over it. a beautiful bronze statue upstairs, it is a beautiful place. >> i do not know if he is the only president buried aboveground. thank you for the recommendation. we are trying to interest people we are trying to interest people in learning more about american history. another video. this is returning to the ohio home of the garfields. we will learn how she began to preserve her husband's memory. >> after james garfield's death, she started to make her life and her family's life again in this house and on this property. she started to make a lot of changes to the property. she started using the upstairs

bedroom a lot more frequently. she converted the downstairs kitchen into an open reception room and had the kitchen moved into the back part of the house. most significantly was the construction of the presidential library. she started to make a lot of changes to the property. i am standing in the room that he used as an office for the years that he was living here in the house. lucretia garfield called this the general snuggery. this room looks pretty much how it did. she did make a few minor changes in here, "in memorium" is carved in the wood. it does have an interesting double meaning.

it was also the title of james and lucretia's favorite poem. he became a first-time member of the house of representatives. the first born child, eliza died. she was only two or three. this was very tragic and it brought them much closer together than they have been. two weeks or so after the daughter's death, he told lucretia that he had been not reading this poem, "in memorial" by alfred lord tennyson. it should bring him as much comfort as it did to him. when lucretia garfield had it carved in the wood in his office after his death, she was of

knowledge and not only his tragic death at a young age, only 49 when he was assassinated, but also the love of literature with the tennyson poem. host: later on, we will come back to the years after the white house with lucretia garfield. with the assassination of her husband in september, chester arthur, the political opponent on the opposite side of the republican party, suddenly found himself president. he found himself without a wife and a vice president. what was the transition like?

what was the state of the country after the assassination? guest: the focus really remained for so long in september and well into october, november chester arthur lived his permanent home in new york city on lexington avenue. he, himself, was still in a state of very deep mourning, because his wife, ellen, died in january 1880. she came from a powerful family. grew up in washington, d c -- d.c. she knew dolley madison when she was a little girl.

they went to st. john's church on lafayette square. when she was 5-10 years old, she knew dolly madison. her father was a very famous naval commandants who took a ship on a commercial ship that went down. it was an act of bravery because he made sure that all the passengers on board got off a first. his widow and his daughter, their only child, then living in new york city were given all sorts of awards, a monument to him at annapolis naval academy. alan arthur is really interesting. she does not become first lady, but she influences the administration. very similar to racial jackson jacksonl

the way that she was the ghost, the memory of her. chester arthur made several appointments, four we know of, specifically of people who had known his wife. one was a cousin in the office of the attorney general made assistant attorney general. another was in the treasury. it was very controversial that he named the superintendent of the naval academy, he appointed a friend of theirs, a childhood friend of his wife's. he created a political problem in the senate, like the prerogative of appointing mayors, is ceremonial role played out in the white house, but are for insisted in making that appointment because it was a friend of his and alan's.

he kept her picture on the wall, fresh flowers, he had a stained- glass window put in at st. john's church so he could see it from his bedroom window in the white house. there was some remorse, perhaps, because he was quite married to his career and his political advancement and mrs. arthur was an accomplished singer who died of pneumonia while he was in albany on political business. you have him come in without a wife, without a vice president and his 10-year-old daughters living with his sister in albany. the press at the time began speculating in a series of articles who would be the lady of the white house? host: the man was wealthy, very

stylish. he lived quite a life in new york city. he had this tragedy of being a widower. you could see there would be a press line that the it press would be very interested in. guest: it was a little unseemly because there are a lot of wealthy women are women who wanted to be wealthy who began flirtatiously appearing where ever president arthur was. he had no interest whatsoever in remarrying. he really became depressed. he basically said, i'm not going to have a first lady. no one will take the role of my wife. he starts having the social events once the social season begins again, when congress comes back in the session, and it is like first lady for a day. he has these events were a cabinet wife, a senate wife, none of it is really quite working and the following year,

1883, new year's day, his sister from albany comes down. there is an indication that he knew he had a terminal illness and he wanted to be close to his daughter. they came down from new york. at the time, she was being taken care of by her aunt, mary arthur, nicknamed mali. host: so that is the same person. on twitter -- guest: she lived in the white house with her brother. host: how protective were they of the little girl? guest: part of the reason arthur kept her away from the white house for nearly one year making sure that she lived either at her home, his home in new york city, and he was having that

remodeled, so she went to live with an aunt and there were two other girls, jessie and may, who came to live with their mother in the white house. host: chris in connecticut. what is your question? caller: if president garfield had been shot in our modern times with our technology, do you think he would have been saved? guest: i would just venture a guess to say yes. the simple removal of a bullet, he would be able to detect where it was in the system. host: arthur may have been severely depressed by the loss of his wife, but they entertained lavishly in the white house and he undertook an amazing redecoration of the white house that was done by louis tiffany.

if you think of a tiffany lamp with all the colors, think about that in the white house. what did it look like when it was done? >> the elephant in the room, the thing you could not ignore, was this wall of tiffany glass. it was put up in what is the main hall, the central hall of the state for. -- floor. you come in from the main entrance, the north entrance of the white house into technically the lobby, the entrance, and today you see white columns and it opens up and the doors to the blue room immediately, the red room, the green room, but in those days the draft was so bad and people were complaining, he

put up this wall of garish, victorian tiffany glass. >> that is garish by our tastes, but it was high style at the time. guest: it did not even last 20 years. the teddy roosevelt won and that wordssevelt's famous bits.smash that wall to host: it was not preserved? guest: no. host: this was a busy time in the country. we have a few highlights of the administration and some of the issues that the are from administration was dealing with, with out a vice-president in office, the chinese exclusion act, the presidential veto of the carriage of passengers at see bill, the river and harbor act, and pendleton civil service reform act. we talked earlier about civil service reform being the key issue of the time. what happened with that? guest: just like social

security, to some degree civil rights, things come in increments and descended of being the first major piece of legislation that started to make the first real prevention of the spoils system of basically the political system. remember, federal employees could be fired. people who work in the treasury building. we think of those people today as career bureaucrats are people working as federal employees, they could all be fired and whoever was in power would then appoint whoever they wanted. it was not only unfair but it was inefficient.

arthur really takes those first steps and he puts the first efforts in in terms of building a modern u.s. navy. while the chinese exclusion act was really an awful thing in terms of just about right active bigotry, are for have supported bigotry,tright something that was far less stressed than what passed. there was a worse proposal out there. arthur gets a bad rap sometimes. host: did arthur keep garfield's cabinet? who was his most important advisor? guest: i do not recall. he did initially through the new year, but i cannot recall specifically the individual members of his cabinet that continued on.

when you speak of the garfield administration, you are really talking more about the our for administration. host: rachel on facebook -- what measures were taken to ensure the safety after the assassination? guest: none. there are guards at the front door, but it still had this sort of lazy, old hotel quality to it. even with arthur's redecoration, there was one reason why he was very protective of his daughter. in is not done so the 1886 new year's day reception, two months before he leaves, that he allows his daughter to publicly appear. host: in alaska, welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. this is a great show.

i heard something many years ago and i don't know if it's true. garfield had the ability to take lee sands from each hand and simultaneously write the same thing in greek and latin. is this true? guest: from all i have learned, that was true. he was ambidextrous. host: were ellen or molly's styles as progressive as chester? were they as progressive in their style? guest: alan arthur was. -- ellen arthur was. she was very fashionable, very rich largely for the wealth of

her mother, and very ambitious. there are a lot of stories about how she really got behind -- she really did not like that politics kept him away from home so often, but on the other hand, she was a very socially ambitious woman and ambitious for the career. even though she was a selling around one of her very close first cousins, because she was an only child, she was very close to her double cousins, her parents' siblings who had married, so double cousins. during the civil war, chester arthur was able to secure the release of union presence of one of her cousins, but she went to abraham lincoln's 1865 inaugural. she attended the white house wedding of nelly grant. she knew the parents of theodore roosevelt in new york city. she bought at the best stores. they took summers in cooperstown, n.y., and in

newport. molly arthur was a little bit more, i would not use the term "pedestrian," but she was just not interested. host: last question on the arthur administration, on mary arthur, the sister, she had a very strong opinion on women's suffrage. how influential was she in this non-official white house hostess role? guest: it really showed us that the country had come to expect a female presence, whether it was a wife, sister, daughter. she really walked the fine line. she made public appearances, sometimes on around, sometimes only with him. i think he almost was kind of ambivalent about how public a

role she should take. her support of the anti-suffrage movement occurred after the white house. there was some coverage of it. i will add that she was also a great advocate of civil rights. in her home in albany, she not only welcomed as a dinner guest but as an overnight guest and booker t. washington. host: we have 12 minutes left. as arthur finishes three years, lucretia is establishing herself as a widow and enormous the popular first lady. -- enormously popular first lday. -- lady. how did she do that? people are curious about her moved to pasadena, calif.. -- california.

guest: she could not take the cold winters in colorado anymore. she maintained a home in washington as a presidential widow. host: at the house should continue to work on. guest: there were times when she would lease the house or property because it was just more feasible. her brother was the manager of the house, but california in the 1880's, there was a real opening up as a sort of a promised land, sunshine, and a lot of california was settled by wealthy midwesterners. she went out to pasadena in 1900 and she was distantly related to two famous architects, green and green, known for the california craftsman style architecture. she had a great interest in architecture so she worked rate closely with them in designing this extraordinary craftsman manchin which is still standing as a private home and it really became a kind of a showplace.

she was even in one of the carriages for the vip's in the early pasadena rose parade. she had a very full life in california. host: you made the point that she was interested in so much. one of our viewers on facebook says -- what do you think of her taste? guest: i'm not the best to ask about taste, but along those lines she was also an advocate

for women's suffrage. she did not come out publicly, just let the issue of temperance. she thought it would make much more controversy than need be, but her daughter also said that her mother truly believed in equality of the genders. you also see her when former president theodore roosevelt in 1912 is mounting a campaign against the incumbent president, she supports the roosevelt. she comes out at an appearance in los angeles. host: tawney in pleasantville, n.y. caller: one of the books i ever read was "destiny of the republic," and there were some money facts, but the three that are brought to my attention tonight where abraham lincoln's

son tad's involvement in three presidential assassinations, not necessarily involved but being in the area. you showed an artist's sketch that carried garfield to the house where he passed away. i'm wondering if you can tell the story of how the car got there. lastly, there is a part in the area, seven presidents park, and they might have to make it 8 presidents part now that president obama have visited. why have so many presidents gone to the jersey shore? guest: it was fashionable. the salt air was thought to be recuperative period in order to reach of the house, they have to lay an exit track so the strength to go right up to the house. guest: he mentioned all the presidents.

