shrink the electorate. it has to be part of the agenda

as well. this rising american electorate that people speak about. these things i would argue are very much interconnected with the right to vote. given the attacks recently on the national labor relations board, one of the agendas might be making the right to vote amending local civil rights laws to include the right to vote as well. it is a political question. i think these things are certainly related. the biggest key is this issue of mass incarceration.

i would argue that you don't have a trayvon martin situation without the racial profiling and this re-inscription of black criminalization. we have our plateful and when we are talking about race, class we talk about gender and race. if we think of a woman's right to choose, it is an issue that has to do with race and it has to do with class. it is not an issue of race, class, gender, sexuality. i would say just as often finding those, it is very much

critical to that. whether you are black or white we have an interest in fighting back against this kind of sanctioning of arbitrary violence. i would argue that black people have -- things affect the rest of the population. to walk away with an acquittal let's not think that has the most ability of coming back to people organizing the collective bargaining rights. it was one of the most violent times in the world.

if we allow this kind of tragedy to occur people organizing for the right to unionize those forms of violence won't be visited there as well. [laughter] [applause] >> you think about connecting it to policy, and thinking about the moment we are in, the opportunity to address the concerns of those crying for freedom, the women in texas and virginia, the workers in wisconsin, the bankruptcy in michigan. how do you think about how we have the narrative that links the justice of the peace to economics? >> again, you're giving me the

easy questions. we have to go back to the broadvision that philip randolph had. it was completely interconnected. it was both a racial justice issue and and economic justice issue. you could not separate them. many of the struggles that we are facing today are connected to the economic inequality we are seeing. connected to the disempowerment of the american public.

to go a little bit off of the central topic president obama's attempt for gun control. and yet it doesn't pass. that is unfortunately connected to something that congressman ellison talked about, the influence of money and lobbyists. we have a real crisis in our democracy right now. one of the important forces is labor. that is why labor is under attack. we really need to do more to broaden a host of issues, a host of organizations.

it is also crucial that we figure out how to strengthen and extend labor. many other progressive movements are connected to the labor movement. we need to build movement and particularly, the labor movement. also a lot of the civil rights struggles are connected to the labor struggle and the growing economic inequality that we are seeing. >> this i will post to the both of you. if you had one economic policy that you would propose we move to give an opportunity to young

people of color so that they can have hope for their economic future, what would that be? >> you go first. [laughter] >> i have to choose only one. i will go back to full employment. i think that the outlook of young people today would be so different. if you ask what they wanted they are certainly the top three of their concerns.

it increases the likelihood that they may get involved or entangled in the criminal justice system. making sure that those people have a job will have positive effects in a multitude of ways. [laughter] >> he has made it so easy for me. i think that full employment solves a lot of problems. these are not violent drug offenses of people trying to patch together a living through means that are sometimes legal and other times are not. >> i would have to agree with that.

we have to have the right to voice that. it will help guarantee it. we are running out of time, but this is a question i would like to pose for the two of you. looking historically, we talked about a philip randolph. he was able to meet with five presidents. roosevelt, truman, eisenhower, johnson, kennedy. i asked the two of you if he were alive today and able to meet with barack obama, what do you think that conversation would be like?

>> i will let you go first. [laughter] >> first of all, we would have to recognize his meeting with president obama would not be because he wanted to have coffee and conversation. when he met with u.s. presidents, he was coming to ask and demand something. i would imagine randolph saying something in his baritone voice -- the only time the u.s. presidency has been an effective ally of people struggling with whatever goal they are struggling for is when there is pressure. i am going to do you a favor and make it easy for you to help shepherd through an american jobs act.

tomorrow don't be surprised when you see the press conference announcing that we are going to stage a march on washington unless there is executive action taken. [laughter] [applause] >> i agree completely. clearly, for him, he says, look, in 1963, i see 6 million black and white people unemployed and millions more in poverty. today, there are 12 million people unemployed and millions more in poverty. there is a lot of work to be done. he recognizes that you have to put pressure on the

administration to get motion. he would not necessarily focus simply on obama. it is congress. there was tremendous opposition in congress. he would mobilize to put pressure on the issue of jobs and try to get the congress people to pay attention. >> president obama says, make me do it. i think we don't have very much time left. we wanted to have an opportunity with one or two questions but i don't know if we have that time. if you tell me that we have a minute or two, we will have a

very fortunate person be able to ask a question to our panel. i will repeat it. no burning questions? not comment, but questions. >> [inaudible] >> he is asking if we thought the federal government was still capable of moving forward in terms of good policy and us being able to mobilize in a way to make it happen. >> obviously, we are in very different times and randolph.

the government is functional by design, in some respects. the key right now is that i don't know that the federal government at this point in history is the vehicle for the kinds of changes we would envision and imagine. we are back to where people were among government in 1955 when you had to find where you're standing. i think that you had to begin to begin where we stand. -- build where we stand. >> right now, we have a highly dysfunctional democracy. as individuals and voters, we still have power. the issue is a matter of mobilizing to put pressure on places where our democracy is

stuck. there needs to be more organizing consciousness- raising to address the problems that make it difficult for democracy to function properly. i think it is possible, but it is quite difficult. >> without the first fair employment laws in various states, i think that is the key. >> this is going to wrap up the panel. this has been a rich discussion that must continue among all of us. this is still so much work for us to do.

to share prosperity for all americans, let's commit ourselves to finishing the march. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much, arlene, clarence and now i would like to invite the second panel addressing the current economic state for people of color. there was indeed much for the march of washington that has been misremembered.

they will never be given their just due, but thankfully, we have research and analysts that can derive inspiration done by people in the past. facing a crisis, people of color. representing all hues foof the human mosaic. from the national congress of american indians she has been to washington for a little while now. she worked in the clinton administration and the housing and urban development program. she has extensive experience on

national boards and i view her as a trusted and valued partner in the progressive fight for making sure that the economy works well for everybody. we have lopez on the left, let's give mark a public round of applause. [applause] his extensive research studies the attitudes and opinions of latinos and their views of identity. mark oversees and directs the annual survey of latinos. it is an incredibly valuable tool for all of us as we try to incorporate the latino community into a lot of our work. next to mark is mr. williams riggs,.

. he comes to us after a stint in the department of labor as the assistant secretary. bill is also a professor and and former chair of the department of economics at howard university. welcome. lisa is the executive director of the national coalition for asian and pacific american community development. she has led the efforts for asian and american pacific islander communities. she was the community liaison for the white house initiative on asian americans and pacific islanders. they have an outstanding rapport

that hopefully you saw at the literature table when you came in. and then -- that is everybody. [laughter] i will turn it over to jacqueline to get the panel started off right here in. [applause] >> our panel is about the economy. anybody on this panel could probably recite the data of the demographics and communities that you come from. and certainly the need for economic justice. i wanted to be able to make sure that this panel, what the economic crisis really is, and how we march forward.

in fact, 16 days after the march , bobby kennedy -- a little- known fact in this room. he made a statement and noted the irony that native people have been denied equal opportunity in the greatest free country of the world. and then he quoted chief joseph who made the statement in 1877. "whenever the white man treats the indian like he treats his own kind, we will have no more wars? ." he probably would not use those same words today but the thought behind it is reality.

from access to equal education and financial services, affordable housing all of those things create real barriers to our economic abilities in the community today. we are joined by the right panel of the right folks here. we are going to have that conversation. i want to start with you and i want to present it in a way i hope we are thinking about messaging moving forward. you were contacted by a journalist, how would you describe it? >> we have this report coming

out, so let me see if i can take a stab at it. the broader economic justice framework, there is a moment between race and class. even before the 40 po'40s. asian-americans and pacific islanders will not be used as a wedge community. when it comes with income inequality, asian americans and pacific islanders are lumped altogether as asian slash other. we track with whites or are

doing better thanhites.national capacity focused on low income those in poverty and most economically vulnerable, we try to flip the script. it is not a race to the bottom, but i think there is a broader common cause for all people of color and society needing to focus on economic inequality. i would assume that if they are talking to me, they are probably thinking that i will talk about the market potential of the immigrant community. i would want to poke at that a little bit because that stereotype is very present. immediately, talking to

reporters, it is to break that down fast and quick. i talk about the 2 million under the poverty level. that the population has grown in the wake of the economic crisis. we talk about losing 50% of the wealth. we feel that we have common cause for communities of color. >> what would you add? >> on the one hand, data shows we see them living in poverty.

we also saw that many lost their jobs. they lost a lot of household love during the recession because of where they bought homes. a lot of economic impacts of the recession on the latino community, they really closed the unemployment gap. when you talk to latinos and ask questions about the future there is a lot of optimism about their own personal economic futures. and that things can be better for their children in the future.

in the last few years, we have seen a surge in college enrollment. many hispanic adults will tell you that education is a very important issue to them. what do you need to be successful in life? many say it is a college degree. adults believe that the future will be better for their children and it is important to have a college education to be successful. there is a lot of optimism and potential for the latino community. there is a lot to be done, there are still disparities to be addressed. nonetheless, we see a sense of optimism. >> not only are we taking a

snapshot right now, it is important to think about the policy. what was the situation and the circumstance that led america the free to be able to come to this place right now where we are at? >> we have had a couple of policy changes, whow do we do policy and what do we do it for? after world war ii, we saw employment go up because of the war. everyone was afraid that after the war and the industrial power that had to be brought to win the war, we would go straight back to depression. congress passed an act in 1946

to make the policy of the u.s. government to seek employment. in 1945, it was supposed to be full employment. they talked about guaranteeing that americans have the right to a job. we are not going to guarantee a job, but that policy is employment. over time, 1976, facing unemployment yet again, we had the congressional black caucus and senator humphrey from minnesota. they talked about full employment and whether it is full employment, spry stability -- rice stability, fair trade and it stopped being the center focus.

the unemployment rate had gotten to six percent. we thought the world was going to and. the march was about full employment with reference back to 6% is intolerable. part of it is discussion, public discussion how we view employment with what people have data access to a job. congress and the president debating about deficits. they are not debating that the world is going to and because of a lack of employment despite the fact that for young people in the united states, they live in the worst labor market in the history of the whole united states. there has never been this difficulty for people who are young, black white to get a

job. somewhere around 55% would be employed. they have been below 40% for almost four years. those 18-19-year-olds. finishing community college, they are still suffering from a lack of opportunity. going back to the 1960s the fact that we don't have a national conversation about this. the fact that the media doesn't

look at congress and the president and say, shame on you. you're debating the federal deficit 40 years and now -- from now. what will the deficit look like in 2050? the deficit is young people having a job. that change in conversation passed after sputnik was launched. the response was for the federal government to step in and promote adding enough teachers to prevent -- we lost teachers in this downturn.

in order to keep the classroom sizes the same for this generation they're arguing how much they will raise interest rates. this misplaced priority is the problem we are facing. letting the unemployment rate get to this level we are worried about 2050 and paying tax rates. [applause] >> thank you. mark, you get to come to this

conversation that bill put on the table. obviously, you need to bring suggestions. bill did a great job laying it out. >> looking forward for the next few days, it is an importance of education and preparing people for the job market area. but looking at the completion of high school, there has been some improvements. latinos could be right, but it depends on many different things. certainly, many latinos point to the value of a college education and the need to get that college education. there are a number of ways that can happen.

it can be offering or providing more opportunities to get to college by building universities. there are a number of different ways this can happen. >> i feel like that representing one of the organizations here that is an institution i feel like the infrastructure and the organizational infrastructure that we have representing people of color at the national level. researchers and technological tools that we have. they are inspired by the first town. even when it started in the 40

po's. i am thinking executive order 9066. that history lesson was very important. i know my own history and am learning more and more at every moment. but with the large number of newer immigrants coming to this country, i wish that i could download american history into everyone's brains. if we put it in the water or something, that would be great. it would be so important to figure out how these institutions are able to move forward. in terms of organizational infrastructure, i was preparing for your question about in 50 years.

there is a collective cause of a people's movement. americanand so this sort of consciousness and identity as a people with a common cause whether it is multiracial, by class or race, it is important. to figure out what that frame is, that we can get behind, i think it is still a challenge. that is part of the solution, trying to figure out what sorts of ways we can come together. we have a lot more power. we have more than we ever did before. what is that? there is something there.

>> i just felt like he is absolutely right. it we need to have this conversation. going to your statement, if we were talking about this 50 years from now, what changes would we have made? that way we are not cycling back to the same conversation over and over again. >> i think your question is exactly right. we are still too defensive. we still want to defend that as opposed to taking on the challenge ourselves. it was good, it was done, what is the logical step? we have sort of learned while an outcome was the establishment of

the equal opportunity commission, it was not enough. what people need to think about is what the jury was saying. do you really have to ask why they have a hard time getting their job? >> we understand there is a lot more going on.

we have to figure out ways to improve on that. we have the anomaly of the asian american community that has an inverse relationship with the unemployment rate versus whites. they seem to do well when they have less education. it goes the opposite direction. they have the longest duration of unemployment. it is much more complicated. >> we are seeing a lot of gaps. they just create a greater divide. >> we have to be far more effective with what we do, but we have to relate it to the public sector and we have to

understand the downturn that we just had. wall street cannot fail. there are banks too big to fail. this was the biggest decline in revenue for state and local government ever. and it was prolonged. and there was no clear path that it will come back. we still would like to have police firefighters, a demand for public services. you have to have the public sector. [applause] when we have these downturns the federal government must step

in to ensure the revenue streams for state and local government. the problem that people forget about detroit their government runs on income taxes. the unemployment rate never recovered. if there are banks that are too big to fail and we have to step in. there are cities that are too big to fail. [applause] it is not enough for the administration to say, we are

behind you, detroit. get behind me. >> what are some of the policies? >> wall street caused more damage than what we had put into the budget. it when they, we lose. not just their mess. after they got their bonuses and we saved their companies. if they get a bonus, detroit

city workers should get a pension. [applause] >> mark, what would you like to add to the conversation? >> i don't know what i can add. [laughter] i want to look at the future and talk about demographics and how things are changing. the united states will be a debt -- very different country than it is today. you will see a nation that is not majority white. it will be different in terms of the demographic and economic characteristics. it will be a more foreign- born country than it is today. it is likely we will see more immigrants coming to the united states which makes it very unique and different rum other countries in the world.

no other country even comes close. looking to the future, it will be a different picture demographically. we don't know where all of that will be. everything you just mentioned will be an important part shaping that economic future. and what type of economy they come of age with. there is a tremendous number of opportunities. >> i want to hear -- >> we will be able to say that we worked on this.

in the history and the labor union and organizing, i feel like there are many causes that could be framed about what they can get behind. the strikes with the grapes in california. there are so many labor leaders the high rates of incarceration and racial profiling, i think the south asian community has issues with voter id. they are something that we can

use, living wages and jobs. nobody talks about that anymore. there is not an active advocacy movement. i think that labor has been amazing. people talking about housing and what has gone down with the financial crisis. we deal with it in a more conventional way.

