spanish] >> this is an important question, because there are many people who have a status, but can fluctuate at any moment. there are asians, salvador he are people whoe have been in this country 25 years. there is a large community where issues still have not been finished. to settle these once and for also they know with certainty what their future is. in the senate there are wonderful proposals in order to

quicken the pathway to green cards for those with temporary redemptive status. i support that. i would hope that would be in a bill within the house of representatives. let me try to be very, very clear. , and theing to fight first priority we have to have, because everywhere i go [ speaking in spanish] they say put me in a safe place, protect me. that is the first thing i will do. i will make sure any ill puts and protecte place you from deportation and gives you a role to citizenship. it is not going to be the same road for anybody. it is going to be hard, and it is going to be treacherous, but it is going to exist. look, i is this --

think of it this way. if you get deep ordered, it is almost like i have allowed you to die. for me the possibility to give you a life in the united states become remote to non- after you are deported. ng in spanish] so we have to understand something. [speaking in spanish]

first of all, the answer is yes, there should be considerations made to people who have been 15, and we are going on 13, 14 years. i have seen him in the same place in miami. i will not tell the name. spanish] in

[laughter] but i do think we need to give take one more question. we will wrap this up. [laughter] [applause] yo soy jessica. spanish] in

>> the question is what is going to happen to immigrants and latinos when the exchange is opened up and particularly in relationship to obamacare. that is what i wanted to bring up. an senate says you can go to exchange, but there will be no subsidy. basically, a healthcare plan

without a subsidy is $13,000 a year. for an immigrant family, that is going to make it impossible for them to be part of the exchanges. be in exchange, then you are going to have to rely through it through your employer. it has already been adopted in the senate and we are in the majority there. difficult thisw is going to be very you can expect where democrats are in the majority, 54 of us, right, and where there was a willingness to get it done, do expect something out of the house of representatives that is better, from an ideological point of view, it will be more difficult. it is what i think. people, -- youe legalize people, they got to get a job, right, where there is healthcare. we know the american people to

their health care through their employment, 80%. they will have more opportunities to get employment. their wages will increase, which means their ability to buy better food, to have a saner life, i mean, the stress that must be on those communities of people, the housing they have to live in. economic social and standards that will improve, but they will have to rely on emergency care because that was what was adopted in the senate. even though there is more than enough money saved according to cbo, instead of spending $45 billion over the next 10 years amount we spend $45 billion putting more control agents on the border. those are the decisions we are going to make. they are difficult ones. i believe they are going to have more access. toh of the states will have -- you will see states that will be friendlier, illinois, maybe

more than in other states, but eventually they will get there, the citizens. the dreamers will get the citizenship liquor. agricultural workers will get the citizenship quicker. the most positive thing is, look, they will be legalized. right now they do not dare go to a hospital when they are sick as they think they might get a ported. let me just say that outside of clinics, there have been immigration agents doing raids. iss is not something that unfounded. let the say thank you to all of you. someone asked me when i came in what motivates you, what informs you. i want to share with you something that informs me about immigration. ife.t my own l we will wrap this up. i am a son of migrants from puerto rico.

ng in spanish] my malum and dad came here looking for a better future, the same way you came. what is interesting is when i , i lived in a bilingual household, and maybe some of you have some of these bilingual households. my parents only spoke spanish and i only spoke english. he understood each other. >> we understood each other. the interesting thing is when we went back to puerto rico, when i got there, i had a lot of difficulty, and i remember going to school and the homeroom you standying, luis, up, and he said, [speaking in

spanish] every year my name changed. it would change and fluctuate. i chose one, i said luis gut ierrez. he told me what his name was. spanish] in everybody laughed and he said i do not know what the minimum requirements in the united states are, but in puerto rico you have to know your complete name in orchard register. then he asked me a question, and not me -- and that got me upset, don't you have a mother? what did that have to do with anything? america, your complete name is your father's surname and your mother's maiden name. that is running. i do not know that. i was home, and i went to my

mother [[ spanish] in practiced. uis -- spanish] in [applause] [speaking in spanish] what a wonderful name that i found. the next day i went back to the a youngm and there was girl in the corner and i walked up to her because i had practiced all night, right? i said, hola, hi.