during the years of the carter administration, these are the first ladies who were brought -- alive -- tyler, polk, lane, lincoln, lucy hayes, and lucretia garfield. we see a bonding across political parties among women who served in the white house. was that happening at this time? guest: we could credit good old molly mcelroy, who is she is credited for everything, she invited them to publicly receive with her as co-hosts. them toted publicly receive with her as co- hosts. mrs. lincoln and tyler were in the news. with molly mcelroy leaving the role of first lady and handing

it over to cleveland, a bachelor of the time, whose sister would be assuming the role, there's a lot of press about these two sisters. at the same time, in conjunction with all of this, the very first book is written on the history of first ladies and it is a collective biography called "ladies of the white house" by -- her name escapes me. it is a very famous book. host: lucretia outlived her husband by many years. we will return one last time to the house in ohio and learn more about the house. [video clip] >> if james a. garfield were to walk in this house, he would not recognize it. this was actually the kitchen. after his death, lucretia made major changes. this was changed into the open reception room. the most significant change she made with the construction of the very first presidential

memorial library. as begin to the top of the steps here before we go into the memorial library, we come first to the memorial landing and we find one of her favorite portraits of her husband. this was done by a good friend of the garfield and it shows james a. garfield as a major general during the american civil war. this is the room lucretia garfield came up with to really memorialize her husband, keep his memory alive for herself, for their children, and for the country. all over the room, you see books that belonged to james a. garfield. this is a beautiful piece that was sent to mrs. garfield completely unsolicited by someone in italy. it's a beautiful memorial piece with an image of james garfield surrounded by flowers. it is all actually made with

small stones cracked together and was one of her favorite pieces. we have a very beautiful marble bust of james a. garfield of this was also sculpted by an italian and given to her around 1883, two years after his death. here we have what lucretia called the memory room. she has constructed along with the library in 1885-1886 where she is stored his official documents and papers. she had them down and stored it really to keep them for posterity. been a lot of very interesting items. most significantly but is the wreath on the shelf. it was lying on his casket while he was laying in the capitol building in washington, d.c. it was sent to mrs. garfield the

of the british delegation from queen victoria along with a nice hand written note of sympathy from the queen. the garfields used this room a lot. it was not one of those beautiful rooms that you could not go into more touch anything. you see lucretia's writing desk year. -- here. she spent a lot of time here. she used a black border stationery. she used it for the rest of her life to denote a lifelong mourning for a husband. here, in front of the large windows, two of the garfield children were married in 1888. harry garfield, the oldest son, and molly, the only surviving garfield daughter both married their respective fiancés in a double wedding ceremony right here in front of the windows of the library. host: lucretia garfield made it into the new century. she died in 1918 at the ripe old age of 85. how did she live those post- white house years?

how should she be in the pantheon of first ladies? guest: her tenure was so brief. she was the first to be self- conscious and often not destroy the papers and keep a diary of a white house days. she is best thought of as a former first lady in terms of her career. there are a lot of similarities between her and jaclyn kennedy in terms of committing to the legacy of their husbands and yet, also, not allowing the lives of the lives of their children to be weighed down by grief. guest: we are looking at some photographs of a large family. you know if any other family members went into politics? guest: one of his sons was in the order roosevelt's cabinet and another was in woodrow wilson's. she died one year into world war i, and she was doing work as a volunteer with the red cross in pasadena when she died.

there is some suggestion that she decided to go from republican to progressive despite the democratic because president wilson give her son a job in the cabinet. host: on that note, we say thank you. you have spent your historical career focusing on the first lady's as we closed here, how did you get interested? why you think it's interesting for people to learn about first ladies? guest: they have a natural influence on the sinking of -- thinking of their husbands. their intelligence, their wisdom, and sometimes their ability to see the larger picture that their husbands themselves cannot was, for so many years, neglected. there were always written off as mannequins for clothing.

their intelligence, efforts, and conscientiousness helped their husbands reach the presidency. host: "first ladies: the saga of presidents and their power." as we close, i say this every week. we're working with the historical society and thank you to those in the garfield home in ohio, but also the white house historical association, who have been a partner for us. we have a biography book that have printed and we have a special edition for those who want to read more. you can find it on our website. thank you for being with us for "first ladies" on the garfield administration. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2013] >> tomorrow night on the encore presentation of "first ladies." >> she is so popular. people imitate her clothes and her hairstyle.

that the first lady was someone that we know. you could purchase your own picture to have in your home. she is used in campaigns. we have grover cleveland running for president. we also have mrs. cleveland running for first lady. >> dongle presentation of our eriginal series "-- our encor presentation of our original series "first ladies." coming up, the state of the u.s. economy. later, the march on washington oral histories. >> on the next "washington dehaven on that

disability insurance program. on thehat, frank oliveri joint strike fighter program. art probably nsa ch looks like. "washington journal" is live every day as 7 a.m. eastern. >> let's begin with a very well- known novelist. what brought you? thiswas born a negro in country and welcome deeply. there was no reason not to be involved what is considered the most important and most noted demonstration to free americans.

until recently, like most americans, i have expressed my support of civil rights by talking largely about at cocktail parties. summer,y americans this i could no longer pay lip service to a cause that was urgently right and in a time that is so urgently now. tvsunday, american history marks the 50th anniversary of the march on washington with historic and contemporary roundtable discussions. we will have a visit to that gallery, a theater performance of the 1960s civil rights movements. it starts at 1 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv come every weekend on c-span 3. next is a discussion about the state of the u.s. economy with a former white house economic adviser and the ceo of

him co-, the largest bond fund in the world, and chairman of the white house bubble development council. the national press club, this is an hour. >> good morning and welcome to the national press club. i am jennifer schonberger of the national journalists. the national press club is an organization for journalists. you can learn more about the club online. more than four years after the recession officially ended, the economy is stuck in second gear. gdp has grown less than two percent for three consecutive quarters. that is below the average growth rate of two percent for the duration of this recovery and well below the three percent rate economy has historically

grown. incomes are stagnant and unemployment is high at 7.4%. workers dropped out of the workforce because they are discouraged. the housing market is improving. how much longer will our economy remain stuck in the mud. nearly five years into the financial crisis, what is the state of the banking system now? what can be done to pull america out of this tepid period of growth? we are joined by incredible experts on the panel. mohammed el-erian, ceo of pacific investment management company. sheila bair, senior adviser to charitable trusts. john taylor, professor of economics at stanford university and senior fellow at the hoover

institution. he is well-known for the taylor rule, a monetary policy principle that offers guidance on how to tinker with interest rates to control inflation. taylor served as undersecretary of the treasury during the george w. bush administration and was part of the council of economic advisers. specimen so much for being here today. -- thank you so much for being here today. special thanks to mohammed el- erian and mr. taylor for flying from california. i want to kick off the panel with you. you coined the term, the new normal in 2009. your outlook for the economy has been dead on. how much longer is this economy going to remain in the new normal? >> let me take you back to 2009 when the new normal concept came out. the idea was to signal that it would not be your traditional cyclical recovery. unless the mindset in washington

changed, and there was a better understanding of the underlying dynamics, we risked getting stuck. in a keyword of unusually sluggish growth, high unemployment, that is when it materialized. go back to the concept of the economy stuck in second gear. let me push this analogy. it is not just stuck in second gear, it is being driven on a foggy road. there is some good news. we are doing better than others. europe was in reverse and just went to neutral. japan has been neutral for a long time and just jumps to first gear. we are doing better than others. other good news is there is no reason why this economy needs to be driven in second year. this car is capable of being driven in third, fourth, or fifth gear. the question is why?

manual transmission in order to shift gears, you need to press the clutch. you can try doing it otherwise, but you risk -- the minute you start pressing the clutch, you go from what is technologically possible to what is politically feasible. the problem hasn't been that it is not technologically possible, it is just politically not feasible. a couple of things have happened. one is the attempt to shift gets frustrated. you need only look at some pretty good initiatives that have gone to congress and have been almost dead on arrival. the second is you have another driver, the fed, which has been trying to force change but haven't been able to do it using proper instruments. that is why the benefits have been less than what were expected and the cost or the collateral damage has become a

concern. >> where do we go from here? >> let me tell you what should happen. it is important to make the difference between that and what is likely to happen. what should happen is you should have a political coming together on the four things this economy needs. the problem is that the political debate is very -- right now. we need structural reforms. we need more balanced aggregate demand. we need to deal with debt overhang and persistent behavior that underlines this economy. we need some really good micro elements that have to do with the education system and labor retraining.

>> until we get that -- >> until we get there, we are stuck at two percent. the longer we are stuck at two percent, the more potential growth we are coming down. the problems get structurally embedded. look at long-term unemployed and youth unemployment. >> mr. taylor, the economy has changed since the recession. many workers don't possess the necessary skills to meet the available job openings. are we looking at permanently higher unemployment for some time to come? >> i don't think we are. the problem with the unemployment rate remaining high with job growth hardly keeping up with the population could change.

it depends very much on policy. to me, it is not so much second gear although i like the analogy. it is more this big heavyweight on the back of the car that is slowing the economy down. i think a lot of it is the policy. you could look back at previous expansions. deep recession in the early 80's, growth was five percent per year. it has been 2.2% in this recovery. it is dramatic. i think you could learn from history about what to do. >> you don't think we are going to remain in permanently higher unemployment? >> there are certainly eight dangere is certainly a that we will. i think it largely depends on

policy. one of the things that could lead us in this direction is complacency. the attitude -- way back when we thought unemployment normal was four percent, there was a time where the council of economic advisers, we said because of demographics, let's call it 4.9. it was viewed as incredibly pessimistic to say 4.9. now, we are talking about maybe 6.5. it is taking this discouraging performance and making it what we expect for the future. there is a danger to go in that direction. >> sheila -- >> i agree with that. we can do better. there is political dysfunction in washington. politicians say, this is the do. do.his is the best we can i think i would agree.

i think getting rid of the loopholes, expenditures, bringing the -- rate down, identifying infrastructure spending, retraining the workforce, there are things we need to do. we need to make our country more competitive so that other people want to buy. >> is it safe to say that politics is the greatest impediment to growth? will the economy be held back? >> yes. [laughter] that is the biggest obstacle. the second one is the mindset. we grow up believing that finance was the next level of capitalism. that somehow, you better agriculture, manufacturing, services, and if you are really lucky, you can do finance.

the description of my industry changed from financial services which is this notion that you served the real economy, to finance with the notion that your standalone. we need to realize that right now we don't have a financial service industry that supports the economy enough. there is a mindset issue. i agree with john and sheila that we have to go back to genuine drivers of growth instead of this love affair that we have with leverage and debt entitlement because that will put us into another crisis. >> coming back to the present situation, income inequality is growing. lower income households are struggling. the one percent is doing just fine. we haven't seen protests in the streets like in europe, but what is the risk of the social fabric of america beginning to fray? >> it is fraying. it is fraying because we started out with social inequality and now it is getting worse.

it is getting worse because of the policies we are pursuing to try and restart our economy. if the fed is the only policy making entity in play today in washington, not by choice but by necessity, the fed can only act using indirect policies. it cannot invest in infrastructure. it cannot change the tax code. it has to convince people to do things. how does it convince people? the idea is very simple. you make asset markets unofficially high. the wealth effect, people feel richer. maybe companies will invest more who owns financial assets? you have this irony in using imperfect policy by necessity, you make income inequality worse.