>> the demographics of our country are changing and certainly, we will see in the near future where the minority is now the majority. thinking about something that dr. martin luther king said in one of his speeches, the fear of not knowing each other. it creates a crisis working together. we have a changing economy and the fear of not working together. how do we bring together the kind of environment that we want to have going forward. >> do you have any thoughts that you want to add? >> events like this are part of the conversation.

>> we need to know where this is coming from. we will see a much smaller labor union. they had a way of making sure it will be divided fairly. the pie is not divided more fairly. less goes to workers. as we shrink the pie for workers, it is a smaller and smaller type. -- smaller pie. we have to point to the people creating the smaller pie.

those of us earning our pay versus those of us speculating on wall street and betting on horses. [applause] and i think when we do that, we can understand that rather than workers picking on each other how do we get them back to this and earn a paycheck? how do we divide the pie and make policies that are fair for everyone. >> there will be cities with minority majority sooner than 2040. i think that it could be really interesting to go a lot deeper

in a couple of those places where there will be a tipping point. i am concerned about what will happen and i am concerned that as national leaders, we will be figuring that out. >> one of the challenges, we all say the right things. i'm not talking "we" collective i'm talking "we" americans. sometimes the values change, and how do we think about the american dream >> once again, it puts all of us on an equal

playing field. --about the american dream? once again, it puts us all on an equal playing field. equal rights and opportunities. how can we, ourselves, within our individual groups -- how can we tie ourselves to the principal of equal opportunity ? >> there is a website on what policies drove this level of inequality between the one percent and the other 99% of us. looking at those series of policies whether it is the deconstruction of the safety net for workers and taking away their rights to organize, taking away their pension, taking away their health care and retirement

, decimating the wages of american workers. we understand what they did to us, those are the policies that they kicked us off and said we need to stop. i think that is a useful tool and it is broken down in a way that most people can follow. >> when we start talking about complex financial terms understanding the interest rates and impacts, talking about the national debt that doesn't just related to their immediate home

situation, it is difficult for people to understand these pieces and the impact of the federal policy. as a community of color, this is our challenge. we tried to have a conversation about the wealth gap or asset building. we still have not gotten the traction i believe that you are talking about in the dialogue that we need. >> when we look at data from a d knows, many have a bank account. they -- from latinos many don't have a bank account. it was rising to a record high right before the recession. the interesting thing is to look at where latinos are building their wealth. sometimes it would be the only

thing they would have as an asset would be a vehicle. 401(k). when you think about what is happening in washington or the financial community, many latinos were unaware of the connections where the credit crisis came from and how it impacted them. there is one area where focusing on financial literacy and those connections might be very important. >> you're talking about the march on washington because now bill is motivated. how are you going to rally your folks? >> we have to do a lot of political education.

it is basic and not super sexy, but there is information sharing. my work is translating the crazy language of this city to the folks outside of this city. i do know the language a little bit. i feel like that we need to do that in a much more deliberate way. it is about the local political education and having a larger conversation. i think trayvon martin and everything that happened around that was encouraging. i felt like there is a convicted this -- connectedness that we have to tap into in terms of the importance of race.

it is not so sexy, but organizing and a lot of political education. i think we don't do enough of it. [applause] i believe there are signs of changes, america today is moving forward. moving forward the destiny a nation in neither indians or any other religious minirity will be in majority. he saw we are making progress for making this future. we have much more work to do you will is -- why to make sure

we bring all of our people forward. thank you for joining us. [applause] >> when we structured that panel looking at the economic crisis confronting people of color and had all the preconditions to be a depressing panel. the panelists were able to go beyond depressing to provide inspiration and that left us so let's give them another round of applause. that was great. [applause]

as we bring our third panel up to the front i would like to thank bill spriggs. he mentioned a website about inequality. it is www. inequality.is. you can find a take on how we got to where we are vis-à-vis inequality. thus far, we have looked at the march on washington and what it was about or what we ought to remember 50 years later about its importance. we talked about the economic circumstances today which are not all that different than the economic circumstances that precipitated the march of years ago. we heard from the last panel that there are no shortage of ideas about how to move forward. when you have got the conditions being right for change and you

have got ideas about how change not to occur, it begs the question, why is change so hard and coming? it may be the answer comes from how we envision this last panel. the politics of race in america. where do we go from here? why is it so hard to talk honestly about race in such a way that moves the dial. hopefully our cohorts 50 years from now are not having another conversation that looks a lot like conversations that were held to kids before. for this panel, -- that were held decades before. we have a distinguished group of people. our moderator is dr. moore. ceo of a social change strategy firm. this position is a combination

of her vast experience in working on legislative house he -- policy. prior to that she was senior resident scholar of health and income security at the national urban leg and she spent time on the hill as chief of staff with congressman charlie wrangle and staff on the ways and means committee. as people in my family would call her, a chronic underachiever. we are joined with the director of immigrant rights and racial justice at the center for community change. the organization that -- to build their capacity for effecting change.

she also served as deputy mayor of new haven where she was able to take these policy ideas and put them into practical applications to underserved residents of that community. we also have angela blackwell who is the founder and ceo of policy link. an organization she started in 1999 after serving as vice president of the rockefeller foundation. advancing economic and social equity and under her leadership, policy link has become the leading voice in the progressive movement to use public apology -- policy to improve access and opportunity for all communities of color. focused on the areas of health and housing, transportation education, and infrastructure. we have the immediate past president of the inside center

for community and elect tronic -- and development. mr. clay was general counsel of the california finance agency. he did a lot of work advising on housing and community and economic development, bringing his skills to bear on issues that are together -- all too often neglected by people in the professional and legal area. we are please to have this exciting panel and i will turn it over. >> thank you. our panel is the holidays of race in america are we making progress? that is a very good question. it is heartening and certainly shameful that we are still debating the issue of race in america 50 years after the

margin -- on washington for jobs and freedom and 150 years after the issuance of the emancipation proclamation. heartening because enough people still believe so strongly in the promise of america and its progress that they are willing to tackle the issue of race until a good opportunity and justice becomes a reality for all people of all backgrounds. disheartening because we are still dealing with the original sin of racism and its manifestation in the form of racialized stereotypes and practices that make it possible for individuals of ill will to refer to our nation cost first african-american head of state as the food stamp president, to undermine the right of citizens to vote, and to profile law- abiding people as criminals based on the color of their skin

, what they're wearing,, or the sounds of their name. we are here to say that our nation is better than that. we are better than that. there is a path forward for real economy -- equality and opportunity. here to talk about the politics and promise of america is a very distinguished panel. they have already been introduced but these people are not only speakers on the subject, they are preeminent anchors on the subject and most important way, they are doers on the subject of this issue and they are committed to racial equality in this nation. with that this week we have had a lot of talk about race and it was sparked by the trayvon martin verdict. the question becomes, why are innocent african-american men on

trial every day and every way in this country? why are black men in peril? >> i have gotten that question before. my first inclination is to say i do not know. i think i do know. last week i was on an elevator in a big hotel in new york and i had my suit coat on and a white woman got on and she looked around and saw it was just me and she was a little bit afraid uncomfortable. i did what i usually do. i spoke to her and commented on the weather. which relaxed her a little bit. i was a little surprised in the sense it does not happen to me as often once i got great hair as i did when i was younger. it was clear she was afraid.

people are afraid. they are afraid of us. and that is a simple answer and a very complicated answer. because the question is, why are they afraid? generally the fear is not a stone experience or fact. you do not often hear or i bet most -- i bet most of us do not know of situations where black people are going around attacking white people. we unfortunately killer cells. but we are not going out there doing that to others. they do it more to us which is one of the things that just happened. this fear has been a long time coming. it goes back hundreds of years. part of it is -- people are conscious of their fear but they do not know why. they're often unconscious and he goes back to hundreds of years of us as black men and black

boys being compared to gorillas and apes in that sort of thing which people do not consciously do but research says that people subconsciously still think of many black men and toys that way. and even like people have that unconscious feeling about black men and black noise. i am hoping that the panel is optimistic but on this topic i get upset. i am not that optimistic because i think the fear is so deep- seated that it is going to be hard to turn that around. >> the fear of the black man the stereotype of the african- american male as a menace as the other, as somebody to be feared in society, does that mean that there is a racial bias

in the system? was it a part of the guilty verdict or the not guilty verdict? >> i was hoping to be optimistic and this panel but given the question, i think i will be overwhelmingly pessimistic. all you have to do is look at the numbers. we incarcerate more people than anybody else in the world as a nation. right now we have 2.3 million people behind bars. either in jail or prison. of those 2 million, 60% are people of color. right now at any given moment on any given day, let's take today. one in 10 african-american men are either in jail or prison in their 30's.

when it comes to young black men in their 20's and 30's, without a high school diploma, the incarceration rate is so high it is 40%. they are more likely to be behind bars than to have a job. that is only the beginning. when she have been incarcerated, you do not escape it when you get out of prison. that is the beginning of or the continuation of a difficult trajectory. once you have a criminal record, it is hard to get access to public housing, it is difficult to get student loans, nobody wants to hire you. that trajectory continues and i think that is part of the pessimistic narrative of race and politics in this country.

>> there has been a lot of narrative about this whole notion of racial bias and the question of white privilege. so if we have a criminal justice system that is racially biased, what does it mean? -- what does it mean for the prospects of people of color who are becoming the majority in the nation? >> we are not able to get racial justice until we and disparities in the racial -- in the criminal justice system. the criminal justice system is touching a disproportionate number of lives of people of color. until we do away with it, when i talk about racial justice, the first thing i talk about is criminal justice. the system touches the lives of so many people of color and communities that we will net -- never get racial justice until we do away with disparities.

the trayvon martin case to me was part of the example of white privilege in this way. young white kids walking around with hoodies do not have to worry about getting stopped getting frisked, getting harassed by cops. i have an eight-year-old boy, i have a son. i have to have conversations with him about race. i have to have conversations about what it means to engage with law enforcement officers. i'm not sure that there are white parents who have to have those conversations with those -- their kids at such an early age. >> it really is not about disparities that exist naturally. aren't there disparities created by institutions and how do these racial stereotypes and attitudes

shape the policies and institutions and what doing a to do to reshape them? so that we can have a system that works for all? >> yes. absolutely. the disparities are there because of individual racism structural racism, systematic exclusion, all those are operating. and we do need to come up with policies that reverse its and it will not happen until we fundamentally change. that is why it is hard to be optimistic. and i think i am. i usually am. i will get there by the end of this conversation. it is a hard place. we are a nation in which many people carry you will in their hearts.

we have tried to move beyond that. we thought we could move beyond it. if we got opportunities and place it did not matter what people had in their hearts. you do not have to like me, just let me work and have it job. we thought that if we got policies in place we could leave the hearts alone. i do not know if that was right or wrong but i do know that people still carry a lot of ill will in their heart. and we are at the moment which is a transition. one thing that i am optimistic about is that we are clearly moving beyond our evil past into a time in which we will be different. it is inevitable that we get there. but this can be a long and dangerous time because the old guard is afraid of losing and the last gasp can be a dangerous time. that is where we are right now.

i know we will get to a better lace but we have to go through this -- a better place but we have to go through this. they had to act out a couple of decades ago because they had everything. our friends those people who are liberal and supportive have not embraced an authentic narrative about how hard it is to be of color in this nation. particularly how hard it is to be black and how hard it is to be up black man or boy. what that means is when something goes down, we cannot come together because half of us who want the same things are thinking what is the real story about what happened? i am sure it did not happen exactly that way. it is hard to have the movement forward.

we keep talking about having a conversation. i do not want to have any more conversations. what we need is an action agenda that we can all get behind and move out on. that is the conversation we want to put before the american people. what do you think about this agenda, what will you contribute, how is this going to become an american agenda. i do not want to be understood. i want to have an action agenda that puts the policies you are talking about front and center. i am up to mystic that will happen but it has to happen soon . if it does not happen soon this will be the way of life for a long time. >> with that when you're talking about an action agenda and

public policy and the design of public policy and eliminating racial and ethnic disparities and -- it requires a specific approach to policy design. if it -- ifs that a race-neutral approach? >> we have to put on a racial lens. we do not have to do it because it is the right thing to do. it has become an imperative. we know that people of color are becoming the majority. the nation is imperiled. it is an economic peril. our democracy is in peril. if we think about how we're going to be the thing we we have been so proud of it is clear that people who are going to be the future have to lead us there. they have to be the innovators,

they have to be the workers and be the ones that valued democracy and democratic participation. they have to be the middle class. i think that we have to bring a racial and ethnic lands not just to make up for past wrongs but to go in the right direction. to make sure that everything we do, take infrastructure. you know the nation needs to fix its crumbling infrastructure but if we do that, we allow some communities that are being left behind to come into the center. that we allow the communities that are holding people back to place them in the 20th century. that is to be cities in this country that are black and round. -- lack and round. -- black and brown.

it does not work unless we bring a racial lens to it. i would like to see us bring a racial lens for practical reasons, not for redress of grievances create if we can combine the need to step up in a moral way with the imperative to step up so the nation can be strong, all of a sudden we are on the path to the future. we solved both the problems. >> roger, we have had a lot of conversations about this and you probably agree that we have to have a race-specific for -- focus. >> i do agree but there are two things -- i will not say "but." we have to have some vision of what we want this country to

look like for the kids of their born today. if we do not know where we are going you can end up anywhere. i do not think we have ever done that. the other thing related to that is who is included? one of the things about black men and black toys too many people, we should not be here or we cannot be seen. as productive members of society. the same thing is going on now with some of the immigrant population. they are not us and so we do not have to worry about them. we do not have to worry in terms of helping them do well. we have to worry about them to get them away. in order to have any kind of policy that is going to move us forward we have to have that platform and we have to know where we are going and who is included. the other thing, we should not

be naïve. i am very excited about the fact that the country is becoming more diverse. i am excited about the fact that it will become majority minority but what does that mean? that means that whites are not in the majority. we should not act like all our different minority groups have always act -- worked together. i actually think we are doing better and i know -- we are working hard at it but that has not been our history. there are many black people that do not like immigrants. there are many people who do not like days. we have to work at this in order to move us all forward. i think that the change in demographics gives us the opportunity to affirmatively and

explicitly work on it. we have got a ways to go. it is not going to get all better in 2040. he >> not easy. >> we have been talking about the changing demographics but the demographics are driven by the large growth of the latino population and we are in the midst of a debate nationally about immigration reform. and the issue of race and the other is front and center in these conversations about immigration reform. how are advocates like you and the people he you work for fighting the issue -- people you work for fighting the issue of racial stereotyping? >> i do think that the fight for immigration reform ultimately is a racial justice fight. when we think about the way that immigration and the issue has been framed, it has been framed in racial justice ways.

i do want to paint a picture of who is behind and when you think about race and immigration, a lot of us do not really know just how racialized immigration is and who is behind the efforts to oppose immigration reform so i want to paint a picture. the organizations that are -- most of the organizations that are advocating against immigration reform are funded by a man by the name of john tenton. he is a white nationalist and you just -- eugenicist. the largest anti-immigration organization is f.a.i.r.