luis gutierrez. she raised her hand. --y called her mister [speaking in spanish] [laughter] i am happy you laughed, because that was reaction of the 30 other students in the classroom. they all laughed. it today.h about but it really informs me about how i live my life and who i am, because while everybody was laughing, i never felt so small, so insignificant, so disconnected from everything around me, so humiliated. it is difficult to describe how

alienated i felt from everything around me, how alone i felt. you know something? when the laughter stopped -- [speaking in spanish] [indiscernible] we know they exist here in america. just like they said -- i want to continue my life extending a warm hand to others, not ridicule them, but embrace them ourwelcome people to wonderful country. thank you so much for having me here. [applause] >> we would now like to

introduce the vice president and head of the virginia program of the service employee international union. this is a service union with more than 120,000 members. right. ok, first of all, congressman it is always a pleasure to welcome you here. [speaking in spanish] all, i want to say thank you for coming. i know you will you spending your day in virginia. thank you for the panelists and moderator. spanish] in

many of us know where the lincoln memorial is, and it was used yesterday to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. says is a reverend who something very important. he said today we commemorate.

tomorrow, we agitate. i want to repeat after me. commemorate international women's day. tomorrow in virginia, we agitate. >> tomorrow in virginia, we agitate. we commemorate, tomorrow we agitate. today we commemorate, tomorrow we agitate. spanish] inin

ok. spanish] in >> [speaking in spanish]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> if you missed any of this event, it is available at our website, www.c-span.org. live pictures from the state department. johnpect to hear from kerry who will talk about the situation in syria. it is set to begin in about nine minutes. we will have it live. also this afternoon, we will have today'white house reefing. riefing.

p.m.will be live at 3:00 eastern on c-span. a reminder that the medal of isor ceremony for ty carter underway right now. president obama presenting him acts of bravery. that is taking place right now in the white house, on c-span2.

we are waiting for john kerry to talk about the situation in cereal with evidence that chemical weapons were used there. kerryl have secretary when he arrives at the state department. it should be in about five minutes or so. we will have it live on c-span. right now, a congress -- a camps inion on refugee syria. host: joining us next is dr. ron waldman, president of doctors of the world usa, joining us to talk about the group's activities among the world with refugees, in particular the syrian refugee camp from which he has recently returned. thank you for being with us. this is a photo in this week's "new yorker" magazine with an article and a photograph of a camp. it is open two weeks. it is now home to 120,000 people.

the population of hartford, connecticut. you were recently at this camp. it looks like largely a tent city. what was your experience like? guest: a very large encampment of refugees. it is now the second largest refugee camp in the world after the one in northern kenya. it is the third or fourth largest city in jordan. it is no longer so much of a tent city. there are more signs of permanence as the shelters become more permanent, and it is not a bad thing with winter coming up, but there are signs of people coming there who may be there for a much longer time than would be desirable. it is a thriving community with a lot of goods for sale. there is a main street through the middle of the community that

is jokingly called the champs elysees where many things are for sale. the conditions are terrible. people are dependent for food and water. the sanitation conditions are not satisfactory. it is not a place anyone would want to be for any long period of time. host: this is created because of what is happening in syria. none of this existed before. you are with doctors of the world. what is the most pressing medical concern? guest: are a number of pressing concern as the conditions in syria deteriorate. syria is a middle-income country. conditions were not so bad prior

to the violence. conflict makes things worse in the short period of time. now you have the complete disintegration of what was a fairly strong medical and public-health system. some of the things one would need to be worried about are basic child in diseases, especially preventable diseases like measles, pneumonia, diarrhea, things that can all be prevented. many of the refugees coming over are not in such bad shape acutely, but as things continued to deteriorate in syria, that will change rapidly. host: tell us about your organization, doctors of the world. how are you funded and how you