>> ms. bair, do you believe that this is contributing to the widening of income inequality? >> i do. it is not trickle down. it has resulted in financial asset inflation. that benefits people who own financial assets who are the wealthier folks. there are not quality jobs. the vast majority of people in this country -- they don't own financial assets that have been inflated through this aggressive monetary policy. i think they wanted to create jobs but it is not happening. >> what is the biggest risks to the economy right now? >> i think the unsustainability of the course that we are on. we have tepid growth and we are too much trying to go back to the past. it is just not sustainable.

you need real wage growth. you need production of real goods and services that others will want to buy. fueling growth through increasing levels of leverage causes collapse. i am afraid with cheap interest rates, that is what it is designed to do. it is not sustainable. i am in the process of writing a book for young adults on the crisis and i have been interviewing families who were impacted. there are a lot of people out there still on the edge. they are just finally making it back, but they are making maybe two thirds of what they used to make. >> speaking of the fed, there is a sense that the fed is going to pull back on bond purchases. we have seen bond rates rise. how much higher do you see bond yields and interest rates rising? will it choke off growth even

more? >> >> bond yields are rising because financial markets behave differently. economists like to look at the journey and i am very rational that the journey can take one step here, one step here. financial markets look at terminal values, the destination. they ask themselves, what is the destination look like and can i get their first? if you get to the right place first, that is where you want to be. the minute the fed starts talking about tapering, you saw interest rates take off. we have now a significant tapering as early as september. that has an impact. you have seen the housing market we can. you are seeing the effect of

that. weaken.ng market you are seeing the effect of that. the fed is trying to play defense. the first attempt to play defense was to talk back that pull back the tapering. the second attempt was to use its second instrument to try to compensate for the effect of the first. the second instrument is experimental forward guidance. would you see now is the fed attempting to convince people to do things by using aggressive forward guidance in order to limit the impact of high interest rates. the one thing to remember, and this is really important, is that we are in a period where the fed is using experimental policies that have not been tested. it is like a doctor that gives you a medication because he or she has to do so that hasn't been clinically tested. when that medication doesn't work well, i will give you a bit more of it.

not any better, i give you a bit more. that is why this notion is so important. >> let's talk about the fed's unconventional policy. have we created new sources of financial instability? >> i would say the caveat is it is harder to get out. they need to get out on a gradual, slow basis. at the end of 2000 well, some studies show there were 90% of new issuance back to securities. so, i would say tapering would be on a very long time frame. hopefully, that would be combined with new fiscal policy. it will not give us some short- term sugar high, but long-term economic benefit. i think that could work. they have been away too long,

but they need to get out very slow. >> professor taylor, you coined the taylor rule. what is your take on the fed's policy? what course of action would you take to this? >> i think what you're seeing now, what sheila and mohammed are concerned about, is exactly what those of us who are very wary about quantitative easing worry about. it was clear that something like this would happen. this is exactly why so many people were concerned. from nobel prize winners to former chairs of fed, very concerned with this whole action.

at this point, you try to get out of it. it reminds me of what happened in the 70s. people realized that this terrible policy of the fed wasn't working. it took a long time to get out of it. i think the number one thing should be getting back to normal policy. we had a good monetary policy that has worked very well. we have gotten off of that. it is very unpredictable. who knows what is going to happen next? markets are hard to predict. if mohammed can predict them, you can see what it is like. lay out a strategy, get back to normal policy. if not now, when? it is not going to be easy. but that is what this economy really needs. it needs predict ability about policy. go around the world and talk to central bankers.

they crave the day that they can go back to normal policy. >> you advocate a tapering right now? in september? >> i would get started with it. they have laid out a plan already. they have to worry about how they communicate this. i think the strategies are not laid out as carefully as they could be. i think a strategy, we have recommended strategies to make sure the tapering is -- i say tapering means stopping purchases before you start to raise rates. i think you have to drive down the balance sheet. that is going to take some time. >> right now, we are on course for lifting interest rates in 2015? would you advocate that or something sooner? >> i would say right now there is inconsistency in the policy statements. the idea of a zero rate in 2015, even if the economy is sluggish likely think it will be, it is probably going to look too low

when 2015 comes around. that inconsistency is in the markets. right now, there is a promise of zero rates but when the time comes, it looks like we go to be higher. >> professor taylor, your name has been brought up in certain seconds -- circles as a potential candidate for the chairman of the federal reserve. ben bernanke will be stepping down in january. any interest in the job? [laughter] >> absolutely not. [laughter] >> really? >> one thing that is great about our country is we have this civil society where people can be on the outside and comment and criticize. i am very comfortable with that role. [laughter] >> what happens when the fed

does begin to pull back? how will that impact the economy is to mark will it help or hurt? >> we do need to be back to normal. it is going to take a long time. john, i am willing to wager that unless the other things happen, unless the political system gets better, unless the drag, the headwinds that we face on the rest of the world -- rates will be incredibly low. i will take you one step further. in the short term, what you're going to have, the fed purchases have inserted a wedge. between sluggish fundamentals and asset finance. the reason we worry is we worry that the behavior is inconsistent. people are taking too much risk. sheila was worried about the mismatch that banks were taking.

the fed cannot control the long end of the curve. you will see one of two things. either the fed's policy will work, low probability but it may work. it doesn't need to press the accelerator so much. to echo what john said, this is not about hitting the brake. this is about taking the foot off the accelerator. alternatively, asset prices will come down to reflect fundamentals. when that happens, that becomes a drag on the economy. that is what we worry about most. >> can i make a comment about

the impact? if you think about -- , it was first announced december of last year. the 10 year treasury rate was 1.7 at both of those times. it got to 1.9 this week. i'm sorry, 2.9 this week. i see no positive effect from this quantitative easing. it is just not there. i know many people think it is a boost to the stock market, but if you look at fundamentals, you can explain a lot of what is happening. i think people need to realize, we don't know the impact of these policies. it is experimental. i see them as negative.

to me, it is a reason to get out. i am not the only one. i can give you a long list of experts as well. they worry this is a drag. there is going to be a negative as you get out of it. ultimately, i think it will be better. >> mohammed, to your point on interest rates at zero in 2016, obviously the fed has said that when it tapers purchases, it will keep zero interest rates in place until the labor market improves. are zero interest rates a trap? we are trying to unwind these policies. japan has been the poster child for that. they have been pursuing quantitative easing for 20 years. >> at the risk of beingare

there staying underestimating the impact. if the counterfactual is other parts of policies will get their act together than they are trapped. if they are discouraging the moral hazard argument because they are allowing politicians to -- complacent and they are a trap. if the alternative is no support for the economy, they are not a countercaused the factual is much worse. i want to go back to this notion of what is happening underneath. i have a 10 year old daughter so i am particularly sensitive to the details of the unemployment report. and i look at two things among them. what is youth unemployment?

school.ave less 29%.sis if your main unemployed for long you become unemployable. there are people who are like you but have not sat at home doing nothing. that number, the longer it persists, anything that can support the economy as better. and the unemployment rate. is the measure, if college degree it is seven percent. finished hight school it is 11%. i want to talk

about the state of the u.s. financial system. there is the five-year anniversary of the collapse of lehman brothers. what is the state of the banking system now? >> i think it is safer than it thein the lead up to financial crisis but it is not as safe as it should be. so many of the roles that we need to have have not been finalized yet. we have got more capital onto banks. i worry about the sustainability those --ver time you and those rules have not been

finalized yet. there will be a 60 day comment. there is -- they are a work in they were proposed a year ago by the fed. very courageous rules especially in interconnectedness. we saw of the meltdown in 2008. there is a lot of pushback to weaken that and we do not know what will happen. the volcker rule is still out there. people have different views about the impact of that but it is important from a legal standpoint to get these roles done. there has been some progress, not nearly enough. largeare focused on financial institutions. started.ely >> you brought up how regulators are doubling capital

requirements for the eight most interconnected banks. been in favorave of strengthening them create you think this is a good idea. do banks have -- what -- will they have sufficient padding question mark >> i have been the group that i shared -- that i chaired, they are at six percent now. .nly five percent behink the minimum should eight. six is still a huge improvement. i was surprised the dead went through -- went with the weaker number. i hope the fed will change that. tremendously are

positive and very meaningful and hand will. another $90tes are billion in capital. i hope we can strengthen those rules even further. capital gives you a stable financial system. we do not know what the next stupid thing will be. if you have capital there is a next her cushion of losses. we have learned these hybrid lots ofnts are not have absorbing capacity. that has changed. some progress but i think of all the things that have been done so far for standards for banks. new rules act to curtail lending? good time toever a raise capital. in 2006 when i became chairman, we were hitting -- we were fighting off this which would

have let the largest institutions take on more leverage. all the studies show they would not take on leverage and we fought it off. we were hearing from banks, we do not need more capital. these good times will last forever. we know how to manage our risks. let us use as much leverage as we want. in bad times, you cannot raise our capital treaty would hurt our ability to lend. i tune it out at this point. an interesting thing. risk weight now is you have a pretty tough capital requirement for loans. it is securities and derivatives and have extremely high leverage funding so with the leverage ratio you will be reducing the capital advantage of securities and troubadours over lending. >> if the new capital requirements do go do go

through, what it cause the nation's largest angst to be -- break up and become smaller? >> there is a lot of hyperbole. they probably -- they may need to get smaller. people say that is terrible. i do not think that is a bad thing at all. >> do you think downsizing would unlock economic growth western mark >> that is right. it is complexity more than size. large --nly that the the larger you are the difficult it is for you to manage. part of the book will be reduced i do not think that is about thing. if the fed continues with higher levels of leverage it might move into the holding company. there is less revelatory scrutiny so i don't think that is a good result at all.