these are the people who are driving that ugly debate around immigration reform that we are hearing and those offensive terms are put out that way to alienate immigrants so that immigrants are seen as somehow inferior. in addition, if you look at who in congress is opposing immigration reform, you have a very small group of legislators who are extreme right wing republicans have never embraced people of color and they are the ones who are opposing, they are standing in the way of immigration reform. we have the votes to pass immigration reform right now but a small group of people are standing up and opposing immigration reform and these are people who have no problem referring to immigrants as illegal aliens, who talk about how they are destroying the

fabric of this country. some of the language is racially coded, some of it is not. when you think about the combination of these two groups and how they collude and what it leads to, i want to quickly mention a rally that took place here last monday. i am going to hope that none of you were there. i hope you were there for our side. it was put together by f.a.i.r. and one of the groups that was there was a group that say that they oppose immigration reform. one of the speakers was one of the founders of the tea party. he gets up on the podium and immediately starts talking about all the negatives that he perceives around immigration and immigration reform and then he started going down the path of talking about breeding and well

bred americans and i want to quote directly from his beach. " for thosebloodlines and all these great americans, martin luther king, these great americans who built this country you came from them and the unique thing about being from that part of the world come a when you learn about breeding, you cannot breed secretariat to a donkey and expect to win the kentucky derby. you guys have incredible dna and do not forget it." who was in that crowd, senator jeff sessions who led the opposition to the immigration villain the senate. congressman steve king. he has what up -- talked about ideas like putting up electronic fences. and senator ted cruz. that is what we are dealing with

at the end of the day when we are talking about race and immigration injustice. >> everyone i talk to who advocates for immigration reform are optimistic despite all that. because of the energy of the dreamers. they are optimistic he can people are coming together even across race to support immigration reform. they are developing language to promote inclusion and aspirations for new americans. there is a certain population of members of congress who -- the american -- [indiscernible] >> what we have is a movement, a movement of african-americans, latinos, asians, lgbt, faith- based communities. we have support from the left and the right. the majority of americans -- support immigration

reform and we have this incredible energy from young people who stood out and said we will give up our rights and push the envelope and who have sacrificed parts of their lives to advocate for immigration reform. that is the irony about immigration reform. they american people wanted. we have a movement of -- that represents a broad spectrum of the community and yet there are a handful of people who want to stand in the way of immigration reform. that is the challenge that we have. we are playing hardball with the republicans that are getting in the way and we are reminding them of one thing, given the changing demographics of this country, if they do not get right with immigrants and immigration reform, they will be annexed in party. >> -- extinct party.

>> the people with the kind of money you have talked about, the kind of influence they can buy with that money, the place they are coming from in terms of what they want for the country they will be defeated. we will get immigration reform. i hope we get it this time but you know that we are going to get it. when you talk about the challenge of what we -- when we come together, we will come together. we are coming together. i never go anyplace anymore where people are not working to come together. it is the change it -- agents and social justice advocates. we are living in that direction.

we are not getting behind each other's agendas enough. we are not taking the few things. i was blown away by the fact that the enable -- and delay cp was able to get one million signatures. we were able to agree on one thing and when we do that we can make a tremendous difference. the work that we need to do is to accept that power has the potential to be on our side. but whether or not we are able to utilize it requires us to come together, to let a few things go and pick some things we will move on to do that systematically. i do not think we have enough confidence in our ability to be able to overcome. just getting the president elected a second time tremendous forces on the other side that did everything they possibly could. young people and women and people of color and people who live in cities, they all came together and made that happen. we need to sustain that and that is part of the reason we are having trouble. we cannot sustain anything for very long.

i did a radio show on kqed forum . last week. we were talking about trayvon martin. it was one of those call-in things. some said they were tired of this discussion. we had a lot of come back it is the american way. we give it three days, let's move on. we have got to stop that. >> roger angela just said we need to pick a few things to come together but when you look at the challenges facing our communities, you're talking about health and education

income security, wealth, access to the franchise. you are talking up ready darn broad agenda. just picking up the issue of wealth disparity. people do not realize that we have a racial wealth gap in this country. do you think we can come together around that? tell us about the racial wealth gap and what it is and what we can do. rex let's define what we mean by wealth. we're talking about people's assets minus their liabilities. when you compare blacks to whites, whites had 10 times the wealth of blacks. today it is less than five percent. latinos are a little better asians are little better but none of us are doing that well.

even though the whites have lost a lot of wealth, the gap is not decreased, it is increased. wealth is really important because it is when things get bad, that is one of the things that has happened to the black community that we did not have enough wealth when the recession hit. it helps you put your kids in school. which one what i focus on? since this is -- this is about the march. i find it interesting that some recent research that tom shapiro did at randie's about what drives a wealth gap happens to fit with those demands that we have not done well on. like housing.

that is number one. the second one is jobs. the third is it is related to jobs but it is the level of pay. we do not have a minimum wage that makes any sense. those cores on -- correspond with what the hell talked about. inheritance. what you can get from your family in terms of support or what is left when they pass away. those are things that the -- we have to change if we are making a difference. you give me two questions where i am not that optimistic in the short term because the gap is so huge that even if we get everyone even in terms of income, it is going to be a long

time. i forgot one which is education. that is the oer one that we have not done well on and it is also one that tom shapiro mentions as one of the main drivers. when i focus, i focus on those and that brings us to other things to support those like transportation and health and those kinds of things but you need those to get to the four. >> black and brown people have been left out of the system in regards to them having the least access. black and brown people are a majority of uninsured and people do not know that, with latinos leading that number.

while the affordable care act is definitely a step in the right direction, there is still unfinished is this the -- business there. >> i will talk about this in a way that can pull us together. i said we need to be able to get on the same page. all of us who work for organizations, we have different policies that we are championing. if we can get on the same narrative page, we can keep time -- tying whatever we are working on back to the simple narrative. people need good jobs and capabilities and we need to remove barriers that keep people from having access to opportunity. within that context, i think everything can fit so take health. i had the honor of being on the robert wood johnson foundation commissioned to build a

healthier america. they have spent a lot of time focusing on axis. this commission focused on health and well-being and concluded that most of poor health does not come from lack of access. it comes from not having enough money, not having enough education, and living in a place that is bad for your help so -- your health. getting a good job is something you can do to improve your health. there are a lot of opportunities to create jobs created we need to make sure we bring a racial and equity lands trade we have to make sure that we are investing in community colleges and job training programs and all the things we need for people to be ready and we need to make sure that we are paying attention to where people live. where you live is a proxy for opportunity. it determines everything including how long you live. you tell me your zip code, i can

tell you your expiration date. [laughter] if we think about building healthy communities is the way to help people live longer lives, your issue could be jobs or building capability or strong communities, it could be transportation. we can all keep pushing in the same direction. >> roger mentioned earlier that there is a lot of competition between racial and ethnic minority groups, communities of color. they do not always play well in the sandbox together. at the national level, we are seeing a transformation. all these organizations have been part of a coming together at the national level around many of these issues. what was the name of the

coalition on housing? cross-racial and people working toward a common goal. at the local level -- we are about to get pessimistic again. it seems like the notion of coalition building is more elusive. what can we do to bring people together so we can have this collective power building? >> i am going to frame my remarks around my experience when i was working in government and when i was deputy mayor. i will pick an issue that i was focused on which was immigration. new haven was the first city to issue a resident identification card to all city residents receive -- irrespective of their immigration status. part of the reason we did that was to make sure that immigrants were not only welcome to the city of new haven but they could be more cynically engaged and

they had an identity they could show to law enforcement officers and other governmental agencies. at the time we did this it was 2007 and the nation was embroiled in this heated debate so all these white supremacists and nativists landed in new haven. one of the first things they did is they went on a sunday to all these african american churches and started flyering people's windshields with all this information. immigrants are going to flood your hospitals and take over your schools. we started getting calls from employees who were at church on sunday and they came back after praying and raking bread to see

these hateful flyers so the first thing we did was we convened a meeting of leaders in the community and talk about what happened and decided that new haven was not going to be a city that was going to be divided that way. around the issue of immigration there were very frank and painful discussions. before we got to progress, there were more questions raised by leaders in the african-american -- african-american community should we be afraid for our jobs, what is going to happen to my child's education but out of that dialogue, the first thing we did was have a press conference of all the people, community leaders representing a broad sector of the community to say we do not accept hatred, we do not welcome these folks here. it is interesting how communities engage because what ended up happening is people formed coalitions and relations and started talking about issues of common interest. if you think about education, who is at the

bottom? it is people of color. if you think about healthcare, who is at the bottom? it is people of color. there is an organization that has come together that consists of immigrants and african americans who get together and talk about issues that mutually affect them and figure out solutions and ways to move forward on that. so i do think there is always a spark, there is an issue around which people can come around it you do need to have leaders in the community. you do need to have organizers who will take that spark and create some sense of community and consensus and a way to move forward. >> we are running short on time but i would like to ask if there are any burning questions, one or two we will take one. any hands? yes, sir? >> ok. i am with the newspaper guild

and i will throw a curveball. how do we get -- we are preaching to the choir here. how do we get this message through to the other 47%? >> [inaudible] the choir is here but we have also got the other. >> how do you get the cost to folks who have been resistant? >>-- cause to folks who have been resistant? >> [inaudible] we have to [inaudible] and talk about this. then when they go back to their

homes they will be able to -- [inaudible] >> i do know because i have seen it. being able to take apart the problem and helping people to understand the history the context as the president did last week area that is very helpful. i was being provocative in trying to push us to think about the solutions. that is where i think talk could be more productive. many people are ready to move but are not feeling we are coming together enough around solutions to have the confidence to put themselves out there. i think that is the conversation we have not been calling for and i would like to see it. >> i would like to end with a very brief exercise.

the title was "the politics of race in america, are we making progress?" we started off with this question of hope and change. the question becomes, are people of color still waiting for progress, hope, or whether there has been substantive measurable projects -- progress, change on each of these issues. economic opportunity, hope or change? >> we are changing and hoping to change more. [laughter] >> hope or change, health. >> change. >> why you think that? >> the affordable care act. [applause] >> hope or change, equal

justice? >> change. we are not area. that is why we are here. >>political power. >> i am optimistic about that. the supreme court in a weird sort of way did us a favor because it pissed people off. [applause] but i also think that president obama's apparatus showed that there is a way to organize and include a lot of people. and get people out to vote. i think a lot needs to be done. i think mostly what we have to do is keep on doing what we were doing in the sense of fighting every time we see a voter suppression action, we fight it. >> change. for all these reasons, and i think that the voting -- the

desire to vote is improving. the activity is more likely to take place. but we need to have -- is to have a sharp policy agenda that people can attach democratic participation to. >> we have an optimistic panel. everyone join hands. [applause] >> that concludes our third panel. i would like to invite up to the stage the inspiration behind this are checked on behalf of the economic policy. mr. algernon austin. >>[applause] >> hello thank you all for your

participation here today. this is just one piece of our unfinished march project. if you go to unfinishedmarch.c om, you will be alerted when we release essays and if we do any other activities around the unfinished march. as we have been mentioning, the march on washington for jobs and freedom had specific commands and we have focused on seven demands of the march and we are going to do an essay around each demand. we -- where we are in 1963 and where we are today. if needed, what are the policy -- policies we need to get us there and so we will be doing an essay about and you can look at the back of your program and see where we found the source of

each demand that we will be doing an essay on decent housing , access to public accommodations, adequate and integrated education around the right to vote, there is a lot of recent developments in their. around a full employment program, around discrimination in hiring and employment, and around the minimum wage. if you want to keep up with the writing we are doing about this, go to unfinishedmarch.com and enter your information and you will be alerted when we do an essay. we felt if the march was going to be organized today the issue of the incarceration rate, how to reduce the incarceration rate would also be on the civil rights agenda and also, the racial wealth gap that roger spoke about would also be on the

agenda. we would be releasing essays -- will be releasing essays on that topic. unfinishedmarch.com will alert you to that. so we have raised a number of issues today and i know that people will want to continue the conversation, to get involved, to obtain more information and you can do that by simply contacting the organizations that have been involved with the symposium. some of which you are probably aware of and there are some due to conflicts and schedules were not able to participate. i will list the organizations to thank them but you should also -- you should know that if you are interested in whatever topic, these are organizations that you can contact for more

information, to get educated, and if their membership -- there are membership organizations to join. my thanks goes to the afl-cio for hosting us and everything they have done. [applause] also among unions, the united auto workers supported us, and they are very important in the 1963 march on washington. seiu, the naacp the leadership conference on civil and human rights, the insight center, policylink the national consulate larose and -- la raza, the pew center and the national congress of american

indians. all this work, a lot of what weird doing -- what we are doing, we would not be able to do without the support of important funders and the funders that i would like to thank our the annie e casey foundation jules bernstein and linda lipsett. they have been crucial so thanks to them also. and just in conclusion, i want to give a few words from the march. we have all probably heard martin luther king's "i have a dream" speech dozens of times. i want to give a few paragraphs from the other people who spoke that day. a. phillip randolph, he said,

"we know we have no future in a society where 6 million black and white people are unemployed and millions more live in poverty. nor is the goal of our civil rights revolution merely the past -- passage of civil rights legislation. we want all accommodations open to all citizens, but those accommodations would mean little to those who cannot afford to use them. yes, we want a fair employment practice act him about what good will it do if profit geared automation destroys the jobs of millions of workers, black and white? so this issue of full employment for black, white everyone, was central to his vision of what a march on washington was about. the president of the united auto workers also spoke and he spoke to that theme. the job question is crucial him

and he said, because we will not solve education or housing our public accommodation as long as millions of americans, negroes, are treated as second class economic citizens and denied jobs. as one american, i take the position, if we can have full employment and full production for the negative ends of war, then why can we not have a job for every american in the pursuit of peace and so our slogan has got to be fair employment but fair employment within the framework of full employment so that every american can have a job. and i want to conclude with a little bit of the speech of the director -- executive director of the national catholic conference for interracial justice who also spoke at the march. some of what he said is the

following. we have permitted evil racial discrimination to remain within us too long. the united states of america is a country which reduced the marshall plan, helped resurrect the spirit and economy of europe with great dedication and billions of dollars. what man can say that this great country and its democratic ideas is vital and resilience of spirit, it's suspect is -- it's resources cannot bring an abrupt end to racial discoloration at home and within a decade or two, and -- end the disability under which our negro citizens have labored. we have secured federal civil rights legislation that will guarantee every man a job based on his talents and training. we dedicate ourselves today to securing a minimum wage which will guarantee economic sufficiency to all american

workers and which will guarantee a man or woman the resources for vital and healthy family life. unencumbered by uncertainty and by racial discrimination. a job for every man is a just man and and becomes our motto. thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we are standing inside hardscrabble, a log cabin that grant built for his family in 1856. his wife founded crude and

homely. true to her nature, she would make the best of it. as a young married woman she wanted to be a mistress of her own home. she thought he could have bought something as nice as white heaven and was for the -- white haven. as a privileged child, she would have had fine china, find furniture that would have been comfortable, and a table because at this point she would have five people eating in the dining room. what is important about hardscrabble for than a man even though they do not live in the long is this represents their very first home together. julia would been a great deal of confidence as a wife and a mother and it starts here at hardscrabble. >> this week the encore presentation of "first ladies,"

looking at the public and private lives of first ladies. this week, grant to harrison. this week at 9:00 eastern on c- span. >> tomorrow we will be live at the cato institute for discussion about the rising cost of social security's disability insurance program. that is at 1:00 p.m. eastern. that is tomorrow. later in the week, a debate in the race for new york city's mayor. six democrats are running. the debate is wednesday, 6:00 p.m. eastern. you can watch that live on c- span. c-span will take you live here to the new america foundation. this is in washington for discussion about techno

activism. this is expected to start shortly. this is efforts to set up a set of international guidelines for international surveillance for grams, and that event is starting a few minutes after expected. while we wait, a few minutes from today's white house briefing. >> we will talk about that off the record.