get called in to a place like this refugee camp? guest: we are in non- governmental organization that works around the world. it is an international network with chapters in 14 countries. we do medical humanitarian work. we feel we are distinguished from others in our commitment to the long term relief and rehabilitation. we do not go in only for an emergency period and then leave. we stay with them as long as we can and as long as the need is there. we also put an emphasis on domestic projects in each of the countries where we are constituted. doctors of the world usa is going soon to open a free clinic in new york city for people who have not fully recovered from the effects of hurricane sandy. each of the national sections has a similar domestic project

or series of projects they were >> work on. host: we will invite our listeners and viewers to join the conversation on refugee camps around the world, in particular looking at syria. here are the numbers if you are a republican, democrat, independent or others. the situation in syria at this camp, that is not only the displacement of 120,000 people or so. but that must impact the local jordanian population as well. what problems does that cause? guest: syria is the largest country between jordan and lebanon. we have 120,000 people approximately in the camp.

there is a town or village outside of the camp that does not benefit from receiving the same international assistance because those people are not refugees. they are jordanians living there. this kind of differentiation does have the potential to create tensions between the two different populations in some resentment from the local population toward the refugees. in lebanon, the situation is quite acute. there are an estimated 1 million refugees from syria who have come across in the last couple of years. imagine the burden this puts on all the social services, not only the help system, but on the schools, because there are no camps in lebanon. they decided they do not want camps. the refugees are more dispersed. this puts an enormous pressure

on the schools. this puts enormous pressure on employment opportunities. it puts pressure because many of these people come with some money. it puts pressure on the availability of housing in the capital and even in smaller villages and rural areas. this has the potential to create tensions between the populations, which is not unusual when large influxes of refugees come into countries not entirely prepared to handle them. host: a picture in "the new yorker." lots of kids. guest: yesterday the united nations high commissioner for refugees announced there are now 1 million refugees under the age of 18 who have fled from syria. that is about half of the total refugee population.

the sad thing is this risks becoming a lost generation of syrians who will not have the same opportunities for schooling or employment as they get over -- older and who will be living in conditions one would not wish on anyone. host: let's hear from our viewers. sammy is from new jersey on our independent line. caller: why does the u.s. not give visas to the professionals and pick up some good people from the area? that might help. it would also give some expertise that would help with the economy. guest: that is a good question. in all refugee situations, there are refugees who eventually make it to a third country.

we have been talking about the camp in jordan, which is the first destination for the refugees. the optimal solution would be for the conflict to cease and for people to be able to go back and pick up their lives. if that does not occur, a refugee camp is not a good solution. either the host country needs to be provided with assistance to be able to absorb people from all walks of life and children or third countries often do take a substantial number of refugees from these settings. the united states has been very generous accepting refugees. many other countries around the world as well, not only for economic but for humanitarian reasons as well. host: how often are you out in camps?

guest: i have been president of doctors of the world for a year or maybe little less than one year. this was my first trip on their behalf. i have been doing humanitarian work for some time with the centers for disease prevention and another agency. i personally work more on the policy side of things. i work together with the u.n. agencies. i work with other non- governmental organizations engaged in activities similar to ours. we try to make sure -- it is not just a question of being there and how much we do. it is important we maintain professional standards and pay careful attention to the quality of work we're doing as well. host: the next caller is from staten island, a democratic caller.

caller: i think the main reason is the invasion of iraq. guest: the politics are complicated. the syrian situation is distinct from what happened previously in iraq when the united states was involved. i think this is a conflict that has been going on for about two years and has more to do with internal syrian politics. there are certainly external players involved as well. host: the brochure for doctors of the world talks about priority initiatives. we talked about mali. what is your organization doing? what are you seeing on the ground? guest: we have emergency relief operations. we work in places where there is the need for development as

well. our organization has been working in mali for over 10 years. when you discussed it, it was probably in relation to recent events that have resulted in the imposition of a new humanitarian emergency on what was already a difficult situation. we modified our programs. we increased our efforts to meet the humanitarian needs of the population. we're running several hospitals and a number of clinics in two of the larger cities in the north. our chapter from belgium is first and foremost in providing those services. they have done a remarkable job in meeting the needs of the population. host: ken is on the democrats' line. go ahead. caller: i am reminded of palestinians and their refugees

were kept as refugees politically by their arab brethren so to breed terrorism and dissatisfaction and all the other good stuff. it says we're talking not only about the syrian refugees in jordan, but we're also talking about lebanon where hezbollah holds sway. they are causing a great deal of sturm und drang in syria. in turkey, we have an islamist whose people are in rebellion. this against his efforts to destroy the secular government in turkey.