there are studies that show the better capitalized extreme or lending and they do more when you get into a downturn. that is why you saw the smaller banks doing a lot more lending during the crisis than the big ones. those are the ones that were suffering the market losses. that loansnly said give us the crisis and there were a lot of that mortgage loans out there. what accelerated and magnify those losses were the structured product. all the synthetic derivatives and mortgage back securities. the sudden losses on those and magnification through the derivatives decision, that is what got us into trouble. the underlying loan losses as substantial as they were, long -- loans accumulate over time. they are not marked to market. i think the system could absorb that. lendingbanks to do more

is a positive thing. >> what is your sense of doubling the capital requirements for the eight largest most interconnected banks, how will it impact the flow of credit and the economy question mark >> it is not -- some of them have higher already. wells fargo, the numbers are probably above. we will have to see. i think it is correct to look at this leverage ratio rather than the risk weight at some extent. the numbers show leverage ratios from three percent to six percent on average. i don't think a percent is going to be a problem. why are you doing this is the question. partly it is to reduce the risk in the system. also, if there is another panic, then we have these from time to time, you don't want the government to get into another mode of having to bail out. that is a dangerous situation. by having more capital, i think

subordinate debt can help as well. you reduce that risk. that would improve the financial system. >> a couple of senators have proposed the idea of -- good idea? >> i think that idea will gain a lot of traction. i think other than that, i welcome it because it puts directional pressure on regulators saying, we don't think you are doing enough. i like the fact -- to have a 15% leverage ratio higher than the minimum. i think that is positive. i have argued in my book that i don't like insured deposits. i would like to see all of that moved out. as long as there are strict

firewalls. make the market fund it. it will be more expensive if the market has to fund it. i think that will create activities. that is what i have argued, a complete split by statute. i think it is tremendous that the bill has been introduced. it goes to the right place. it puts more pressure on regulators to do more. >> let's talk about what needs to be done to pull america out of this tepid period of growth. you spoke to it a little bit earlier but if you could delve in more. >> we need to do two things. we need to boost growth to its potential.

secondly, we have to enhance potential growth. the first step is going back to what i spoke about. actual growth is held back by first a lack of structural reform. everything from infrastructure to facilitating the labor market. labor mobility is going down. giving clarity to companies of what the fiscal regime is going to look like. that is important if you are planning to invest. that is one reason why companies prefer to hold cash. you have a whole set of structural reforms that can enhance productivity, that can contribute to money being put back into the system. i believe that you can safely

expand aggregate demand. edit more fiscal, focused on infrastructure. i think the return investment in this country is high. for those who didn't live like john and i did through the market crisis, a debt overhang discourages new capital from coming in. if you don't know, think of detroit. would you lend to detroit today? you wouldn't. you would want to find out what happens to others who lend to detroit. there is the longer-term agenda. that has to do with potential growth. that speaks to education. it speaks to some micro things that we should be doing. one of the problems of the fed being the center of attention is it diverts discussion away from other things.

there is this whole set of other things that are more important for us and for the next generation, that this whole narrative have shifted away from. >> as chief of the white house global council of economics, what types of new projects are you working on? >> you have promoted me. [laughter] i am grateful to be chair of the council on global development. the notion is very simple. part of securing u.s. national security and economic future and living in a global neighborhood that is more prosperous. it has had numerous advantages. the idea is to contribute and

bring in outside perception. we are a council made of people from very different backgrounds and experience. it is a wonderful collection of people. we have gotten to know each other over the last few months and we are working on a few major initiatives. our hope is to supplement what is going on within government. enhancing america's contribution. >> how do we rejuvenate the american economy? >> i think we need stronger political leadership.

our elected officials -- we don't have a fiscal policy. the lack of attention on job creation has been astonishing to me. as i have said before, i think there are different ways to approach it. i am big on tax reform. i think adding rid of these unexpected expenditures where the government is giving you a tax benefit versus what made more economic sense, are very harmful. make us more competitive internationally. i think we should do major infrastructure spending during national infrastructure bank. it should fund self-sustaining projects. i think we should do it. we should be all in. that is a better role for government than subsidizing housing.

i would love to see that. republicans have a long tradition of supporting infrastructure spending in the past. we need to get smarter about education policies. we need to retrain the workforce with greater technical expertise. we need immigration reform done right. we also need to make sure there are jobs. we need to make sure there are jobs there for them. those would be on the top of my list. people just seem to want excuses for not doing anything. back to my earlier point, i'm afraid they will say the government can't do anything. they don't try any more. >> mexico had this problem. i don't know if you saw this article last week. their economy and country very much drifted off.

now, they have new leadership in place and they essentially made a pact to compromise. is that something we need to do? >> when i worked in the senate in the 80s, you're a member of at stuff. 86 tax reform. cleaning up the tax code of as many expenditures as you can. those were all compromises. republicans and democrats worked together. it worked. it gave us many years of prosperity. it would be lovely to see that again. now, it is more people in our markets and political system. you're focusing on your next election cycle. i don't get that. why do you want to be in public service if you are not leaving?

you have a responsibility to govern. that is what taxpayers are paying you for. >> professor taylor, how do we jumpstart the economy? >> the paperback version of my book on this is just out. it is called first principles. when you look at our recent history, you see the kind of things that make the economy strong and weak. i pointed to five things. the more we pay attention to the rule of law, predict ability of policy, emphasis on market incentives and the role of government judged on cost- benefit analysis. based on the philosophy, i think it is pretty clear. on fiscal policy, there is still unpredictability. there are two budgets out there. they are so far different from each other. that has to be settled. we didn't mention entitlement

reform. don't forget that. that is where the big debt issue in the future is coming. some certainty about that would provide predict ability. on the tax code, i agree 100%. it is a no-brainer that we need to get corporate rates down and reform the personal system. tax reform has got tied into the notion that you need more revenues. classic tax reform, it worked with president kennedy and reagan. you reduce rates and expand the base. it creates economic growth. we got away from that. one of the things that i think we need to face up to is we have had a lot of regulatory

increases in the last few years. dodd frank has a huge number of regulations. any rules haven't been written yet. that is a drag. the new healthcare law, there is a lot of uncertainty about that. that affects behavior. that is a drag on the economy. we have to think about how we deal with that. compromising isn't easy. there are different philosophies about what will work and what won't. that is why discussions like this are helpful. it is sometimes doing the right thing, not just compromising for compromising sake. >> i agree on entitlement reform. the regulatory uncertainty is very important. i get frustrated with all the pushback on getting the rules finalized because our system has proven to be very resilient. the financial service industries interest is to get this done.

>> let's talk about the president's proposal for tax reform. the president is proposing to cut the corporate tax rate to 28% from 35% and a limited loopholes. it has been fuzzy on the treatment of overseas profits. the president has said in exchange for simple tax systems, he would like to use one-time funds to repair roads and bridges and improve community college system. >> there is an example of a tax reform that meets a test john taylor put up. lower the rate, expand the base. it is better for growth and provides an opportunity to invest in something that we need that private public partnership can't do easily.

there are certain things in infrastructure we need where you need the public sector to take the lead. i would go back to the president's job plan last year. most people would agree too many components of this. it didn't go anywhere. it speaks to what john said which is, the minute a proposal is put forward, the political system encourages not consensus building and modification to make it a better proposal, but the political system encourages that it should die. that is a problem. it has not to do only with the cycle, but the reality of something that has been written about a lot. if your morning for reelection, you are most likely threatened by the extreme of your party.

that impacts behavior when you're in the government. that is why good proposals are not even discussed on the basis of merit. >> i think that is a technical question. i agree with both. tying them together, there is an issue about whether that is smart. i think getting corporate tax reform done itself is important. capitalizing infrastructure bank is important. whether you're going to end up getting either one -- i don't know. my commentary would be tactical, not so much policy. >> this is a very important question. when you talk about tax reform, it is best to think about tax reform -- the goal is more growth, more revenues, lower unemployment. tax reform means lowering those rates and broadening the base. basically, you're not trying to generate more revenue.

-- you arently linking these other things and that reduces the chance. way that, the classic president reagan got through. it would be a tremendous boon to let aloneform done just the corporate side of the personal site as well. what about the unlocking of gas.amounts of oil and

could that be something to reinvigorate growth but also bringing manufacturing back to the u.s.. >> it is very important important thing. it is an example of where regulatory policy makes a big difference. if you encourage these kinds of activities and do not discourage them that could be a tremendous bone. it reflects the recent to be optimistic about the united economy has a huge weight i find it. if you remove that way, we can get back to a higher growth rates. i am worried this recovery will never be a real recovery. we may never get back to that. but there is this great potential in the united states. energy is just one example. >> going back to taking a card out of mexico. passing a law to make members of

congress compromised. >> with this new and administration, mexico is even better. but mexico has been doing pretty well relative to the united states during this expansion. the net immigration flow has actually become zero. between mexico and the united states, because the mexican economy has done better than the american economy in the last few years. and until recently, the emerging markets themselves. it is almost like they're trading places. we used to encourage the emerging markets to follow these principles, and they have for the most part. at least there look -- they're moving in that direction, and we seem to be moving away. it is discouraging. we should be following the cut the principles that made this country great more than we have been recently. going back to monetary policy, they have been jolted to some extent by our own monetary

policy. the headlines yesterday in the wall street journal, india is shocked by the removal of quantitative easing. we have done some of this ourselves. the more we can get back to our principles, the better off we will be. >> what about immigration reform? it is obvious the fluid piece of legislation depending on the form of the bill takes, if it gets through, is that something that could boost economic growth as well as the social security system? >> it will be good for growth and also for politics. it will be something that people can point to. we're not there yet, but i hope we can be. but i would not say it is the magic bullet to get the economy moving. >> any thoughts on immigration reform? >> i think we should have added a while ago. if you just look at what is being proposed and will -- and if you look at the impact long

term, not that it has any short- term negative effects, but again, it speaks to a political system that cannot get its act together. let me mention one other thing. john introduced it. there are two views about the world and the u.s. and global economy. the one view is the stronger we are, then the better the global economy is, and therefore, we should do whatever it takes to get stronger, or regardless of what the economic realities are. that is one view. the other view is we are the issuance of the global currency issuer of the global currency. we provide a lot of public goods. we are in the middle of the global system. we hold it together. and therefore, when we implement policies, we need to be about

the feedback loops through the rest of the world. what is happening today, to pick up on what john has said, when you look at the newspapers, the rest of the world finds it very difficult to navigate a world in which the u.s. is speeding the way it is. and the results of that is that the most powerful engine of growth in the last few years, the american world, is slowing down. and the reason why u.s. companies had been able to do well despite the sluggish economy in the u.s. is because they have been selling abroad. now the risk is we see increasing policy of coherence in countries like brazil, indonesia, not because they have suddenly become a net, but because it is very difficult to navigate a global system with that is so fluid with capital flowing in and out. they will tell you that they are dealing with what is called tourist spots.

when a tourist goes to a developing country, they normally go with great enthusiasm. they're going to go see a lot of nice things, etc. then suddenly, something goes wrong and they don't know the country well enough. the first reaction is to go to the airport and get out. a lot of capital has been pushed out of the u.s. and has gone to countries -- it's called crossover capital. is not dedicated capital, but crossover capital, where investors do not fundamental interest and the risks they are underwriting. the minute something goes wrong, even if it is temporary and reversible, the temptation is to bring the money out. that is what you're seeing going on right now in the emerging world. that is destabilizing to countries that have been pursuing a pretty good policies so far.