good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. only a couple of familiar faces from last week. it is nice to be back in washington and be here with all of you. i have no announcements, but in this there it of the vineyard, josh, you go off the tee. >> hosni mubarak may be released later this week while the last democratic elected leader remains in jail. consider mubarak's ouster was what brought the factions together in egypt, how alarming is that to the president, and has the white house spoken to the military leader? >> i have no conversations to read out to you in terms of senior officials and leaders of the interim government in egypt.

i want to draw a line between the couple things referred to. legal proceedings against hobart -- mubarak are something that is ongoing inside egypt. that is an egyptian legal matter and something that i will leave for them to determine. that is not something that i will weigh in on from here. some think that we have weighed in on, something that i have said previously but other officials have also said, that politically motivated detentions inside egypt should end and that should include the politically motivated attention of former president morsi. >> u.n. and others have been four weeks calling for that type of non-politicized, nonviolent reconciliation. this is ever since the military ousted morsi with pretty poor results with a death toll that

has reached near 1000. is the u.s. changing its tactics because it has not worked up until now, but are we seeing the same approach in the hope that somehow things will work better? >> a couple things we are doing. this is something that we have on several conversations several conversations between officials here and officials in egypt. there is a dialogue that is open. in the context of those conversations, this administration and senior leaders have made clear that it is incumbent upon the interim government in egypt to follow through on the promise to transition back to a dramatic had to a democratically elected egypt. it is important for egypt to protect basic human right including the right to peaceful protest, and it means the end of

detentions. we have made our positions on these issues crystal clear. in the context of this we have also directed all of the relevant agencies and departments in this administration to review the assistance that is provided to the egyptian government. that review is ongoing and is being made in light of actions that are taken by the interim egyptian government. there certainly are consequences for the actions taken by the interim government here there are a couple of good except as i can point to. the delayed delivery of the f- 16's that were scheduled for delivery. that delivery was delayed. last week the president liberty statement from martha's vineyard where he and the cancellation of the joint military exercise known as bright star. there have been consequences for

the actions taken by the interim government. we are hopeful that -- i would also say this -- there have been consequences for other nations that there are other nations that have raised concern in the region and in europe and other places about the actions taken by the interim egyptian government. this is not something that is only in the interest of the united states. it is in the interest of our partners in the region and it our allies around the world. >> a little three years since the president has signed dodd- frank. one says that about 50% of the deadlines have been missed. what is the president's you on the progress of the law? does the banking industry have too much influence over regulators? >> part of his message is about

regulators who have a job description, but he will have a message which is able conveyed to them the sense of urgency that he feels about getting the regulations under wall street reform implemented properly. most importantly, implemented in a way that protects the long- term stability of our financial system and the interests of middle-class families. a recent incidents of this was the confirmation of cordray. for the first time consumers will have a watchdog that will be looking out for their interests. there's no question that large financial and stood to shins including investment firms and banks on wall street, will have significant influence over the political process in washington. that is the void of having independent regulators that can make their determinations about roles such be put in place to protect the financial system,

but also the interests of middle-class families. the president is pleased with progress. there are important rules that have been put in place. today seems an appropriate day as anyway to start having that conversation. >> british authorities detained david miranda, the partner of the journalist who has been writing about the snowden leaks. was the united states government at all involved in this, and what is the justification for it? >> what you are referring to is a law enforcement action taken by the british government. the united states was not involved in that decision or in that action. if you questions about it, i refer you to the british government. >> do you feel that miranda

could have revealed information that was useful in the snowden case? >> i am not aware of any conversations he may have had with officials while he was detained. that detention was made by the british government and is something that if you have questions about, you should ask them. >> there was important rules that have been delayed regarding dodd-frank. are there any rules the president would push regulators to get done, and if so which ones? >> i have no details in terms of conversation the president plans to have. there are important decisions that remain to be made as they implement reform. the president will urge them to make -- to put those rules in

place that protects the interests of middle class families. as you know, the economic interests of middle-class families is his top it is a priority. it is an important stake for families in imitation limitation of some of these regulations. these are independent regulators who will make their own decisions about what those roles should be and how -- those rules should be and how they should be put in place. we are pleased with the cooperation, and the president wants to encourage them to capitalize on momentum to put this regulatory regime in place. >> so the financial institutions that are being regulated are saying the sheer volume of these rules puts a burden on them? to stream line them in place? >> the regime is the

responsibility of regulators. they have a mandate. what we saw was a lack of regulation contributed to the worst economic recession since the great depression. we are coming up on the fifth anniversary of that crisis. the reason wall street reform was put in place was to make sure that wall street eggs were not exercising too much influence over the process. and that middle-class families could be confident there was an independent watchdog that would be looking out for their interests. that is something that richard cordray has an important role in and there is responsibility of all these different regulatory agencies to work in coordinated fashion to put in place a regime that will protect our system and protect the interests of middle-class families. there is no doubt they have a tall order but we are pleased with the progress they have made, and we believe it is important for them to exercise

that responsibility outside of the influence -- >> we will leave this conversation now. you can find it online at the c- span video library. we will take you to the new america foundation about techno activism. this is on creating international principles for surveillance based on human rights. >> oti is an operational think tank that brings disciplines together to collaborate on improving access of urban technologies. in supporting one of those disciplines, one task with research and the him and of open technologies such as the commercial wireless progress, -- of bringing people of different backgrounds together. my team's motto is not even

space ships are built in a vacuum. the technologists work alongside planners and researchers to ensure that technology they build service needs as we find them out in the world. the third monday is an event series in more than nine cities now. the 10th or 11th just came on now. multiple continents. it supports similar close connections between local activists and technologists. each city brings its own character into the mix. in d.c., activists and technologists also overlap with policy makers. my pleasure to welcome kathe rine maher now, applying human

rights principles to surveillance. welcome, katherine. >> thank you so much for that kind introduction. i am delighted to be here to introduce the principles for the application of human rights to communications surveillance. i am here as the representative of a group that is greater than myself that includes hundreds of organizations that have come on board as signatories in support of these principles as well as drafters who contributed to the process. with all we have learned regarding the scope and scale of government surveillance at home and abroad, there has never been a more urgent time to address the question of fundamental rights in the context of indications. in the united states we have heard defenses would forward pertaining to the legality of programs under united states law and their impact on u.s. citizens. whether these programs are legal is a matter to be determined.

i look forward with anticipation to the outcome of a variety of pending legal challenges filed by many partner organizations, including the american civil liberties union and electronics fund care foundation. we can be clear that these programs are likely in violation of international human rights principles, including those enshrined in international law. if the rights of citizens are protected by due process, the administration and leadership have an acknowledged that the targeting of foreign nationals is a key component of these programs. this intrusive targeting inferences on these human rights. the right to privacy, the right to free association and expression, and while the united states it's to settle issues pertaining to the constitutionality, there's a body of international law to consider including article 17 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. if you look around the world

every national constitution and international legal framework and tries us with the right to due process in some form. in the international covenant, this is described as prohibiting arbitrary and unlawful interference and everyone is entitled to protection of the right. the similar fourth amendment talks about unreasonable search and seizure. in october of last year, in 2012 in brussels, a group of more than 40 experts in technology and with backgrounds in industry, the legal sec tor, came together. the intent of this tethering must offer clarifying guidance around the access to data in the context of law enforcement. as a process continued, the discussion widened to include questions related to the national security and

surveillance practice. the principles seek to put forward a framework for assessing concepts, such as when is it unreasonable, and how does surveillance take place in a way grounded in international law. they are intended to write guidance for governments to respect the fundamental rights of digital users while engaging in to protect the security of citizens. by clarifying the processes by which access to data occurs, the principles seek to assist policymakers to evaluate whether current law and regulations comport with human rights obligations. the process which took nearly a year was shepherded by a group of 15 civil side he organizations. they analyzed more than 60 texts of national constitutions containing language related to communications privacy including the constitutions of the united states, aruba germany, close of oh, japan

rwanda, a massive global undertaking. international human rights law and jurisprudence, such as the european court of human rights, and various articles ranging from the american declaration of rights to the arab charter on human rights. the prices -- process came up with 13 principles. they confronted significant question is about using language that met needs of the global community while being relevant. deciding whether or not data should be included as protected information. at the end of the process organizations including my own as well as privacy international emerged as coordinators to build awareness, and push for the adoption and implementation of these principles. to date, the principals have

more than 215 signatures including human right organizations, universities, and media groups. this includes 20 signatories from the united states as well as the host of us here today as well as the free press electronic privacy information center. this is a effort to engage with policymakers and other stakeholders in protecting the fundamental rights of all people. i want to talk about the principles themselves. they were nearly a year in development, including 15 civil society organizations and are drawn on the basis of more than 60 conference to to show frameworks. the outcome have been endorsed by the signatories and a 20 u.s. signatories. the content of the principles 13 include the gala day, which is the idea that any limitation on the right to privacy is the

prescribed by law. in practice any surveillance conducted by law enforcement intelligence agencies or government or government affiliated institutions must be spelled out in the text of the law so it is accessible and perceivable by the public. that means the public is aware of the procedures and the duration under which the state may use, and the relevant law that authorizes that surveillance. they must have legitimate aims. laws should only read surveillance by specified state authorities to achieve a legitimate aim that corresponds to an important legal interest. that is, a compelling state interest that is so important such as public safety, that it outweighs the individual rights of the users. justification for the surveillance must he spelled out in law and can be only conducted only in the furtherance of these ideals. a relevant example of the news that took place over this weekend is that you -- one of

the journalists associated with disclosures we know around the nsa programs that a been in news recently his partner was detained while passing through international transit on the basis of an antiterrorist law the basis for his detention. whether that law in practice is related to that detention will be something we need to have spelled out clearly with regard to legitimate aims. necessity. that is to say the information sought can only be undertaken for which there are no other means of acquiring the information. when the information is a vital and curtains to addressing the issue at hand. adequacy. any instance of communications surveillance authorized by law must be appropriate. that means in practice that the type or form of the actions with

regards to the surveillance must be adequate. it must go no further than what is required to retain -- to obtain the information. proportionality. surveillance is a highly intrusive act. it has deeply problematic impacts on expressions of assembly. any surveillance must be proportionate and must weigh the benefits gained from acquiring the information against the severity of the intrusion on the fundamental right of the person affect the. competent judicial authority. that is to say there must be a judge that is independent from other branches of government who is familiar with issues and has the authority to decide these matters. determinations must be made by a judge that is independent. due process. states must guarantee

individuals rights by insurance lawful procedures that cover individuals are enumerated by law. that means principles must be applied in a manner that is consistently practiced and clear to the general public. user notification. individuals should be notified of any decision around the communications. currently there are practices in place by which governments have access to communications to third-party providers, and providers are gagged from disclosing to the user that their communications have been access. user notification is a part of the principles and an important part of notification so that users can seek rights to regress. transparency. states should be transparent and about the scope and use of their communications techniques and powers. this is an easy one. like the legality requirement states must be transparent about the procedures, and duration of

surveillance they can e engage in. recently, the center for democracy in d.c. was involved in organizing a letter that was signed by many of the companies implicated in that prison program that involved a number of civil rights and human rights organizations in calling for greater transparency from the u.s. government regarding the extent of its national security programs. public oversight. states must establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure the accountability of surveillance practices. surveillance is a practice that takes place in the dark. it is important there's oversight to address this contact. this could take the form of an empowered ombudsman that sits outside the government, such as executive, legislative, and judicial and bring cases on behalf of citizens. integrity of communications.

this is a critical point, and while it may not be clear with regard to its links to international human rights principles, it is about defending networks at the infrastructure level to prevent violations. monitoring capabilities offer the opportunity for systematic abuse. backdoors networks weakens integrity, making it insecure for all users i created an additional vulnerabilities. a good example of this with regard to medications in the united states is the proposal for the communications assistance for law enforcement act, second version, that would propose mandating that commercial service providers incorporate backdoors into their platforms. these would weaken the security of these platforms and impose costs on providers rather than narrowly targeting specific

users, broadly expose all users to potential surveillance. safeguards for international corporation. in response to the change and float it of information states need to seek access to information in a context from providers that may not reside within their own birders. this is part of the process of -- part of new process. -- due process. unfortunately it is unclear the processes by which state cooperates. within the exchange of digital information, it is important to have ways in which countries access that information such as legal assistance treaties to facilitate the transfer. this allows for greater due process, a record of information sharing across states, and specification in the context

of discrepancies between state standards that the higher-level applications applies. safeguards against legitimate access. states should enact legislation criminalizing surveillance by public and private actors. we've seen instances of a buse, so the law revived sufficient cruel penalties for illegal surveillance and protections for was a blowers. anyone who would access digital information without procedures set out above should be penalized and should receive retribution. these are the 13 core principles, and they are available at n ecessaryandproportionate.org. there are more than 200

signatories. the next set for includes presentations of printable's at the you and human rights council in september at a side event. the various different cordon aiding organizations involved will urge the council to adopt the report of special reporter as well as integrate these principles into a binding resolution at the you and level. at the u.s. level we know a number of organizations are seeking to integrate principles into pending legislation regarding national security surveillance and we expect that organizations around the world as signatories will be doing the same. >> i want to borrow a little of your time before we open up to the usual discussion amongst ourselves that is the focus of

third monday. this is a bit unusual. i would like to give you a chance to ask katherine some questions, but i want to exercise a prerogative and ask a few questions to unpack some of the things you have talked about. starting with really if you could speak more about the driving force behind the formation of the principles, some of the expectations of the ngo's that have been leading the development over the span of time that this is been dealt with. what it is that they thought i'd happen with this, how they would be put to use. >> the formation of the principles and the impetus for this group of organizations getting together was in response to what is known as the stupors charter, -- snjoopers charter. it would create a body that has access to the information and make changes to the regulatory

authorities. privacy international convened a group of different organizations to come together with regard to an understanding, trying to create a better understanding of international law. from that, a better understands think of the very splits. and actions that is currently in play in 2012. to server a framework by which organizations in civil society and the private sector would have clarity around the way they engage with law enforcement agencies. this led to the creation of principles. these principles have a precedent. you can look to 1986 in johannesburg, as an example of when civil society has been able to come together to create principles that become integrated into the asic understanding about the way we conduct all sorts of different national security activities

within the context of human rights law. the real idea with regard to the drafters was how does this become an international norm, a touchstone people can't refer to, how it becomes a component with individuals'human rights. >> i want to come back before i turned it over to questions. i want to fast-forward to where we are now, what is no doubt on many minds in terms of the mass surveillance that has been -- and the story that has been the last couple months. have there been a lot of efforts out this campaign, the letter from best bits international governments coalition -- i will resist the urge to go to the acronym.