>> we have just a couple of minutes left. i will go ahead and open up the far too many journalists and members of the press -- open up the floor to journalists and members of the press who have questions. >> you mentioned entire reform and one of things that came up with health care. healthcare has been deemed the biggest threat to the government in terms of paying for things. that being said, what can we do about that? should we continue with the affordable care act? should we adopt a single payer system? obviously, doing nothing will not work. what would you recommend? >> the programs already existing for a long time, like medicare, for which the projections of spending are just growing and growing -- and we also of social security as well. but in the case of medicare, there is a bipartisan agreement that we need to control the

growth. the president a couple of years ago said it should not grow much more than gdp. the house republicans have also agreed. there's a difference on how to do that. house republicans wanted to decentralize, as you know. and the president wanted to centralize it. it seems to me that is something we could come to agreement on. it is really not about current retirees. it is about future retirees. people know it has to be addressed. i would try to go after the medicare issue. and of course, the affordable care act is even more difficult now because it has become so partisan. but it is also something that could be improved. but in the meantime, focus on entitlements that are clear the expenses right now, like medicare. >> one more question. >> i want to get your reaction, specifically on the story in the

wall street journal with it to the financial crisis and when you were prosecuting banks. attorney-general holder announced he's getting ready to bring a bunch of new cases and i wanted to get your reaction to that. is this because we are five years into the crisis and these cases were to complicated to get to them quickly? it is tied to the anniversary of the crisis? are there cases out there that are still prosecutable? what about the statute of limitations? >> there is a five-year statute of limitations. that may be part of it. i think philemon university -- anniversary, scrutiny, a lot -- the lehman brothers anniversary, scrutiny, a lot of that. you want enforcement actions and the accountability for people who break the law. it helps our markets.

having the accountability and the certainty of enforcement actions helps to make sure there is full compliance and generates the kind of behavior is that we want to see in our financial system. when you have enforcement, that is because there's political pressure to do it. that troubles me, too. i wish we would have had earlier energy on this and more consistency about the kinds of cases we are bringing, the kind of the years we are targeting. -- of behavior's we are targeting. why isn't there consistency in the enforcement? i do worry when enforcement actions become a response to political pressure, or perhaps other reasons, that you lose the benefit of enforcement, which is accountability and changing the bears. i should not be so negative. maybe the positive is that good enforcement action will be consistent and their archives of the bears that need to be addressed, but we just don't

know yet. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know. i did see the article. i don't know. the enforcement priorities of this department have confused me. it is not myspace, so i don't talk with them regularly. i do wish there had been a more robust policy. but again, when it is consistent and send clear signals about unacceptable behavior, looking into more -- rather than looking into discretionary type things or responding to political pressure. >> that is all the time we have. thank you for your excellent insight. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> attendees at the march on washington recall their experiences of the event followed by judges discussing legislation during defendants the right to counsel in federal cases. it are, a forum on the state of the u.s. economy with former fdic chair sheila bair. the rising costs of social security disability insurance program. and a look at the future of lucky martin's $1.5 trillion at 35 fighter jet for graham. mark avender on his article, charthe nsa's massive org likely looks like. every day at 7 a.m. eastern. a. philip randolph institute hosted a panel focusing on the

1963 march on washington and its 50th anniversary. speakers include a four ndebele naacp president and medgar evers. jackson.ev. jessie here on c-span. tracks let's again with a very known -- a very well known american novelist. what brought you to the march on washington? rex i could say the fact that i was born a negro in this country. more concretely, i felt there was no reason not to be involved in what impressed me as being the most significant, the most important, the most loaded demonstration to free americans. that has ever happened in this country. >> like most americans i expressed my support of civil

rights by talking about it at cocktail parties, i am afraid. like many americans the summer, i could no longer pay only lip service to a cause that was so urgently right and in a time that is so urgently now. next sunday, american history tv marks the 50th anniversary of the march on washington with historic and contemporary discussions, archival film, a theater performance on the 1960s civil rights movement, and firsthand accounts of the day. it starts at 1 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv. every weekend on c-span3. several americans who are dissipated on the march on washington tell their story on tuesday marking the 50th anniversary of the march where martin luther king delivered his "i have a dream was quote speech. speech.e a dream"

>> when our archivist suggested that i conduct oral histories with people who attended the march, i jumped at the opportunity to hear first-hand accounts of the day that i like many of you had only done up -- known about through books, and media reflections. these are inut journeys people took 1963. we put out a call for people who had been to the march to be interviewed and the panel is here today with the first to answer that call. it is important to note that this is the beginning of an ongoing project and we are collecting not only oral histories but also memorabilia and other artifacts from the march archives. were rightpanelists under my nose as they were regular attendees to the black studies lecture series that takes place in the black studies

center. when i announced the project the elect -- they volunteered to participate. the other two contacted na about their stories. developingut the social consciousness and the reasons for their being present. although each came to the march from different places and had different motivations, they all share a passion for justice and equality and believe in taking action to achieve those goals. to have thehumbled opportunity to sit and listen to the experience of these dynamic individuals and i am honored to introduce them to you today. i will begin with the only woman on this panel. dr. kelly was born in columbia, south carolina in 1939 but

raised in new york city. she graduated from. beecher still high school, a prestigious all-girls institution. she began her undergraduate career at the state university of new york on the but completed her degree where she was the first female elected. and where she had the opportunity to attend the famous debate between malcolm x and they are dressed in. she went to earn a doctorate. dr. kelly speaks several languages including greek, french, spanish, and mandarin. at the time of the march on washington, she was a teacher and the washington, d.c. public school system but rather than march with the teachers union she chose to attend the march as perhaps the only african- american volunteer. i know this because i have learned so much about her in the past few months. was born and

washington, d.c. in 1944 where his dad had a wartime posting with the navy. his yankee parents moved to north carolina when he was a little boy and he grew up in north carolina where he felt a bit like an anthropologist in a foreign land. the only yankee minister innis town at the conversational churches heavily attended reacted to the events of the early civil rights era by networking with like ministers and by the late 1950s, they formed a mixed race youth group which mr. hager was part of. this timely lesson and working for justice and human equality propelled him to walk into -- from ohio to be here. the same values moved him to join the peace corps in the later 1960s and has informed his local activism in the decades since as he has accumulated 10 civil disobedience arrests. he also hold a ba and masters -- and masters degree from harvard university and architecture and

history respectively. he is the only panelist who googled me prior to our interview. he found that i was a poet and has been sharing his poetry with me. bailey was born in 1938 in georgia but raised in tuskegee, alabama where he experienced a titanate -- a tight-knit community. militaryerved in the prior to attending howard university. in 1964, he became a journalist and writer. he is a former associate editor and president of the association of black journalists. he has written several books. he was a founding member of the organization malcolm x started before his untimely assassination. of afro-ization american unity. despite his get kisses him about the leadership, he joined a bus

and attended the march because he knew it would be s -- a historic occasion. he brings experience, which, and wisdom to the black studies found -- center. our next guest was raised in gro ss pointe. in 1961, he was active with the michigan young democrats and the congress on racial equality. as aedits john f. kennedy major influence. in 1961, he moved days before his 20th earth day. he had attended the northern virginia center of the virginiay of and george mason university. he was in the senior staff of the national science teachers association as assistant executive director for advertising exhibits and exhibitor workshop sales. he was elected to the board of directors of the mattee

chine society. also one of the founders of the gay and lesbian alliance. he has an incredible memory displayed by his tendency to recall events not just by the date but down to the day and the week. -- of the week. i am going to ask each panelist to respond to three questions. three to five minutes piece and after those questions are answered, i will open the floor to questions. the first question. start. the first question, why did you attend the march on washington for jobs and freedom on august 28, 1963? >> i have always been a very

serious history buff to getting one i was a student howard university and came under the influence of dr. harold lewis who in the first day of class said to us, "in this class you will study the history of the rest of the people in the world. from then on i became very serious. i went to the march, i was living in harlem. i went to the march for historic reasons. i knew it would be a historical event is by the fact that coming heard brotherd malcolm speak for the first time on 116th street in harlem. he spoke for three hours and by the time the speech was over i ite.a malcolm he gave me the perception on which to view the country in the world that i still use.

i went to the march with that brothersm because malcolm was calling it the farce on washington. we were reading about james baldwin not being able to speak, john lewis being told he had to change his speech, and we heard a rumor that they were told you had better the out of d.c. by sundown. we went down there, those of us with that kind of skepticism about the whole thing. i think on the bus going down, my roommate and i were the only two people with that attitude. everyone else was extremely excited. i was not disappointed. i really did not expect anything >> i participated as a red cross volunteer and you might ask why did i not participate with all the unions and so forth.

there were several reasons. at a, i taught history junior high school in the district of columbia. i have always been a history buff like here. i encouraged my students always to take advantage of the history that was present here in the district of columbia. but also as a teacher, i did not make much money and so i used to volunteer with the red cross. mainly because in those days you did not have that many organizations who provided transportation and wards seven and eight for children so they could go to at the and other cultural events. they needed a driver so i started in 1962 giving up one saturday a week working for the red cross where i would drive a huge bus to a center and wards seven and eight, pick up the kids, take them to baseball games and to

the beach and so forth and so on and i enjoyed it. it was something that allowed me to see other aspects of the children whom i was teaching in the classroom. and so when it was announced that the march was going to take lace, they needed volunteers and i volunteered to do so. the second reason was that i grew up in new york city. thetepfather was a chef on new york central railroad, was a member of the philip randolph union. in my family, going back a couple of generations, we had garveyites, we voted for h enry wallace. money but a lot of lyrical activism. the third reason is i went to one of these college prep high

was singlet gendered. in the days before feminism, there were schools where young girls like the were told to go out and conquer the world and we believed it. i it was a part of who a part ie time, it was felt passionately about. i also felt that this was going days wheref those someone says where were you on this particular day, i wanted to be part of it. guess my introduction -- wened that he had y had moved to north carolina when i was three and i began to see things in the south from the viewpoint of my parents. by the early 1950s, my parents had decided that the southern presbyterian church and we had not realized that there was a difference between northern but

most of the churches had a schism during the pre-civil war and the first years of the civil war and my parents felt uncomfortable there until they discovered a yankee minister at the confrontational church and by 1956 or 1957, he was inviting a few black people to come and sit on the aisle in the first couple of rows. i do not think many other -- no other churches but very few in north carolina would have in doing that. by the late 1950s they had established a black-white youth group that i was in and i saw on rock and byittle the time the freedom riders were getting beaten up my it was goingthat this was only to get more difficult, more complex. -- a late spring of 1960 was dr. king's arrest with almost 2000 children in

birmingham and we saw that and the dogs and the fire hoses on television. it became -- came to my ears that in the summer of 1963, there was going to be an effort called free schools in prince edward county, virginia. the segregationist county leaders had closed the schools three or four years before and there had been no schooling for lax and of course they reopened private schools for the whites. and so i wrote to the organization and volunteered to teach that summer. i had one year in college. i heard nothing and i went back to my family. i went back to ohio from the summer and halfway through i got a letter from robert kennedy's justice department say that i approvedexamined and and my sentient is he were looking to make sure that no communists would show up in

prince edward county and indoctrinate the kids. was done andummer i continued my job in a factory in ohio. obviously when there was something else that was not as big as teaching for the summer, something else to do to be on the right side, i suck my thumb out on the morning of the 27th and got some good rides and got into town. [laughter] >> i had first come to washington in january 1961 for john kennedy's inauguration. i had met john kennedy on labor day, even worked in the kennedy campaign in michigan. at theto washington end of 1961. it was the first -- i had never racismnced the degree of

and segregation that i found in washington. an example, my late partner then worked for the house of appropriations committee. there were 22 white males on the staff. he was going to stereotype institution of washington to learn to be a stenotype reporter. only whites could attend the institute as was the case with businessshington's schools. i got my first job with union trust company, a bank at 15th and a street. go over to an employment agency which had an agreement with union trust. they would send only white applicants. --even though i was

white but i was also gay. i felt the discrimination and prejudice against any one group is against all groups, and i felt a constant need for change. on wednesday morning, august 20 8, 1963, i left my apartment at 108 4th street. we had a private bus company, dz transit. -- d.c. transit. unionsgroups and labor were forming. my father -- because my father was a member of the united auto workers in detroit, he worked for chrysler corporation, i w downd with the ua constitution avenue to the lincoln memorial.

that afternoon, i was on the left-hand side of the reflecting pool halfway down. when you saw on the film the temporary report to buildings. buildings.ar ii because there was a fear that there was going to be right, president kennedy had declared a virtual state of martial law and my office was closed. every march or picket that i know about. this is what i did. thank you. >> thank you. the second question, what were the most memorable aspect of the day, did you have a favorite performance? crowd, although

grape down with skepticism of anything positive happening -- great skepticism of anything positive happening. in tuskegee and i ran into 200 friends from tuskegee. i do not know how we ended up fighting each other. i did not try to get very close. i was above the reflection pool. me, it was the crowd. it was seeing the largest of the crowd.

. .

his name is wilfredo santiago. he is 28 years old. five years ago he was a corporate and that ring core, serving in iraq. at that time, he had been a marine for five years since he was 18 years old. according to the government, in 2008, he accidentally shot a fellow soldier.

there is no allegation that the shooting was intentional. at the time, the military investigated the case. there was an iraqi witness and fellow soldiers. they decided not to pursue court-martial proceedings. flash forward five years, he is now a civilian and was honorably discharged from the marines. he is married with a one year old a doctor and he is in college in the bronx with a 3.9 gpa ready to become a teacher and he gets a knock on the door. esther santiago, you are under arrest for the reckless assault concerning a shooting in 2008, 5 years ago in iraq along with some counts relating to false statements back then. there are witnesses literally all over the world. former serviceman colleagues who are across the country. there are iraq you witnesses.

i do not have money in my office to send investigators around the world to talk to witnesses in this case. we are in the process -- we have filed over 50 pages worth of briefs relating to his due process challenges to the fact that the government waited five years to bring these charges. deeply damaging his ability to mount a defense. we will have hearings in the fall. i do not know how it will turn out, but we have three options. we can tell the judge we need to

get off this case because we cannot afford to properly defend him. two, we do not do the investigation that needs to be done which we simply won't do. or three, we can ask a judge to appoint a private attorney who will seek reimbursement from the federal government for all of the investigation costs involved in the case. the options involve either spending more money than we would spend on the case or not doing our jobs. they are equally absurd options. i will and there, but i want to say this. not all of our clients are saints. not all of our clients are worthy of praise, necessarily. but they are all, like every one of us in this room, complicated human beings. sometimes because of substance abuse. sometimes it is mental illness. other times because of more mundane reasons that all of our lives are complicated. simple regrets or failed backgrounds. our lawyers get up every day and stand by the clients. they stand by complicated human beings caught up in a terrible moment in their lives and they

fight for them. they thereby fight for all of us and we ought to be supporting them. thank you. [applause] >> you can all see why david patten is the defender in new york. if you were charged for your daughter or son were charged, would you say i got a public defender? you would say, inc. god i got a public defender who can speak like this to the issues. -- thank god i got a public defender who can speak like this to the issues. the underfunding of the state systems described in terms of his critique of us not living up to our obligations all the time for the provision of the right to counsel has been playing out.

i would like to turn to thomas about what happens when you start a defense function. >> thank you. it is sad and it is difficult. it is also a little funny to hear the federal system now having to talk about suffering under the lack of funding. there is a very mean part in me. i was a public defender in new york city for 10 years. there is a man on my shoulder who laughs and says, welcome to my house. we did for lows. the third year we had a 30% cut. we had southern attorneys accounting. this is what we do everyday, all day. this is what we do to poor

people. we may -- we mentioned a minute ago about attorneys not being resident at the first appearance. someone said about federal offenders being present. being present all the way through. that is not the nuance for our system. many people are processed and never see the defender at all. it is not right. the state system is the main system by which we put people in cages in this country. it is unfortunate to now be in the same boat. for too long we traveled separately. i run a network called the community-oriented defender network.

we are state-level defense service providers. i have been really focused on changing the narrative. one of the things that we see and we are saying it's a little bit larger is the consequence of what happens when you hate entire groups of people. this criminal justice system has been aimed at the adult black male. it has now expanded to include all poor people, all immigrant people, all people with mental health -- we are the nations largest mental health service provider. this system has gotten out of control. the more out-of-control it gets, the more friends i get. i am happy we have found a common cause and i hope we will continue these discussions. i appreciate reaching out because state defenders have a lot to tell federal defenders

about how you do something with nothing. that being said, i promised myself i'm not going to curse, that is probably not going to happen if you ask me a question about the system. the fact is, and i understand the praise that we give to the constitution. i understand this is a pretty decent system in writing. it is a horrid system in reality. it was never what it should be. we have never done right by poor people in this country and in this criminal justice system. we are not even close. the truth of it is, if i got arrested right now and charged with a federal crime, if i could not get the chief of the defender office, i would go ahead and mortgage my house and get myself a private guy who has five cases this year, only one of which went to trial. that is what would happen. i am not saying this as a hypothetical. if you want to see people run

from their criminal justice system and not eat in their own restaurant, watch a judge, a prosecutor, watch a defender have a loved one get a case. at the first thing we do is get out of the system however we can. we want the highest level person. i want what you want. when i was talking to the judges and other people in the legislature about the funding, that is another issue we talk about, i give the example. i would get out of the system, that is a shame. i say to them, is it all right for your children to get out of the system, why is it all right for mine to be stuck in it? the constitution does not say, unless you do not have money. unless we don't like your community, you get justice. it says, you get justice. we have never funded the system appropriately.

what we need is more allies to press this case. the prosecutor's face shortfalls. the reason they don't face the same as us is they hold up pictures of dead babies. they hold up pictures of terrorism. they say, this is what will happen if you don't keep our funding. what happens -- and this is why i am here -- what happens when you don't fund the defense process? one of the things that happens and we have touched on it already, but i don't think hard enough -- innocent people go to prison. that is a statement. everyone can agree with us. we know what happens in american prison. right? if you are taken down the robbery suspect, he will be considered a violent felon. he will be housed a violent felon. he is likely to become a victim of sexual assault. his family members are more likely to go to prison

statistically, especially if he has a son. and her member, he did not do anything more than you did. we are a check on the system. we are not a sporadic check on the system. every case when it comes in the door looks like his case. every one of them. if you do not have investigators and social workers when you talk about mental health, you do not know which one is which. he came in looking the same as every one of my clients. i did not do it, i don't know why they said i did it, i don't know what they are talking about. that is what he said when he started, right? and then we have to figure it out. if you do not have an investigator, what do you do? nothing.

if you do not have the resources, what do you do? nothing. that is what will happen in this case if this person does not get better representation. some defenders would have sat down with him and spent the three hours that investigators should have spent doing work convincing him to take those 10 years and they would have gone at him hard. they would talk to him the same way i do. i have are presented 10,000 clients over the course of my career and as a supervisor 15 house and directly. -- 15,000 directly. 20 is less than 10. did i say 20 is less than 10? 10 is less than 20. you can see a daughter graduate from college or you can see her when she is in her 30's. you can see your family by the time your child still remembers who you are to have a one-year- old, or you can see them where they don't ever know you are in

their lives. those are the conversations you have to have because the reality imposed upon us by a lack of resources is we must assess cases. -- we must process cases. 97% of all convictions are obtained by police. i think it is actually 94%. you can get even higher. these are not pleased that are taken after hearings. these are pleased that are taken instead of testimony, instead of getting information. i am not trying to pick on prosecutors today. but it is a routine by practice. i will give you a chance if you don't make me work. if i don't have to do to discovery and to turn over information, i will give you this number. if i have to work, the number goes up. when i read the constitution, i understand that i am supposed to work. this case is supposed to be what happens after work, not what happens instead of it.

this is interesting and that i will stop. gideon's 50th, as we know, this is the march on washington's 50th. it is interesting for this community who cares area that there is a letter from a birmingham jail's 50th. if you remember that letter, there are two groups of people he singles out as being problematic. i do this is a social justice issue, not as a legal issue. he singles out moderate whites and comfortable negroes. what he said about moderate whites, he compared them to the klan and compared them negatively. he said it is be will during when your friends are doing things behind you that hurt you. what we have here is our friends are hurting us sometimes and the

negotiations we have to go through to fight for the right to counsel. people who are supposedly on my side and say, but he did it, don't -- didn't he? well, these people don't deserve service. if i have to cut through that to get to the bad guy, than i am already in trouble. we have to be much more vigorous and willing to sacrifice. one of the things i will do is try to get put in jail in the next couple of years fighting for the right to counsel. we have to say no to some of this. there is a point where if you have to go forward, some attorney has to say, no. it is not our job to make the system smoother. it is our job to see justice and justice is a difficult aim to

seek. some of us will have to step up and say no. the other thing, as a comfortable negro, i have to be more vigorous. this is an issue of race. i have to say that to every room and at every point of time i can say it whether or not we like to hear it -- actually, because we don't to hear it. we have to acknowledge it. it is part of why we are here. when you think of the war on drugs, you see a black guy. i know you do. if you say you don't, i know you are lying. when we talk about super predators, you see a black man again. you say you don't, i know you do. we talk about urban poverty. while we are here, we have to talk about why certain communities of this way and certain down to. -- certain do not. that being said, i am willing to take questions and i promise you i will curse if you ask me the right question. [laughter] [applause]