if you could talk about how those book ends of the act in the uk in forms the circumstance how you been releasing this in july. you are still talking about achieving that touchstone that you have articulated so well. how has the work on this been responsive to the latest revelations? >> the principles were designed to deal with law enforcement requests. the run of the mill every day law enforcement body's approach to consumers, regarding data about ongoing investigations. over the course of the year, more recently since the revelations about some of the nsa programs, the drafters of the principles went back and

said and ask themselves is question whether there needs to be one of occasions to the principles in order to address these concerns about national security. the drafters agreed in fact the communications principles that have been set forward held up to the national security contexts which speaks to the fact that the principles are applicable, but also some of the secrecy and justifications around permissions with regard to security are unjustified. if these principles could equally provide within a conventional law enforcement context. >> fast-forward a little further . given what you talked about in terms of the launch of the principles in july, the work being done, the point of harmonization, what does the world look like with that keystone, that norm?

what does that look like to the technologists and the activists? >> i will not go further than that. the creation of international human rights norms is something that takes an amount of time. i made reference to the johannesburg principles. they have gained in traction if not only recently but recently with regard to some of the revelations we know around programs such as these, but this principles are now 17 years all. this is a process that we anticipate will take some time. the end goal is the u.n. resolution i made reference to. that would be supported very much at the international level because many groups see the u.n. as a key arbiter of rights and an excellent base to partition two. over the long term, i think the

objective is that the principles will become so well socialized that any proposal with regard to legislation on surveillance will have to refer back to these 13 core principles as the legislatures and bodies consider the limitation of surveillance. i think as an activist, human rights organization, this is a useful tool. as a policy maker or legislator these provide guidance so when you are drafting potential legislation, looking to reform protocols, they can become a useful test. i referenced the network and communications integrity. they provide wonderful guidance for what it is we should anticipate and go forward with all communications systems which is complete integrity without the inclusion of back wars or other forms of interference. >> great. i think that is an interesting

picture to look forward to. we will see as things accelerate. hopefully the expense you have had adapting with the recent events gives you some experience , some triangulation of future events, and testing it in a frugal way, -- fruitful way anticipating what will come. i would like to turn it over to the audience for questions. we have volunteers with mikes in the audience. >> hi. you did not mention the internet. the nsa goes back to the 1950's, a different world of medication. are there any bright red lines that you see? anybody support a declaration of independence?, you cannot go there sort of thing?

>> a great question. we do not make reference to the internet for a variety of reasons. the expectation is much that the modalities of communication will change going forward. if you look at the universal declaration of human rights which dates to the first part of the last century, you will see with regard to articles on the right to free expression, they do not make any specific reference to a mode of communication and that is something that we very much look to adopt with regard to these principles, if this is to become a touchstone document going forward, it needs to anticipate whatever forms of communication we might see in the future. i do not know about the bright red lines of where the declaration is, but i think there is troops that are out there looking at those issues and it is useful to have a whole spectrum of organizations and positions on the matter. this is designed to be

collective understanding within a pragmatic framework that is a tool of guidance for policymakers, but for the few human rights advocates. >> any other questions? here in the front? >> the one that surprises me the most is in some sense the user notification. if you take the analogy to say law enforcement phone tapping there is not a notification process as i understand it, and i could not understand. i am struck in the european parliament reaction to this they included using notification in their early july amended motion that was led by a whole series of people in reaction to the first wave of stories out of newspapers. can you explain more of the context to the user notification, and, two i have

always been struck that the european armament in particular, cause it does not have any security apparatus associated with it -- that is the first place at something like this could come to at least a vote in a parliament without some of the other pressures. could you comment on that. >> user notification as i mentioned is very much along with transparency understood to be the touchstone for the beginning of red dress with a guard to rights violations. if you do not have access to information, then a rights elation has occurred, it is difficult for you to seek any form of remedied with regard to that violation. on the fact that it is included within the principles, as i mentioned, the principles themselves come out of a survey of a friday of to bodies of international law, rights tr ools, and we see discrepancies.

we see it referenced in a european context that you do not have any united states. i take your port with regard to notification with an ongoing wiretap. that would interfere with the process of an investigation. when we talk about user notification, we refer to the removal of issues -- the removal of tools such as gag orders on companies with regard to disclosing the fact that this request for data has actually occurred. we know in the united states national security letters have been used that have tied the hands and the voices of companies with regard to their ability to disclose that any form of such information grab has happened. but even to the users, but to that specific user, but to the users as a whole. we want to make sure there are provisions for these different companies, whether private sector actors or service

providers, to disclose and provide that degree of transparency to their users, so that users can make an informed choice about the services they engage with. >> [indiscernible] >> i do not. i am happy to follow up and give you my e-mail address afterwards. >> hi, center for democracy and technology. thank you for having this event i know the principles were in process before the nsa revelations, but it is auspicious they debuted at this time, particularly when it has been very little in the discourse about it about the rights of non--u.s. persons. i wanted to highlight a couple things that have been mentioned already. first, your comments about transparency. a joint letter by companies and organizations demanding more surveillance transparency, which is to open to signers. i wanted to highlight something else that thomas mentioned

which is the joint letter to the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, which went public earlier today that a staffer for my organization and new america and access and other organizations worked on and have signed. this tries to inject back discussion -- to inject that discussion and to get the club to consider the rights of non- u.s. persons and the rights of everyone when preparing this report on the nsa programs. i want to highlight an effect because the deadline for this comment is not until september 15 that letter is open to signature for organizations and by individuals at bestbits.net. thanks. >> i think we had a question here, and then we will get to the folks on the side of the room. >> i just had a question about perspective.

people have been talking about nsa and spying since world war ii and they started to pick up seeing in the 1970's. today, is is a matter that governments are doing more spying or that the spying has gone three times easier because of technology? >> i am not a historian of surveillance. i would say that what you can draw a distinction with a guard to the nsa spying on foreign governments and foreign governments as targets, which was historically their mandate and purpose, and these increased diffusion of collections of information with regard to private individuals, that is an evolution we have seen with regard to intelligence agencies at a global level. that is in response to a variety of issues. certainly, with regard to non- state actors,. and with regards to the intelligence agencies doing

worse buying, there is an argument articulated that addresses the fact that the cost for spying or the cost for surveillance has plummeted with regard to giving the advances of technology and data storage and to conduct the analysis that the nsa and other intelligence agencies have the ability to do. if you have decreased costs and increased ability, it is probably fairly safe to say that the amount of data that is acquired is not the collected under the nsa definition has gone up dramatically. >> a question on the side of the room? >> national democratic institute. now that the troubles are out there and being promoted, how would you suggest that society on the international stage that involved, how can they help promote this domestically or as an international effort?

>> there are 215 signatories. we would like it to be more. the process is open to all. it includes everything from human rights groups to independent media groups. it is open to a broad friday of individuals, and if you and your organization are interested in participating, what all means -- thomas raise a question whether these principles would involve in some way. i do not know that something like that is on the table now, but anticipating as a signatory at this current stage that would open the door for such organizations to provide input going forward. within the best a context, the signatories and coordinators of this campaign to receive more signatories have a friday of guidance as to how organizations can go to their legislators and

policymakers and use these principles as a tool and at the international stage, the more support that is afforded to efforts at the human rights council level, the more likely there will be success with regard to rave resolution on human rights and surveillance. that is something we're looking forward to. the previous report on human rights and surveillance failed with regard to being adopted because it did not have full support. including the united states, which declined to endorse fully the report. partially because the report made specific reference to the foreign intelligence surveillance act. this was prior to the recent nsa revelations. ensuring that poster resolution is something that the community is well-positioned to do and would encourage that participation.

i am happy to provide any my contact information, and my colleagues, as well as other organizaters, as how we can provide that assistance. >> hi. you mentioned as part of the 13 principles formation of an independence court to overlook this surveillance more tightly connected. would that be something closer to the hague or would that be a more independent fisa court like we have now? >> a great question. the principles are not prescriptive in the sense they do not pull forward the idea of an international court. the idea is much that oversight at the judicial level should be integrated into all decision- making around access and collection of data. i would happened with regard to individual requests. the idea of having an independent ombudsman is the

idea that that would be an independent entity that has a perspective that understands the history in the context of surveillance, but independent of executive pressure and can provide on behalf of citizens be able to file a case on behalf of a citizen here it it would depend on the specific national contexts, but the principles are designed to reflect a domestic context as opposed to trying to create some additional supernational body. >> back to the perspective question. in 1971, we have the privacy act -- is there any chance is there political energy to do something similar in this

country? >> i cannot speak to specific legislation. i will make note of the fact that since the revelations with regard to nsa starting here in the united states, we have seen legislations put forward including the conyers amendment that failed by an insignificant number of votes tied to political leadership issues in the united states. with the legislation put forward, i think there are things we have seen that are in line with the way the principles would seek to reform surveillance practice. as to whether we will see anything like a renewed church committee that is empowered with authority to investigate and provide transparency around ongoing actions, it is a hope of mine and i know in speaking with the international community it is a hope as well.

there was made excellent reference that ongoing activities have focused on the rights of u.s. citizens, so any form of action at the congressional level would ideally include a narrowing of the scope of surveillance, unnecessarily on the basis of national affiliation, but on the basis of reducing the over all amount of data, which would have an impact on reducing the number of innocent not u.s. persons also subjected to surveillance by these ongoing programs. >> any other questions? no? all right then, i guess it is just left for me to thank katherine for the presentation, a dive on the principles, your patience the fantastic questions from the audience,

although folks recognize organizations that are working on these principles. it has been luck to turn the rest of the evening at this point, so there should be some residual refreshers on the back table and along the backside there. i would encourage folks to have a space for another hour or so for folks to make introductions to themselves. i am happy to facilitate a group introduction all around, although you have heard some speakers that may have sparked her interest that you may have wanted this to talk to, and thank you again so much, katherine. >> thank you so much.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> pentagon officials announced a visit to china by chuck hagel next year. he talked about the trip during a news conference today with china's defense minister. >> the general and i have confirmed the importance of ca open channels of communication. also continuing high-level visits.

>> [speaking in chinese] >> general odmierno will visit china later this year. today general dempsey also offered to host his counterpart for a visit to the united states next year. >> [speaking in chinese]

>> the general invited me to visit china next year. i accepted. i look forward to see him at the defense ministers meeting next year. >> [speaking in chinese] >> i will also visit malaysia indonesia, and the philippines

on this trip. >> we are standing inside hardscrabble which grant out for his family in 1856. julia says she does not like it one bit in her memoirs. she founded crude and homely. true to her nature, she will make the rest of it. as a young married woman she would want to be mistress of her home. she thought he could have built something as nice as white haven and was perturbed that her father had talked grant into building a log structured. >> as a privileged child she would've had fine china, fine furniture that would have been comfortable, chairs, and a broad table because you had five people eating in the dining room. what was important about hardscrabble for them and even though they do not live in a

very long, this represents their very first home together. >> j ulia gained a lot of counsel vince -- a lot of confidence at hardscrabble. >> this week, the encore presentation of "first ladies," weeknights all this week at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> tomorrow morning, we will look at immigration legislation and congress with the former chief of staff to senator john mccain. then the former president of shell oil talks about the keystone lxl pipeline. tomorrow 7:00 a.m. eastern, on season. today, we took a look at

the federal budget deficit, and here is that segment. host: new statistics from treasury showed the u.s. budget deficit is down nearly 38% this year compared to last year. take us through the reason for why, we are joined by robert bixby. 10 months we are looking at a $ 606 billion deficit. is that good news? >>guest: yes, it is, but $600 billion, more by the end of the year, a large deficit, four percent of the economy. in terms of getting to a place of more stability, weise bill need some work. -- we still need some work.

host: for folks that might be confuse, take us through debt versus deficit. we are looking at a shrinking deficit, but that that is still creeping up? guest: the deficit each year is the amount by which guest: the federal deficit is the amount the government spends more than it takes in. those deficits add up to the total national at. it includes some money the government owes to itself. the deficit this year's projected to be $640 billion. the debt is over $16 trillion. host: here is a chart showing the debt picture from 1972 to 2012, just over 16 trillion here is where we are today. one other chart talks about this episode picture, this showing the change in u.s. episode over the last couple of years am a

back in 2000 eight we were looking at a $459 billion deficit. that ticked up in 2009 2 $1.4 trillion, that was about 10% of gdp. 2010 through 2012, all over currently in -- all over a trillion dollars. the project deficit this year is 600 trillion dollars. is this a sign that the economy is improving? guest: it is. a lot of that was caused by the great recession. what happens there is revenues go down because fewer people are working and earning less money. he also cut taxes in an attempt to help the economy. also during a recession, spending goes up on programs like medicaid and food assistance.

people are in need of government assistance. these are called the automatic stabilizers. that means that automatically during tough times, revenue goes down and spending goes up. that means the deficit goes up. when the economy begins to recover, those effects stayed and the deficit begins to come down again. that is what we are seeing now. host: we are going to take your calls on the segment. our phone lines are open. if you want to talk debt and deficit, republicans can call in our lines are open now. we want to take you through a chart, breaking down the numbers a little bit more for us. the federal deficit for fiscal year 2013 -- revenues are up 14% and spending is down about 2.9%. in your mind, is this reduced deficit more of a function of the spending side or the revenue side? guest: it is a combination of

both. what we have this year is a fiscal cliff deal. if you remember back to new yorkers -- to new year's eve, revenues went up because the payroll tax had been cut and we will allow that to go back up to its normal level. some of the bush tax cuts were

allowed to expire for upper income families. that boosted revenues. the congress also imposed caps on discretionary spending. that helps to control spending. revenues have grown faster than projected. wages have been higher for one reason or another. there has been -- there have been a combination of good factors that have brought down the deficit this year. it is important to look at longer-term trends. we tend to get focus on the one- year, the two-year, and our longer-term trend is still unsustainable. host: in terms of where the deficit is going? guest: yes the deficit is projected to be around 640 billion this year. the fiscal year ends on september 30.

next year it will probably come down again and possibly again in 2015. the projections are that it will begin to drift up again by 2016 and continue on an upward trend if we do not do anything about it. that is because a lot of baby boomers will be qualifying for social security and medicare. we have a spending track that is not able to be supported by the revenue track. host: here are some numbers provided from the congressional budget office, put into a nice chart form for us. it shows 2016, 2017, 20 18, we are still looking at deficits in the $600 billion range but that begins to take up again in 2019 and up to almost $900 billion in 2023. this is leading some confusion in recent weeks. eric cantor said that the deficit is growing. there are folks who'll are in favor of the president's financial plan. in your mind as the deficit shrinking or growing? guest: the deficit is shrinking. the cbo is projecting a deficit of $641 billion.

it is just a coincidence that that has happened. that is compared to what?

it is these lines. we sometimes get hung up on that in washington. if you look at where the deficit was last year and this year, it is coming down. if you look at our debt, that continues to grow. if the deficit grows faster than the economy, then the at will grow faster than the economy. what we need to do is make sure that the deficit is not growing faster than the economy and that will stabilize the growth of the debt to gdp and eventually would bring it down if we continue to lower the deficit. what gets difficult is that the economy is still very slow and still very sluggish. classic economic theory is that you do not want to cut the deficit by two much in a slow economy because government spending and lower taxes help the economy. the trade-off is it does keep the deficit high and that grows the debt. over the longer term it is hurting but in the short term it is helping.

host: a question on twitter -- guest: that is always an abstract question. there are public policies that have an immediate effect on people. the deficit is more of an abstract thing and people wonder what earthly effect it has on them. the deficit may actually be a help to people because it may keep their taxes lower or keep spending on programs they like higher. eventually the government has to pay for all of these things. it is an expense we all bear. the other part is if the government is running a debt of this too high, eventually what happens is it begins to have a bad effect on the economy. too much of the government's investment is going into bottling for consumption rather than investment. it does have an effect. both in terms of higher taxes, the need to cut programs, will we think are beneficial. ultimately on a slower economy. it does rack up a big burden for

future generations. one can sit around saying it isn't a bother to me. if people in their 20s and 30s are going to inherit a much larger debt they -- that that they are going to be a on the hook for, it is going to be a concern.

host: we are talking with robert bixby. what the concorde initiative? guest: we advocate responsibility, do a lot of exercises around the country and monitor what is going on here in washington. host: william is a first on our democratic line. you're on with robert bixby. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i have several comments i want to make. as the deficit goes down, more people are getting poor and poor. the government says they are doing something when they break about the deficit going down. it is killing a lot lower class and working people. they get paid $13 million per year and crying about paying $13 per hour. the poor people do not get a bailout. i do not understand all this talk about the deficit going down when the people that are hurting is the working class and poor people. all they want to do is cut cut cut. that does not make sense. >> they were supposed to come up with a package of deficit reduction for supercommittee. the supercommittee failed to come up with an agreeable plan and the backup mechanism is that there would be automatic cuts that were going to affect that would lower the already enacted budget caps on discretionary spending.

just a little bit in the weeds here, one third of the bedroom of the federal budget -- it does include the depth fans department, education, all of the federal agencies and commerce. that was a deliberate effort to reduce the deficit by imposing those caps. that was the plan effect, to have those caps going to effect and help ring the deficit down. one of the controversies right now is whether or not those caps, the second round, is to tight and is cutting programs by too much and perhaps effect of the economy. it is a good legitimate debate. the concorde coalition is taking the position that sequestration is not good policy. we ought to find a better way to substitute those caps rather than take them off.

congress and the president are going to have to arrive at some sort of compromise. it is hard to say what it is because right now there is no compromise in the air. they will say that we should change that. they have to get into the mandatory spending, the entitlement programs, the substitute cuts their for cuts in the discretionary program. democrats will insist that revenues will be part of the package. there may be some sort of grand bargain or a many grand bargain that puts all parts of the budget on the table.

host: let us go to clearwater, florida on our republican line. you are on with robert bixby. caller: what would the effect be of requesting social security and medicare temporarily until we get the budget in check? i would like to see more competition in the healthcare field so we can bring the cost down on the quality up. i think it is a disgrace we are spending the most than any country in the entire world. if you do not have security, when you're making six figures, who will have security? guest: the caller raises two good points. looking at deficit reduction or any sort of grand bargain on a long-term sustainable fiscal plan, we should target the spending cuts as much as possible on people who need the least government support. when you look at programs ike social security and medicare they are a major part of the budget.

the programs that are projected to grow the most, because of the aging population and rising health care costs -- that is been part of several proposals that have come out on bipartisan commissions. on the medicare side, there is a graduated premium where some upper income people should pay a higher premium. the medicare premiums on the cover 25% of the program cost. generally speaking everybody is getting a 75% subsidy. not everyone needs the 75% subsidy for their medicare premium. that is the big policy issue as far as the deficit is concerned. one of the strategies is to improve competition. we do not get the results we get from that. we're not quite sure why. a lot of it is going to happen to happen on the delivery side. he warding quality care more than quantity through the so- called fee-for-service system. host: on twitter -- guest: the congressional budget office has scored the affordable care act as actually using the deficit. it is no doubt that it increases spending and the premium subsidies are going to be a major impact. the affordable care act also included some cuts to medicare which were controversial and talk about in various lyrical campaigns to pay for the new subsidies and also raise some taxes to pay for the new subsidies. with all of the new spending and the spending cuts and tax increases, the congressional budget office says that their best estimate to actually lower the deficit -- it comes out as a wash. nobody really knows. i think they would be the first to say that this is what we think but we are not quite sure. the official projections and the spending cuts and tax increases that have been programmed to pay for them.

host: up next from san diego california on our independent line, good morning.--

guest: the caller raises two good points. looking at deficit reduction or any sort of grand bargain on a long-term sustainable fiscal plan, we should target the spending cuts as much as possible on people who need the least government support. when you look at programs ike social security and medicare they are a major part of the budget. the programs that are projected to grow the most, because of the aging population and rising health care costs -- that is been part of several proposals that have come out on bipartisan commissions. on the medicare side, there is a graduated premium where some upper income people should pay a higher premium.

the medicare premiums on the cover 25% of the program cost. generally speaking everybody is getting a 75% subsidy. not everyone needs the 75% subsidy for their medicare premium. that is the big policy issue as far as the deficit is concerned. one of the strategies is to improve competition. we do not get the results we get from that. we're not quite sure why. a lot of it is going to happen to happen on the delivery side. he warding quality care more than quantity through the so- called fee-for-service system. host: on twitter --

guest: the congressional budget office has scored the affordable care act as actually using the deficit. it is no doubt that it increases spending and the premium e a major impact. the affordable care act also included some cuts to medicare which were controversial and talk about in various lyrical campaigns to pay for the new subsidies and also raise some taxes to pay for the new subsidies. with all of the new spending and

the spending cuts and tax increases, the congressional budget office says that their best estimate to actually lower the deficit -- it comes out as a wash. nobody really knows. i think they would be the first to say that this is what we think but we are not quite sure. the official projections and the spending cuts and tax increases that have been programmed to pay for them. host: up next from san diego california on our independent line, good morning.

caller: i first ran into the concorde coalition about two years ago. they were forecasting this doom and gloom that i am hearing again today. if we do not keep our tax rate low and cut services, we are going to crash. at the meeting i was at, there was a coalition survey and i noticed that the funding comes from a lot of different groups including the heritage foundation. we have to keep our taxes low and what particularly bothers me is that mixed or -- that mr. bixby, his prediction is social

security is having an effect on our deficit and my understanding is i have been paying separate social security taxes and there are $1 trillion in the bank. guest: there is a lot to do with their. basically we don't take a position on whether we should have big or small government. you should pay for the government you want. the question of where taxes are really depends on where spending is. if the public demand a certain level of spending than we are going to have to pay for it.

the concorde coalition spoke out against with the bush tax cuts when they went to affect. we thought they should concentrate more on paying down the debt at the time. when we had new expenses for the war in afghanistan, we thought it would be appropriate to raise taxes to pay for that. we have other circumstances. we took a position against enacting the medicare prescription drug benefit without taxes to pay for that.

that is not our agenda, as you described it. i am not sure what else it was. social security is contributing to the deficit. even though it has a separate accounting system which is off budget, we account for it separately. when all is said and done, the government takes in a certain amount of money and spends a certain amount of money. >> the social security taxes the payroll taxes we now pay are no longer sufficient to cover the benefits going out. from a federal budget perspective, it is contributing to the deficit, and will, for the foreseeable future. there are more and more boomers. the payroll taxes no longer

sufficient to cover all the benefit payments and as more people qualify, the payroll tax will stay the same. but there are more and more beneficiaries. one of the longer-term problems for the better -- for the federal budget is the widening gap between the social security payroll tax and the amount of benefits to be paid out. host: what did you do before that? guest: policy director, then feel director of the concord coalition. i practiced law in virginia, and was the chief staff attorney of the court of appeals of virginia. guest: on our republican line, good morning. caller: i would like to ask the guests about a report i read here that the treasury department has held the debt at

$25 million below the legal limit set i congress for the last 56 straight days. i was wondering if you could comment. guest: we are at the debt limit already. i do not know the specific report. probably the treasury department is required to report on how they are staying below the debt limit. there are various steps and are referred to as extraordinary measures. it really is not in making the usual credits to the federal employees? retirement fund and things like that.-- employees' retirement fund and things like that.

that allows the government to stay below the debt limit. these extraordinary measures are authorized by law but they only last for so long. there are so many tricks in that bag and eventually those measures will run out by the end of some time in november and september. that increases the debt because the treasury bonds that normally would increase the debt because they're issuing debt -- the funds do not need them right away. it allows them to issue other debts they need to spend right away. they can credit these funds so nobody loses anything. it is a bookkeeping maneuver. host: you mentioned we might hit the debt limit. explain what is a floating deadline.

guest: the government has cash inflows and expenditures that cannot be predicted, particularly on the revenue side. you're never quite sure exactly when the debt limit is going to be hit. you do not want to hit it. host: this is from robert. guest: it is a little over $200 billion annually and it goes to bondholders. that is a very large sum of money. it is more than that. interest rates, as they begin to go up -- right now the government is borrowing at low interest rates. they are still low by historic

standards. it is going to cost more and more to service the debt. that is a charge to the federal tax player and will add to the budget. it is under the baseline predictions and we are looking at interest cost 10 years from now at more like $800 billion a year. that becomes a huge sum of money. if you spin this out even longer, if we keep running big deficits, interest becomes the highest cost of the federal budget. we are a long way from that right now. the growing amount of interest cost is something to be concerned about. host: salem, massachusetts gail. good morning. caller: good morning. what is the coalition? i think the debt has been brought up with congress not voting for a budget every year. guest: the concorde coalition

was cofounded by one of your former senators and one of my former senators, paul tsongas and warren rudman, a senator from new hampshire. they were a democrat and republican and both concerned about the growth of the federal budget deficit and the debt and the effect of long-term debt on our future generations. we were founded in 1992. we are in our 21st year. we are a nonpartisan organization. we are not a lobbying group. the other question you had, i think you are right.

congress does not have a budget. the house and senate have enacted a budget. they have made no attempt to reconcile these budgets or to come together on a long-term plan. both sides seem content to run into a crisis. nobody wants to talk to each other in this town. do a budget is step number one. host: did you have another question? did we lose you, gail? we will go on to mary from massachusetts, boston. good morning, mary. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: hello? host: you are on with mr. bixby. we will move on to richard from massachusetts. caller: i am an old fan of the concord coalition.

i am talking here? i am getting interrupted by somebody. mr. bixby, whatever happened to the engine that cap american going, the manufacturing? that was a great thing. mr. redman and senator tsongas and you guys talked about the engine that drove america. guest: right. paul tsongas did talk a lot about that. that is the engine that drives jobs. without a properly functioning manufacturing sector, it is very difficult to provide the good jobs and keep the economy rolling.

one of the things we need to do is that federal deficit that are hiking crowd out the investments we need to increase manufacturing and to make manufacturing more productive so that we can invest in workers and plants and equipment. that is one of the consequences of debt when it gets overly high. i think you are right and that is one of the economic consequences, one of the reasons we talk about bringing the deficit under control.

people are saying, the economy is bad and now is not the time to worry about the deficit. i agree that a recession is not the time to worry about the deficit. there may be times it is the government making the investment. there is no reason that government cannot make investments. you cannot continue -- you have to target those investments and you do not want to deficit financed them over the long term.

it is ok when the economy is in recession. we think about the budget deficit and the economy. the best policy is to run a deficit in the short term but to be taking steps now that will phase in to bring the longer- term deficit under control. i think there would be more room the credit markets would be more competent that steps from the government to assist the private sector in the short term would be more effective. a long-term deficit would be

under control. host: todd on twitter wants to know -- guest: well, defense spending is going to be cut. it should be, like everything else. it is subject to the budget caps. one of the reasons that the deficit has been up in recent years is that we did engage in military conflicts. the defense spending should come down to about three percent and went back up to about 4.5% or higher during the peak of the military conflicts in iraq and

afghanistan. that has come down quite a bit. looks like it will continue to come down. military spending is receding back to a lower level, around four percent of gdp. defense spending will be part of the solution longer-term. it is not subject to the same health care pressures that the entitlement programs are. part of the pentagon budget is subject to those longer-term structural issues. i worry more about medicare and medicaid and social security than the discretionary programs because we control those annually. they are not necessarily growing automatically as the entitlement programs do. host: a tabulation that you write in your column. who are going to be the key players in this grand bargain?

there is a story from earlier in august from "the washington post" that talked about key departures of folks. there could be an impact on whether folks are willing to compromise. guest: the hope for the grand bargain is that something is going to have to happen. they cannot keep the government shutdown or keep -- they cannot overstep the debt limit. they are going to have to arrive at some compromise. once they enter into that

process, i think there is a chance they can get a acre deal rather than a smaller deal. the most immediate conflict is what you do about next year's appropriation bills? they are about $98 billion apart. that gets back to the sequestration issue. if they have a negotiation about that, it is going to require substituting mandatory spending cuts for some of those discretionary spending cuts. if you get into the mandatory programs -- medicare, farm programs -- you probably have to also get into revenues. maybe by reducing some subsidies and closing loopholes.

that puts all of the pieces in play to get to a grand bargain. you need to consider all three. there might be a chance that later this year -- maybe new year's eve. there is some chance they will do a grand bargain. by not unless they are pressed by a crisis. but a crisis will be upon us if we run up against the debt limit. host: daniel from new york on our democratic line. you are on with robert bixby. caller: good morning. i appreciate your show. i am retired. now i get to watch c-span. i had three things i would like to talk about. one issue that i remember -- we have these -- i remember the headlines that projected we would have no deficit by 2010. i remember that headline. i watch the new administration. they are going to get rid of

pay-as-you-go. we went from surpluses and within one year we were up to $195 billion deficit. i do not think people notice. bush's last year, maybe $600 billion. there is a debt clock. january 18, last year $1,440,000,000,000. we jumped up to one trillion 732. now we're down to $600 billion, heading in the right direction. if you have deficits, follow the money. if you're paying out $200

billion and issuing treasury bonds, who buys these and what percentage are they getting? my idea -- i go back awhile. i do not own any. host: i want to give robert bixby a chance to answer your question. guest: pension funds buy them. it is not broadly owned generally speaking.

the caller may be part of a fund that invests in treasury bonds. that is who buys them. foreign investors by them. a lot of the debt is held through foreign investors. the history of the debt, there is a couple of things going on. deficit expanded because we cut taxes and increased spending. we then had a major recession. host: robert bixby is the executive director at the concorde coalition. you can check out his work. thank you for joining us.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up on the next "washington journal," -- rebecca talentlent. then john hofmeister. live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. today chuck hagel said the u.s. and china are expanding military ties. he made the announcement at the pentagon.