>> we have heard david describe what a good defense could look like and what a defense that might be a solid defense will not look like if it is not funded. you have heard thomas described a system where that is totally broken down and also challenged us with some of the broader issues we have to face. in 50 years of the criminal justice act, we are having to discussions. one is describing and reeducating all of ourselves about what the right to counsel means and some of the lessons that maybe we have forgotten. and what an effective right to counsel means.

i think those of us in the criminal defense community is turning it on our selves and are we doing the best we can and living up to our moral requirements. i think the attorney general in his speech at the american bar association last week invites all of us to have some of these discussions. i think the representation function and the right to counsel is definitely part of that. with that being said, i would like to invite kate kark to speak to us as a person who is trying to support the great work that david is doing to challenge and hopefully mitigate some of the difficulties that thomas is describing to try to build a program that is meaningful and addresses some of these issues. >> the stories are powerful. the people are real. the impact on lives, it is not about the other.

it is an impact on all of us. the things we believe most define us often turn out to be the subject of challenge. as a people, and as a country. a democracy as a vast as ours established practices that seem to be zoned all too often to prove more tenuous than once might have appeared. societies passed down their institutions through a kind of social chromosome. the question before us along the way is whether the judiciary and the right to counsel in particular no longer occupies a prominent secure gene in our

national dna. my closest adviser recently said to me as i was bemoaning the right to sequestration in my new counsel which i do every day as my job, i managed the federal defenders and the panel attorneys and our office of defender services within the judiciary. we are under siege, all of us. i said to him, one morning, early, maybe the country doesn't find the right to counsel for those who cannot afford to hire counsel a necessary expenditure anymore. he said, simply, it may no longer be part of our democratic dna. have you ever thought about that?

i responded all fired up him up but it is the sixth amendment. it is a fundamental strand of our constitution. it is not negotiable. he calmly responded, you have seen considerable indifference at the state level. and now, perhaps, it is hitting the federal public defense. nobody is going to be against it, but to what extent are they willing to sacrifice to provide for it? may be in this current era, the country simply cannot afford first class counsel as a right anymore. maybe the country doesn't believe it is a high priority and that important anymore. maybe, they have to be re- convinced. it is clear from the stories you've heard that's of the right to counsel and the judiciary are being threatened.

it is not being threatened by people of ill will. it is being threatened by events. evidence have to be a dressed less sweet air rep ugly -- irreparably damaged the thing that makes us different and singular as a country. in this situation of sequester, in this era restates our markings, not celebrating gideon's 50th, bemoaning gideon's 50th, if this is the case, if the trumpets clarion didion once sounded, what does it say about the rule of law and all the foundations of our country and our justice system. this is the big question we need to be asking ourselves.

does every generation have to reclaim and re-a certain the legacy of social justice and constitutional protection? is the dna of our six amendment subject to mutations over time? alas, the answer is yes. so, what do we have to do? you have heard the stories. you have heard the impact. we must reclaim it. we must reignite a commitment. a commitment to the judiciary and a commitment to the rule of law through the sixth amendment. there are three things i would note that we need to do to reignite. we need you, committed people. committed people who seek the judiciary and the sixth amendment as the dna of our constitutional democracy. a vocal commitment, like the powerful words you have heard here today. we hope we will have a dialogue, question and answer because we must not only use our voices,

but we must use the written word and action. two, we need an education campaign. i am not talking about a public relations campaign. we all know how to do that. we have worked the state system and federal systems. we need more. we need an education campaign in all corners from our likely and unlikely allies. the role of the courts is under siege and how important the right to counsel is is in question. specifically, we must ask for certain things. we are calling for a hybrid system in every state and every federal judicial system. what i mean by hybrid system is that we have a strong federal defender organization in every

state and strong panel attorneys with the time, the tools, and of the training to do the job well. defender services provide a point of counsel in over 2000 representations per year. there are 81 federal defender organizations under siege at this moment. both federal defender and unity now serve 91 of the 94 districts. we have 10,000+ who are accepting private assignments. we are cutting away. we are now facing $60.9 million budget shortfalls for next year. we have already had a severe cuts under sequestration and we are heading towards the scope left. the complexity, this is all

happening when the complexity of our federal practices have increased substantially since 1964. the commitment and the time to represent veterans as david gave an example of, to the people who are being stopped and frisked in countless urban areas across the country, we know that we have dedicated people in place. what are we doing to their work, their structures, their training, their support? we know what it takes to serve to produce and deliver effective representation. we have it in place. we need you to do the third thing. help us fund the judiciary and a stronger public defense system that is a hy s i am an

internal optimist. it is time not to let the erosion happen that i worked in for over 28 years. i just entered five years -- it feels like five years. five months ago. [laughter] five months ago, it was my dream job to work for the gold standard, the federal defenders. and it was like walking into a buzz saw. here we are. are. at the very least, what we can do all together in unison and one voice is to ask congress to provide a baseline of steady funding, to protect our adversarial justice that is in our constitutional dna. we should not just compare the defenders to nothing. comparing ourselves to the u.s. attorneys that determine which cases are brought and presented. we must look at a balanced scales of justice. that is our dna.

within those clashes, when you have the training on both sides, the truth rises. the accuracy of the system is better yes, we can reclaim it. our dna helix is are there. fairness. insurance against overreaching representingnment. complicated human beings and bring them dignity. holding the government accountable at every step. every libertarian should be behind that. voice for the voiceless. all men and women are created equal as we walk over from the thurgood marshall judicial building with lots of people in tell -- in tow, there was a 10- year-old who ask, what does it

say about the supreme court pillars? i remember, it says justice for all. so does every generation have to reclaim and reassert the legacy of social justice? of constitutional protection? yes. absolutely. that is why we are here today. this is the start of of the criminal justice act, a year where each month the defender services and judiciary will reclaim our constitutional values. we will educate. we will call you to action and we will recommit the sixth amendment. i thank you for being here for committing and reigniting that value and principal area -- and that principle. [applause] >> thank you for your five years of service.

[laughter] >> i hope i last. >> as a colleague, friend, and mentor of mine said, you come during interesting times. i said, i am not sure i like your definition of interesting. in the midst of all of this sort of chaos and everything, in some ways, breaking apart, we have the opportunity and the obligation to bring it back together again. that is our hope, i think, is to look at what came before. why did we have this occur in the first place. where are we now? where do we want to go for the next 50 years. what is the future we want to build for ourselves? i would like to pick it up from there. i am being a little bit this seizures, but i know that morgan

has worked throughout his career. >> if i could print money, i let mehave the answer. just thank all of my co- panelists. i am sure there are some historians among us at the library of congress. i don't know the last time there was a panel of four defense attorneys here. that also brings to mind something i want to say in response to the judges who issued an impassioned plea on behalf of the judiciary and the -- and the defense function. this isn't part of what i prepared to talk about but it did strike me as something to say. if bar associations can do good things, but there is a special obligation of every lawyer to stand up at a time when rights are under attack and

particularly when the judiciary is in the crosshairs of a budget battle. they are limited in what they can do. we need to be there for the judiciary and the defense function. i call upon all of those who are involved in the legal profession, including prosecutors. maybe most especially prosecutors. and corporate counsel. and everyone who has a lot agree -- law degree understand this a little bit of friendly has to stand up at this time. in this 50th anniversary year, we have had a solid year because the indigent defense system throughout the nation are a diff are a mess. it is overly generous to call them systems. they aren't. experts, attorneys, ngos, have all decried the failure of this country to realize the promise to gideon.

no one of lesser statue then the attorney general has repeatedly throughout his tenure spoken out, most recently at the gideon celebration itself when he said it is time to reclaim gideon's petition and resolve and confront the obstacles that face our indigent defense providers in this country. i do want to note an events that i think was historic. it happened last week. it was basically a challenge to an inadequate, indigent defense system. united states department of justice filed a statement of interest in injunctive relief. this is a breakthrough moment. if you want to talk about something that could give us cause for optimism, this is the most significant development we have seen.

the vindication of sixth amendment rights -- that is big. it is beyond ironic. it is tragic that the one system, the model, the cadillac that we all look to is now in danger of being degraded. i have been working on indigent defense reform for the better part of the decade. what has defamed -- disdained us is the ability to sight of the model we can point to. the subsequent amendments have made that possible. i would like to recall, if i may, what attorney general robert kennedy said when the action was and acted. he said, now it is up to the bar in every community to see that to this act becomes more than a pay bill for attorneys. it is up to the bar to establish

standards and ensuring that a pointed attorneys will not merely be compensated, but they will provide competent defense. and that is precisely what we have had any federal system. it is the hybrid case the defense spoke about. it is a system that has fully resourced defenders supplemented by robust, capable, supervised private attorneys who are providing the necessary complement to the necessary defenders. this collaboration is essential to the system. it is embodied in what we use as the benchmark. it is principle number two. until now, the federal system has complied with eight of the 10 principles. i will talk about those two in

just a moment. those principles include adequate training, eligibility screening, controlled workloads, continuous representation of each client. if the system is degraded, there is little hope we can use this model system to spur reform throughout the states. that is the reality of what will happen if these sweeping cuts are allowed to stand. we cannot afford to let the system sink to the level that you heard thomas described so vividly, which is the reality of most state defender systems. that is where a lawyer spends maybe two or three minutes with a client and enters a guilty plea. mass produce guilty pleas. wrongful conviction. we have not seen those things on the federal side but we could.

this is not an issue about staffing levels or attorney compensation. it is a fundamental constitutional right and access to justice for poor people. we are just talking about having an attorney with a law degree. we are talking about an attorney with specialized skill in criminal defense and with the time and resources to properly investigate, analyze, and prepare a case. it means having access to investigators. it is so critical to get out of there quickly and get the evidence which can exonerate someone. it is access to mental health professionals, social workers, and paralegals. the lawyers who depend upon these panels do not get free research. they have to pay for all of that. studies have been done that show these rates were necessary. they were fought for, long and hard by judges because it is

necessary to support a healthy system. it means having regular training so attorneys are fully informed of developments of the law and science. you cannot mass reduce a quality -- produce a quality defense. you cannot have effective representation if you are going to bid out to the lowest bidder. you cannot subjugate a fundamental constitutional right to being counters and leave it exposed or unprotected to the political winds through this town. if you treat the defense function as a mere line item in a budget, you are short changing budget and will probably spend more money in the long run. advocacy frequently produces the results for the individual and diversion,y.