>> good afternoon. today, i am pleased to welcome the defense general to the pentagon. >> [speaking another language] >> we just finished a productive meeting where i restated the united states is committed to building a positive and constructive relationship with china. >> [speaking another language] >> the china-u.s. relationship is important for stability and security in the asia-pacific and achieving security and prosperity for our nations in the 21st century. >> [speaking another language] >> one of the things we

emphasized today was that a sustained military to military relationship is an important pillar of this strong bilateral relationship. >> [speaking another language] >> the united states welcomes and supports the rise of a prosperous and responsible china that helps regional and global progress. >> [speaking another language]

>> our goal is to build trust between our militaries through cooperation. the united states has invited for the first time the p.l.a. navy to join our multilateral naval exercises that will take place next year. >> [speaking another language] >> this morning, we have affirmed we will continue expanding our defense exchanges and joint exercises. earlier this summer for the first time, chinese midshipmen joined in a multinational exchange program at the u.s. naval academy in annapolis. >> [speaking another language]

>> today, our military working group is meeting in hawaii to discuss humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. >> [speaking another language] >> this weekend, our navies will conduct another counter-piracy exercise of building on the first ever joint counter-piracy exercise held last year. >> [speaking another language]

>> the general brought up two of the initiatives proposed to president obama at the summit in june. one is a way to notify each other of major military activities. the second is rules of behavior for military air and naval activities. >> [speaking another language]

>> i welcomed this discussion and noticed the transparency we have had is important to reducing the risk of miscalculation and avoiding and unintended tension and conflict. our staff are exploring those and will continue to discuss them. >> [speaking another language] >> general chang and i have both welcomed the recent establishment of the new cyber working group as a venue of addressing issues of mutual concern in the area of cyber. >> [speaking another language]

>> we discussed a number of regional security issues as well, including north korea, the east china sea, the south china sea. i reaffirmed longstanding u.s. policies on these issues. >> [speaking another language] >> with respect to competing

maritime claims, i noted while the united states does not take a position on sovereignty in these cases, we do have an interest in the claims being resolved peacefully without coercion. >> [speaking another language] >> the general and i affirmed the importance of maintaining open channels of communication and we agreed it is important to continue high-level visits such as general dempsey's visit to china earlier this year. >> [speaking another language]

>> general odierno and general welch will visit china later this year and p.l.a. commander wu will visit the united states. general dempsey offered to host his counterpart for a visit to the united states next year. >> [speaking another language] >> in our meeting this morning general chang invited me to visit china next year. i enthusiastically accepted. i look forward to meeting with him again next week as part of my trip to southeast asia. >> [speaking another language]

>> i will also visit malaysia, indonesia, and the philippines on this trip. i will now ask general chang for his comments before we take questions from all of you. thank you. >> [speaking another language]

>> thank you. >> friends in the press, good afternoon. >> [speaking another language] >> at the invitation of secretary hazel, i am leading the senior military delegation from the people's liberation army to visit the united states bringing friendship from the chinese people and the chinese

military. >> [speaking another language] >> the purpose of my visit is to implement the important consensus reached by our president and president obama of building a new model relationship based on mutual respect and cooperation to better increase mutual understanding to enhance mutual trust, to promote mutual cooperation, and to push forward the sound and stable development of our national and military relations. >> [speaking another language] >> in the past few days, we have visited northcom and norad.

we were well received and received hospitality from the american people and officers and soldiers of the u.s. military. let me say thank you on behalf of all of my colleagues. >> [speaking another language] >> this morning, secretary hagel and i had a candid exchange of views over our national and military relations international and regional security issues, and other issues of common concern. we reached some agreement. >> [speaking another language]

>> we both agreed our military to military relationship is an important component of our bilateral relations and it is gaining the momentum. we both agreed to earnestly implement the important consensus reached by the two presidents during their summit to work together to strengthen our military relationship and attempt to elevate it to new heights. >> [speaking another language]

>> we both agreed to continue to strengthen our high level visits, deep in our consultations and dialogues to increase mutual trust, specifically the u.s. welcomes the visit by the p.l.a. chief of general staff in 2013. china welcomes the visit of the secretary of defense and chief of naval operations in 2014. >> [speaking another language]

>> secretary hagel and i agreed to set up an exchange mechanism between the p.l.a. strategic planning department and the u.s. joint chiefs of staff. we also agreed to make use of mechanisms such as defense consultative talks, military and maritime agreements, to actively explore notification for major military activities and continued to study the rules of behavior on military and maritime activities. >> [speaking another language]

>> we both believe the chinese and u.s. militaries have an increasingly important possibility to maintain peace in the asia-pacific region. both sides agree to play a constructive role in regional affairs promoting positive interaction between the two militaries in this region. we also agreed to strengthen coordination and cooperation under the asia-pacific multilateral dialogue and frameworks. china will participate in the ring of pacific exercise in 2014 as invited. >> you can watch the entire pentagon conference with secretary hagel at c-span.org. coming up tonight on c-span

senator ted cruz ted cruz and political strategist morris speaking at the western conservative summit. our encore of first ladies, influence and image featuring julia grant. hollowed by a town hall meeting with the political action group. ted cruz released a copy of his birth certificate to the dallas morning news. there was discussion if the senator was eligible to run for president. it shows he was born in calgary canada, to an american-born mother. he called for the abolishment of the irs. his remarks are 30 minutes.

>> thank you so very much. it is terrific to be back with so many friends and so many strong conservatives in the great state of colorado. i want to thank you for your leadership. i have to start with some somber news. i am sorry to tell you that as a result of your being here, each of you tomorrow morning is going to be audited by the irs. i appreciate the courage of your convictions. i will say that this gathering is inspirational. what a tremendous slate of speakers you have had from scott

walker, mike huckabee, allen west. i reminded of the time i was on an airplane. i was paged over the loudspeaker asking for tom cruise. and somewhat sheepishly, i came to the front of the plane, and i said, maybe you might be looking for me. you have never seen so many disappointed flight attendants. i am humbled to be in the gathering of the terrific leaders here. like my friend jenny beth martin and i am even more humbled to be in a gathering in this room, via satellite online, and across the country with people standing up to take this country back.

i want to talk briefly about the past, present, and the future. we are seeing a paradigm shift for how we are going to take this country back. i will cut to the quick. the answer is empowering the grassroots. men and women standing up to bring us back to our founding principles. talking about the past, i will tell you about my campaign for the u.s. senate in texas. it started in january of 2011. i was at 2% in the polls. the margin of error was 3%. those were the real poll numbers. and we were thrilled. we went through a $50 million primary. the most expensive primary in

the country. $35 million in nasty attack ads. after watching all of those ads she turned to me and said, goodness gracious. i did not realize what a rotten guy you were. we saw something incredible happened. we saw thousands of men and women across texas come together. getting on facebook or twitter enough already. we can't keep painting in pale pastels, we need to stand up and take this country back. what we saw was incredible. starting from 2%, despite being outspent 3 to 1. we won the primary by 14 points and won the general by 16.

[applause] what a tremendous testament to the power of the grassroots. throughout the campaign, the pundits all said in the senate race there was no way i could win. i traveled the state of texas saying they are absolutely right. it is beyond my capacity. but you can. the only way we will win is if conservatives come together and demand something new. how do we turn things around? that paradigm shift is playing out right now in the u.s. senate and i believe it will play out in the future for how we turn this country around. there are two things that we need to do to restore this nation. stand for principle. champion growth and opportunity. [applause]

let's talk about standing for principle. one of the first things i was privileged to do serving in the u.s. senate was stand side-by- side with my friend rand paul participating in a 13-our filibuster on drones. [applause] when that started, he went to the senate floor. many of my colleagues viewed what he was doing as strange curious, if not quixotic. the first two to show up to support him were mike lee and i. what happened over the next several hours was incredible. the american people became fixated by c-span.

a phrase that does not occur naturally in the english language. my apologies to our friends from c-span who are with us today. thousands of americans began going online, standing up and saying, we need to protect our liberties. and it was incredible. as the american people got motivated, you saw one senator after another. the staff were running in saying that the tweeting things as you have to go out there. -- things says that you have to go out there. i did not know they knew where the senate floor was. and because the american people got engaged, we saw something incredible. in 24 hours, public opinion polls on drones moved 15 points.

and because the american people stood up and demanded action, president obama was forced to do what he refused to do for three consecutive weeks to admit that the constitution limits his ability to target u.s. citizens. that was a tremendous victory for the grassroots. and it was a harbinger of things to come. the next big fight in washington was over guns. i am confident no one in here is concerned about the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. on this issue, vice president joe biden -- the nice thing is that you don't need a punchline.

[applause] you simply say his name and people naturally laugh. but vice president joe biden had some advice for all of us. if somebody is attacking your home just go outside with a double barrel shotgun and fire both arrows into the air. which is very good advice. if it happens you're being attacked by a flock of geese. on guns, following the horrific tragedy in newtown president obama came out saying, let not let's go come down on the violent criminals like a ton of bricks. but instead, the

president said, we will use this as an excuse to go after the constitutional rights of law- abiding citizens. in washington, the momentum was entirely with the president on this. conventional wisdom was that this was unstoppable. and i will tell you that three senators signed a very simple and short note to hear he read that said we will -- harry reid that said we will filibuster anything that prohibits our right to bear arms. [applause] the important thing was not the letter or the filibuster. it was that doing so slowed things down and focused attention on those who were

going along with this agenda to strip our constitutional rights herein and what happened in the next several weeks is that the american people engaged. you got on the phone and call your senators. these guys are fighting for the second amendment, what's wrong with you? it is powerful when an elected representative starts getting thousands of calls from his or her constituents saying to stand up and defend our constitutional rights. the american people lit up the phones, and stood together. one after another came back and when he came to the floor of the senate repaired to gavel in his story gun control legislation every single proposal that would have undermined the second amendment was voted down on the floor of the senate.

[applause] that was your victory. it was the power of the grassroots. it is how we win i forcing the elected officials to be accountable and do the right thing. going forward in the future what do we need to do? we need to champion growth and opportunity. my very top priority is restoring economic growth. it is the foundation of every other challenge we've got. whether it is unemployment, the national debt, maintaining the strongest military in the world. without growth, we can't accomplish anything. and with growth, each of those

will be accomplished. the last four years, our economy has grown 0.9% a year. the last time of four consecutive years was 1979 to 1982. coming out of the jimmy carter administration the same failed economic policy of taxes and regulations that produced the exact same stagnation. in my view, restoring growth should be the top priority for every elected official republican or democrat. and how do we do that. there are three priorities that are critical to restoring growth. raining in the out-of-control spending and unsustainable debt in washington.

last fall, i had the privilege of speaking at the republican national convention in tampa and i talked about the national debt and i talked about our little girls. i went back to my hotel room that night and pulled out my phone again to look at twitter. it turned out that paula poundstone, the comedian, had been watching the convention that right rejig -- that night. she sent a tweet and said that ted cruz just said when his daughter was born, the national debt was $10 trillion. now it is $16 trillion. what did she do? we laughed so hard, she almost fell out of bed. our daughter is five. in her short life, our national debt has grown over 60%.

what we are doing right now i think is fundamentally immoral. [applause] our parents did not do that to us. their parents did not do that to them. we are giving our kids and grandkids a debt burden that they will work their entire life -- not to meet the challenges of the future but to pay off the debt that the parents and grandparents were too irresponsible to live within our means. that is just wrong. the second critical element is fundamental tax reform. [applause] every year, we spend roughly

$500 billion. all of that is dead weight loss. it does not produce a single truck or tortilla. we need to dramatically simplify the tax code. we have seen in recent months the perils of too much power in washington as the irs has targeted citizens. targeting those perceived to be enemies of the obama administration. when richard nixon tried to use the irs, it was wrong. and it was rightfully decried in a bipartisan manner. when the obama administration did the same thing, it was every bit as wrong. we have heard reports of the irs asking citizen groups, tell us the content, tell us what books you are reading. another group was asked to tell

us the content of your prayers. the u.s. government has no business whatsoever asking any american the content of our prayers. [applause] that was an abuse of power and we need to investigate it and get to the bottom of it. the simplest and best solution to this problem, we need to abolish the irs. [applause]

listen, that is not going to be easy. in washington, there have been an army of that make their living getting exemptions from the irs tax code. there are more words in the tax code than there are in the bible. and not one of them is as good. how many of you all know the shortest scripture in the bible? there has been a whole lot of weeping because of the irs. the only way that we will succeed abolishing the irs is if we follow the same model we were talking about before. if americans come together in overwhelming numbers and demand of our elected officials, enough already. stop listening to the established powers in both

parties, start listening to the american people. the third critical step to restoring economic growth is fundamental regulatory reform. in the last five years regulators from washington have descended on small businesses and entrepreneurs like locusts. the only problem is, you can't use pesticide against the regulators. we need to unleash small businesses, entrepreneurs, free americans to achieve the american dream. [applause] and there is no regulatory

reform that is more important than we need to repeal every single word of obama care. [applause] i am going to be honest with you. i am here asking for your help a cousin we have a moment in time. i think our last and best moment in time to actually beat obama care. the house of representatives voted 39, 40, 41 times. every one of those was symbolic that had no chance of ever passing. we have 60 days to, in fact defund obamacare.

let me explain why. the continuing resolution that funds the federal government expires. i have publicly pledged along with mike lee, marco rubio, rand paul, and others that i will not vote for any continuing resolution that funds one penny of obama care. [applause] now this is a fight that i believe we can win. we need to either get 41 republicans in the senate or 200 and 18 republicans in the house to stand strong. the house of representatives would pass a continuing resolution that funds the entire federal government except for

obama care and would explicitly prohibit spending federal dollars. we know what would happen next. harry reid and barack obama would scream that the evil and nasty republicans are trying to shut down the federal government. and that is where we need to come back and say, we have funded the federal government. why is barack obama threatening to shut down the entire government in order to force obama care on the american people? the lead author of obama care, senator max baucus has described it as a huge train wreck. the president of the teamsters james hoffa, said it is destroying the 40 hour workweek that is the foundation of the american middle class. just a

few weeks ago, president obama unilaterally delay the employer mandate for big companies until after the next election. there are two important concessions president obama made in doing that. if it were a good thing, if it were working and the wheels were not coming off wouldn't he wanted to kick in before the next election? what does that say when they are so scared of electoral accountability because of the disaster this bill is that they want to move it until after the american people have a chance to vote. but secondly, why is he wanting to give an exemption for big corporations? and not give the same exemption for hard-working american families? the reason that we need your

help, right now we don't have the votes. we are not even close. a lot of republicans are terrified of doing this. they are terrified of the media criticizing them, the democrats criticizing them, and being blamed for threatening a shut down. on january 1, the exchanges kick in and the subsidies kick in. it will prove almost impossible to undo obama care. the administration's plans are very simple. get everyone addicted to the sugar so that it remains a permanent teacher of our society. there is only one way we are going to get 41 republicans in the senate or 200 and 18 republicans to do this. if they hear from the american people in overwhelming numbers. a national petition was launched and i will ask each of you to

write this down. don't find it dot com. dontfundit.com. there are people attending this seminar in person and in arizona. go to the website and sign that petition. and i will ask you to do more than that. i will ask each of you to find nine other people to do the same. if we do that, 2000 becomes 20,000. and if each of those 20,000 people pick up the phone and call your member of congress and say, stand for principle, do not vote to fund obama care. that is how we win this fight. no politician in washington can win this fight. only you can win this fight.

[applause] why does growth matter so much? it is the foundation to opportunity. for a long time, i have argued for opportunity conservatives that every principle we articulate we advocate should focus on a laser on opportunity and easing the means of ascent up the economic ladder. to impact the least well-off among us. the dirty secret the media will never tell you is that the people who have been hurt the most by the obama economy are the most vulnerable among us. they are hispanics, african- americans, single moms. unemployment climbed to nearly 10%. young people aged 16 to 19, over 25%.

when you hammer small business with 1.7 trillion dollars in new taxes with massive regulations the ceos don't get hurt. if you were flying in a private jet, you still are today. the people that get hurt by the obama economy are those just starting to climb the economic ladder. they are the ones that get laid off and have their hours forcibly reduced. i read on the floor a newspaper article out of oklahoma. not a single mom had their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week. and with the single mom said, i have little kids at home. i can't feed my kids on 29 hours a week and neither can the other single moms working here.

obama care is doing this to us and it is not working. we need to be championing the people because the greatest engine for prosperity and opportunity the country has ever seen is the free-market system in the united states of america. i am working every day to try to help carry that free-market message and try to help when the argument. how many of you have phones on you? take out your phones and text the word growth to 33733. text "growth" to 33733. we are working to try to build a conservative army across this country that will stand up and fight to bring us back to our

free-market principles, bring us back to our constitutional liberties, and the only way we can do it is to bring together millions of conservatives across the country. freedom is not some abstract academic concept. it is something we know in our own lives. in my life my dad was born in cuba. he was imprisoned and tortured almost beaten to death. he fled in 1957, fleeing the batista regime. he was 18 and could not speak a word of english. nothing but $100 in his underwear. i don't advise carrying money in your underwear. he washed dishes to pay his way to the university of texas. he went on to start a small business, to work words the american dream.

my dad used to say to me over and over again, and we faced depression in cuba, i had a place to sleep. if we lose our freedom here, where do we go? there is no place to go. that is why you are here and you are not with your families relaxing. you are standing up to say that we will not let go of this mighty nation. my dad has been my hero my whole life. everyone of us has a story just like that. we are all the children of those that risk everything for freedom. i will tell you in closing, i am so inspired to be with you today because we are fighting to hold on to that incredible legacy.

the legacy they gave to us. not a single man or woman is content to see the world ronald reagan talked about where if we don't stand up and preserve our liberty, we may have to answer our grandchildren who ask, what was it like? when america was free? that is why we are here. we are not willing to answer that question or go quietly into the night. i am honored to stand shoulder to shoulder with each of you as we fight to restore and preserve the shining city on a hill. thank you and god bless you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> more from dick morris. this is 30 minutes. ♪ >> i am here for my victory lap. i promised we would come back after we defeated obama, and here i am. fortunately, this session is entitled, lessons from 12 ♪ and what we should take into the future. my lesson from 12 is to not make predictions. i will spend two minutes on that part of it. when i made the predictions, i

was right. all of the polls had romney ahead before sandy. cnn had him ahead gallup had him ahead, cbs had him ahead. what happened, i believe, in the short term, was sandy. 15% of all voters made up their minds in the last 72 hours before the polls opened. they broke 3 --to 1 in favor of obama. thank you, governor christie. the seeds of this defeat were planted back in the spring of 2012. i think this is the lesson that we have to take away from it. republicans did not answer the attacks that were made on mitt romney.

[applause] i once was in a grave here in colorado where we lost with a very good candidate because we did not answer the attacks . always always, answer. never sleep under the roof with an unanswered negative ad. when obama unloaded on romney in april and may and june with the bain capital negatives, they struck. voters hate them but in the absence of other information they have to take it at face value. the campaign refused to answer that charge. part of it was they got themselves mixed up and answer

the charges about outsourcing and about his record as governor of massachusetts. neither of those were the central thrust. bain capital went to the core of who romney is. they took the issue of the economy and jobs and rebutted it. not that obama was going to create jobs but that romney would create jobs, but not for you. they took that issue away from romney. why didn't they answer? the republican consulting community does not believe in answering negative ads. they believe that is like a turtle going over on its back. surrendering the momentum. that is wrong. we lost four senate seats over the last cycle because of that doctrinal problem.

the consultants do not understand that you have to answer the negative in order to go ahead and throw your own negative and your own positive. those were incredible answers. i begged them to use it. united steel was being put out of business. instead of an old blast furnace, why not put in a electric car technology that would produce the steel for less than half the price. these big ingots take specialties that can be used in high-tech industries. they got the money together, they converted, and they are the fifth largest steel company in america. the average pay was $85,000 a year. it never made it to television. i believe we lost the election in that moment. there were other, institutional

reasons why we did not do it. we have to understand those and make sure it does not happen again. the romney campaign was out of money because they spent it all in the primary. they had a lot of money earmarked for the general election and they could not spend it until after the republican convention. all of the money could not be spent except for a portion of it on political communication. they never felt able to answer the bain capital for fear of the tax exempt status. i kept telling them the irs would cut you slack. but those economists did not believe me. let's make sure we don't make the same mistake again because we can't afford to. i believe that one of the key

things before us right now is that we have got to flip the latino vote from going against us to what they almost did in 2004, to go for us. they lost by only 10 points. obama carried them by 60 points. the distance between those was the immigration bill of 2005. when we killed that bill, we guaranteed a democratic congress in 2006 and helped guarantee an obama victory in 2008. we must not make that same mistake again. there are two crucial pieces of information. the mexican voters in the united states are conservative. they are pro-life, against same- sex marriage. they up or debt -- abhor debt.

i am afraid the democrats are replicating the policies of the leaders we used to have in latin america. that ruined my country and i came here and i don't want to see it ruined this country. 63% agreed with that. 48% strongly agreed with that. these voters will be republican voters in the very near future as long as we don't drive them away. it is crucial that we reach out to them by passing some form of immigration reform. i believe the bill is exactly what we should pass. we will reform immigration if you seal the border. we are not going to create this glittering opportunity and get a new class of illegal immigrants

waiting for their turn to be legalized. [applause] it doesn't mean just best efforts or appropriating money. 90% of immigration has to be cut off before the legalization process can begin. latinos support that. the poll showed 57% support that. they said in texas it is over 70% that up rejigged -- that support that approach. i think that what has to happen is the house has to pass the bill. the only way you're going to get this administration to enforce the immigration law and seal the border is you will not get immigration reform unless you do that.

if you hold reform hostage, he will do it. his own base is going to row force -- to enforce him to do it. we have to pass the cornyn bill. the republicans in the house will probably do that but they are scared to death when it gets to conference committee, the bill that says legalize now and worry about border security later, just spend the money now. and the corn yn bill says you have to spend it before legalization begins, we will get killed.

the latinos that the democrats rely upon will not accept the opposition. they are both going to say that we have a perfectly good task for illegal immigration. it gets us there and we support what it does. as it glows, we want border security. we want border security in order to get legal immigration and we are willing to support that. i believe the democrats in conference will not be able to sustain that opposition. that is the case i will be making over the next few weeks. when we look at the macro picture of how we see the

democratic party and how we retake the senate, we need to let the consequences of obama's policies happen. we need to get out of the way and let every bad thing that will happen to the united states because of what barack obama has already done happen. and then when the country is totally fed up with him, totally sick of it, when young people understand they have to pay a fine if they don't get insurance they don't need and don't want they have to spend 10% of their income on it before they get it done. they understand they will not be able to get the medical care that they need. if all of us understand the premiums are going to double and we actually see them double, we

understand the flow of innovation in medical devices being attenuated because of the taxes imposed upon them, that full-time employees are being fired and replaced with part- time employees to avoid the mandate of obama care, job creation among small businesses is cratering because they don't want to have to pay for health insurance. when we look at that, everybody is going to understand what is wrong with obama care. i believe it would be a serious mistake for us to insert ourselves in between obama care and the american people by defunding it, by shutting the government down. because if we did that, it would become the story. and obama could go around talking about how important it is to cover the uninsured and all this nonsense that

accompanied his rhetoric when he first passed the program. nobody will pay attention to the problems implementing obamacare. but if we don't get in the way and let the president screw this up on his own, people are going to understand all over the country, how flawed and terrible this program is, and the mandate will resonate with heavy republican victories in 2014. and then we really will be able to repeal it because the country will have gotten so sick of this legislation. the other thing i think is going to happen is that this economy cannot last going on as it is right now. it simply cannot continue. i believe we are weeks and perhaps months away from a serious global crash. one of the major economists i have been in touch with that was

a major economic advisor in the 90's believes that by the end of the year, the dow will be down by 20%. this whole façade of recovery and that is all it is is based on taking stock market. the reason it is going up is that the fed is printing money at the rate of $85 billion a month and it is shoveling that money with zero interest into all the big banks and all the big brokerage houses. it is not getting into the mainstream economy. those links -- banks are not lending that money. it is kind of like foreign aid. we give dictators all this money because we are idealistic and want to help people but it never goes to them.

it goes right to the bank accounts of these foreign dictators. this is going into the pocket of the banker during and brokerage house executives making obscene amounts of money and the money is not flowing to the rest of the economy here it if all they did was make a lot of money, i would not care. the problem is that they gamble it they take the money and put it in the stock market, the derivatives market. the markets become completely unstable. it creates a boom in the stock market going higher. at some point soon, they will take the money out and the whole thing will come crashing down. everyone stuck with stocks will be stuck. at the same time, they are investing this money in the derivatives market. a derivative is simply a bet.

i bet the rockies will win the pennant. somebody will bet against me and we put up the money. the derivatives is called that way because you are deriving it from another index. there is currently $1.4 quadrillion bet on that. the gdp of earth is $80 trillion. this is 1.4 quadrillion dollars. what comes after trillion? don't tell obama. the reason they are able to make these bets, if they win, they keep the money. if they lose they are too big to fail and the bailout is an implicit guarantee of a government bailout.

they know that they are too big to fail, so they are going to take incredible risks with the money the fed continues to shovel into. that means there is going to be a crash. it just happens. because the boom is not anchored, it will likely be a bust that is very imminent. the time barack obama leaves the white house, he will be synonymous with herbert hoover. and a good deal more reason than it over ever had. -- than hoover ever had. it will strike the american people how ridiculous these policies are. they are a ripoff by a small group of elite such as we have never had before in this country. politically, it means the left and the right can meet at the

other end of the spectrum because i am not very far from those centers. against the massing of wealth by these top level executives i think it is destabilizing the global economy and will lead to a crash. we are both on the same side. similarly, my opposition to wiretapping is very similar to that of the aclu. and the recent vote in the house where a lot of conservative republicans voted with a lot of liberal democrats to find the leadership of the political parties and might be a harbinger of things to come. i believe that fundamentally, we are right and obama is wrong. and the consequences of his being wrong will become more and more evident, to the point where

while you could ignore it in 2012, you won't be able to ignore it in 2013. i just want to touch on one other topic. the nsa data collection. this is nothing short of laying the basis for totalitarianism in the united states. and those congressmen that voted to let the nsa spy on you, we had a perfect opportunity to stop that data collection, and we missed it by a very narrow margin. i would urge you to look up how each of your members voted on that bill because to me that is the central dividing line between this get along establishment republicans and

those genuinely concerned about our individual freedoms. i sharply dissent from governor christie when he said the libertarian streak in both parties is a danger. the hell it is. you don't need to wiretap. we are all against crime. if there were no search warrant required for searching, we could monitor every single phone call and listen in, there would be no more crime. we could stop it completely. there is no crime in a fascist state. but we are not willing to pay that price. and while on the one hand, they are invading our civil liberties by this incredibly intrusive collection of data, they are ignoring terrorist threats staring us in the face.

there was a hearing yesterday when the fbi director admitted that he learned four years before the boston bombing that this mosque was the center for terrorists. they asked him if he ever visited the mosque and he said it was part of our hispanic outreach program. rather, muslim outreach program. how is your buddhist, jewish, and baptist outreach program going? we don't need to sacrifice our liberties to remain free of terrorists. look at what they do in new york. we do not need this level of invasiveness of our most fundamental beliefs. before i leave, i want to pay tribute to a person in the audience where i have done this three times before.

this is my fourth appearance. i want to pay tribute to senator bill armstrong. [applause] it was senator armstrong that introduced me to my friends. my companion and mentor, jesus christ. [applause] i sat down with him in 2002, 1998, somewhere around then. we had dinner together.

how can someone as intelligent as you believe in god? he literally asked that question. and you know what? he answered me. ok, we are at the leader of our fortunes right now. as a result of the election of 2012. but we must cling to a fundamental truth which is that we hold our views not because some special interest tells us to do it. not because we are acting in the interest of this group or that group or these funders. we hold these views because we think they are right. newt gingrich told me that there are a small group of people that agree with each other on almost

everything and they are called republicans. everyone else is a democrat. we are correct and we are right that you can only achieve job creation by lowering taxes. we are right that you will not have wages and worker income until you improve productivity. you have to cut the capital gains tax. we are right that when you give money away at no interest rate, nobody will save or invest. nobody will land and there will not be productivity. we are right that climate change is draconian and is a menace that is never going to come to pass. and it will become increasingly evident that we are right because obama is implementing these mistaken policies in real

time in a real situation. and we will have the opportunity to monitor how badly it messes up over the coming months and weeks before the 25 -- one to 14 election. -- before the 2014 election. it is not a prediction. thank you. [applause] >> dick morris. gosh it would not be the summit without you,. welcome back. -- without you, dick. welcome back. do we have questions for morridick morris? >> the first one should be, "what the hell happened?" >> how can we really appeal

obama care in 2014? since you have respectfully disagreed with senator cruise and his colleagues that say to do it through the continuing resolution a few weeks from now. how should we do it? >> at the end of the day, the government will reopen and obama will be president and he will not budge on this. i was there for the 95-96 government shutdown. it was predicated on the idea that bill clinton would back down and he did not. they were stuck with the shutdown government. there was mounting public demand to reopen it. they ultimately caved and were essentially impotent. i don't want that to happen here. i believe that obama care will destroy itself because it makes

and positions the people of america. it will cost so much in premiums and penalties, that the american people will be sick of it by the time it is implemented. it had about 40 to support. it has 54 opposed. it will have 25 support and 68 or 70 opposed. the trend will just continue. that will deliver enough votes for control of the senate and will scare the hell out of the remaining democrats. they will force obama not to veto, but they will vote on an override.