rehabilitation, reentry. these things all save money and are advanced when you have competent, the zealous, effective advocates for the accused. as i said, the federal defenders and panels have met the challenge up until now. that level of quality cannot be preserved if you don't have the funding. it is not possible. what we have to do is take advantage of this 50th anniversary. i would like to say to move beyond where we are, but first we have to protect what we have. this is a responsibility of congress. as long as it is under the judiciary, it is a fundamental responsibility of the judiciary. i mentioned that the federal system complies with eight out of the 10 principles. let me talk about the two that it does not comply with. first of all, principle number eight. there is to be heritage between

-- there is to be parity between defense counsel with respect to resources. it is included as an equal partner. that is simply not true today. you heard david say it. there is not anything even close to parity. i am talking about the resources that are put into it. i am talking about in this current structure that we have, the ability of the justice department through its budgetary oversight to avoid significant cuts in prosecution services. we don't have that on the defense side. disparity is self-evident throughout the system, but let's also think about whether this is a time to take a look at principle number one. principle number one is that the public defense, including the payment of the defense counsel is independent. for years, because the system has worked well, we have not had

a conversation about that first principle as it applies to the federal system. we have ignored the fact that that principle is not enforced in the federal system. i am not saying that we have easy answers to this. we do know the judiciary has been a wonderful advocate over the years for this function, but is it time now to think about whether this country is ready to have some sort of indigent defense oversight that will protect both our state systems by setting standards that can be complied with and protect the system as well? it seems to me a constitutional right, without which most of the other rights cannot be protected, is something that warns that conversation.-- warrants that conversation. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you, norman. i think norman has perfectly ended our conversation for today, but not for this year because he has discussed some of the things that are good, some of the things that are broken, some of the challenges that we face in order to survive and some of the things we all need to challenge ourselves to make this a better half a century of justice for the american people. i want to echo something that i think kate said it most directly, but i think all of the panelists will agree with. we truly believe in the american experiment. he may find many flaws in the way it is applied, but i didn't think it would show up in the courtrooms if we did not think that some level we have the possibility to do better and should do better. i think -- i don't know. my view is that america is not

the smoothest sailing state, but i think we can do the right thing. that is where america has been and can be a beacon for hope and opportunity and should be a beacon of justice for the world. i would challenge all of you and all of us to work towards that for the next year and of the next 50 years. we will be available to answer any questions you will have during the reception. thank you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> a discussion on the rights of women.

you can watch that i've this morning at 10:00 eastern on c- span3. human health and secretary -- health and human services secretary kathleen civilian is. live coverage starts at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tonight, first ladies. >> frances cleveland is so popular, people are imitating her clothing and hairstyles, but they want a piece of her for themselves. pictures of the first lady became extremely popular. you can purchase your own picture of mrs. cleveland avenue in your home. -- mrs. cleveland in your own home.

runningover cleveland for president, and mrs. cleveland running for first lady. >> the encore presentation of "first ladies" is tonight on c- span. today on c-span, a forum on the state of the u.s. economy is former fdic chair. eastern,at 7:00 a.m. washington journal features a discussion in the rising cost of social security disability insurance am that the future of lockheed martin's of the five strike program and the nsa's operational structure. why just of the press secretary josh earnest to questions from reporters at the daily briefing about allegedly showing syria has used to go weapons on its citizens, including children. you can see the event in its c-span.org.time on here's a look. mostat we think is

important for right now is there actually happens to be the united nations chemical weapons investigative team on the ground in syria. they were just granted access to the country yesterday, i believe. given the reports we have seen overnight about what may or may not have taken place in syria. we think it is important for that investigative team to be given access to that area. the al-assad regime, when presented with evidence that chemical weapons had been used in their country emma had said they are interested in a credible investigation to get to the bottom of exactly what is happened. it is time for them to live up to that claim. if they actually are interested of theing to the bottom use of chemical weapons and whether or not that has occurred in syria, and they will allow the yuan investigative team that accessady in syria to the site or chemical weapons may have been used. it will allow them unfettered

access to eyewitnesses or even those who are affected by the weapons, it will allow them to collect physical samples without manipulation and it will also ensure the security that team as they do their work. the united states will be consulting with our allies and partners on the united nations security council about this. because this is and should be a top priority of the united nations. >> what about u.s. policy should make al-assad feel threatened in any way, feel like you should do this -- should it do this again? >> is not just u.s. policy, but brought international agreement. >> but what about that is threatening to him? >> i can't speak to what he may or may not find threatening. there is no doubt we condemn in the strongest possible terms the use of chemical weapons. you are right. we even said before there was an intelligence community assessment that chemical weapons

have been used that those individuals who are responsible for safeguarding chemical weapons would be held accountable for the way that those chemical weapons are handled. there are a range of consequences for the actions that a possibly taken place. >> but what are the consequences ? how have they been held accountable? given we are having a hard time figuring that out, why should againstl threatened taking this action again? >> it is hard for me to speak to whether or not they feel threatened, but there is a broad the useional view that of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable. even some people who may disagree with us on some aspects of our policy related to syria should be able to agree that the use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and should be able to support a andst and impartial credible investigation into

reports like chemical weapons may have been used. again, how this will affect our policy as it relates to the al- assad regime will continue to involve our consultations with our international partners. we are providing assistance. united states is trying to meet sanitary needs of those refugee those refugees that are forced to flee, talking about women and children living in terrible conditions just trying to avoid the violence. what is happening is a terrible situation. that can be done with our international partners to try to continue to pressure the assad regime. we have seen evidence, and acacias the assad regime is filling up pressure, but we are -- it has not resulted in the outcome we would like to see, which is al-assad been completely removed from power. it is not just the preference of the united states of america, but the will of the syrian people.

on the next "washington journal," the rising cost of social security, disability insurance program. then a look at the future of lockheed martin's f 35 fighter jet program. our guest is frank oliveri. article.se one on the "washington journal" is like on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. -- is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a panel discussion today, the 1963 march on washington and the 50th anniversary. speakers include marlee evers williams, former naacp president and widow of civil rights activist edgar evers. and the cofounder of the student nonviolent core dating committee and reverend jesse jackson of

the rainbow push coalition. you can see it live at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> let's begin with a well-known novelist, one of our best writers, james baldwin. ont brought you to the march washington? >> i could say the fact i was born a negro in this country, the mostretely, i felt important, most noted demonstration to free americans that has ever happened in this country. >> up until recently, like most americans, i expressed my support of civil rights largely by talking about it at cocktail parties, i'm afraid. but like many americans this payer, i could no longer only lip service to a cause that was a urgently right and in a

time that is a urgently now. >> sunday, american history tv marks the 50th anniversary of the march on washington with historic and contemporary roundtable discussions. first-hand accounts of the day. it starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> if we turn away from the needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces which are bringing about the suffering. >> obesity in this country is nothing short of a public health crisis.

>> i think i have little antennas that point out when someone have their own agenda. >> it would be just a shame to waste it. >> i think they serve as a window on the past to what was going on with american women. >> she becomes the chief confidant. women who were first ladies were writers, journalists. >> in many cases they are quite frankly were interested as human beings than husbands. if only because they are not first and foremost to find and limited by political ambition. is one ofroosevelt the unsung heroes. when you go to the white house today, it is really edith roosevelt's white house. statement, there was too much looking down and i think it was a little too fast.

not enough change of pace. >> yes, ma'am. every case the first lady is really done whatever fit her personality and her interests. >> she later wrote in her memoir that she said, i, myself, never made any decision. i only decided what was important and went to present it to my husband. now, you stop and think about how much power that is, it is a lot of power. battle against fear thatto fight the accompanies the disease. >> she transformed the way we look at these bugaboos and made it possible for countless people to survive. i don't know how many presidents

realistically have that kind of impact on the way we live our lives. >> just walking around the white house grounds, i am constantly reminded about all of the people who have lived there before, and particularly, all of the women. "first ladies" a c-span original series produced in cooperation with the white house historical association. season 2 is september 9 as we explore the modern era and first ladies from edith roosevelt to michelle obama. >> next, a discussion about the state of the u.s. economy.

from the national press club, this is one hour. >> good morning and welcome to the national press club. i am jennifer schonberger of the national journalists. the national press club is an organization for journalists. you can learn more about the club online. more than four years after the recession officially ended, the economy is stuck in second gear. gdp has grown less than two percent for three consecutive quarters. that is below the average growth rate of two percent for the duration of this recovery and well below the three percent rate economy has historically grown. incomes are stagnant and unemployment is high at 7.4%. workers dropped out of the workforce because they are discouraged.

the housing market is improving. how much longer will our economy remain stuck in the mud. nearly five years into the financial crisis, what is the state of the banking system now? what can be done to pull america out of this tepid period of growth? we are joined by incredible experts on the panel. mohammed el-erian, ceo of pacific investment management company. sheila bair, senior adviser to charitable trusts. john taylor, professor of economics at stanford university and senior fellow at the hoover institution. he is well-known for the taylor rule, a monetary policy principle that offers guidance on how to tinker with interest rates to control inflation.

taylor served as undersecretary of the treasury during the george w. bush administration and was part of the council of economic advisers. special thanks to mohammed el- erian and mr. taylor for flying from california. i want to kick off the panel with you. you coined the term, the new normal in 2009. your outlook for the economy has been dead on. how much longer is this economy going to remain in the new normal? >> let me take you back to 2009 when the new normal concept came out. the idea was to signal that it would not be your traditional cyclical recovery. unless the mindset in washington changed, and there was a better understanding of the underlying dynamics, we risked getting stuck.

in a keyword of unusually sluggish growth, high unemployment, that is when it materialized. go back to the concept of the economy stuck in second gear. let me push this analogy. it is not just stuck in second gear, it is being driven on a foggy road. there is some good news. we are doing better than others. europe was in reverse and just went to neutral. japan has been neutral for a long time and just jumps to first gear. we are doing better than others. other good news is there is no reason why this economy needs to be driven in second year. this car is capable of being driven in third, fourth, or fifth gear. the question is why? manual transmission in order to shift gears, you need to press the clutch.

you can try doing it otherwise, but you risk -- the minute you start pressing the clutch, you go from what is technologically possible to what is politically feasible. the problem hasn't been that it is not technologically possible, it is just politically not feasible. a couple of things have happened. one is the attempt to shift gets frustrated. you need only look at some pretty good initiatives that have gone to congress and have been almost dead on arrival. the second is you have another driver, the fed, which has been trying to force change but haven't been able to do it using proper instruments. that is why the benefits have been less than what were

expected and the cost or the collateral damage has become a concern. >> where do we go from here? >> let me tell you what should happen. it is important to make the difference between that and what is likely to happen. what should happen is you should have a political coming together on the four things this economy needs. the problem is that the political debate is very -- right now. we need structural reforms. we need more balanced aggregate demand. we need to deal with debt overhang and persistent behavior that underlines this economy. we need some really good micro elements that have to do with the education system and labor retraining. >> until we get that -- >> until we get there, we are stuck at two percent.