i am wondering if this is just another in a long line of humanitarian issues caused by the infantilization of the arab body politic. when will we have an end to this constant political and humanitarian debacle? i will wait off-screen for your answer. guest: thank you. i assume the question is rhetorical. i do not have a good answer for when it will end. our organization and ones like it are most interested in providing humanitarian assistance to the many people not directly implicated or involved in the politics of these situations. a lot of people get caught in the crossfire. they lose all sense of normality about their lives. it is not only in the middle east. it is all around the world this happens. through no action of their own,

people like you and me get involved in situations where they just need relief. they need assistance for a period of time. hopefully the situation can resolve that will allow them to get on with their lives. host: a recent publication looks of the sources of refugees around the world. end of 2012, 2.5 million from afghanistan, 1.1 million from somalia. iraq with nearly 750,000. by the end of 2013, what is the estimate in syria? how many refugees will there be? guest: the estimates range into the millions. there are approximately 2 million now. i have seen figures that say if the conflict does not stop soon, we can expect 4 million from syria. when we're talking about

official statistics of refugees, a person can only become a refugee going across an international border. that is the official definition. with the conflict going on, the ability of people to cross borders becomes more difficult. we have a larger problem with what are called internally displaced people. people have been forced to flee their homes but cannot cross an international border. they do not qualify under legal definition for international assistance as refugees. there are many more internally displaced people around the world than there are people counted as refugees. host: the next caller is a doctor from texas. go ahead. mute your television or radio and go ahead. caller: yes, i am a doctor.

i have been trying for the last couple of months to go there on my own through u.n. agencies. i have e-mailed and called to see if there's opportunity for me to go there and work. i have not gotten any answers. i just got an e-mail a couple of weeks ago. i have been trying for months of on e-mail and phone. there is an opportunity to go, but you would have to come as a consultant, as an intern, to work because you are not a licensed physician in syria and cannot work over there. could i go through you to go and help? i work 15 days and get 15 days off. i do want to work a little bit over there. guest: thank you for your call. you are very generous with your

time. it can be greatly appreciated. i think you have a better chance of being able to volunteer or devote your time working with a non-governmental organization than by applying directly to an agency. there are websites you can consult. there are umbrellas groups of non-governmental organizations. in the u.s., there is one called interaction based in washington. you should consult their website. 15 days or two weeks is a relatively short time, but i think you have skills that are in great need. i hope you will keep trying. host: let's get one more call. from brooklyn, ephraim is next.

caller: i was calling to make this statement. i do not feel the united states should intervene in what is going on in the middle east. i understand it is an important region for us and we have strategic areas like the suez canal and israel. i understand that. but every time we intervene, it backfires on us. this is an arab problem. they should take care of themselves. that is what i wanted to say. thank you can have a nice day. guest: thank you. i am also from brooklyn. there are probably many people who share your sentiment. as a representative of doctors of the world, we do not get involved in the politics of the situation. the fact of the matter for us is

there are innocent people caught up in the situation and we feel is our duty as physicians and human beings to do what we can to provide them with appropriate assistance. because we work in the public health and medical sectors, that is our area of concentration. to work as doctors providing primary health care, hospital care, to people whose ability to access those kinds of services has been interrupted through no fault of their own. we do not take sides. we do not necessarily take political stances. we do do whatever we can to provide people are caught up in difficult circumstances with whatever assistance we can, regardless of what side they are on or their politics or where they come from or their walk of life. host: our guest has been dr. ron waldman, president of doctors of the world usa.

thank you for joining us this morning on "washington journal." guest: thank you so much for having me. we are still waiting remarks from john kerry. evidence of the use of chemical weapons has been discovered, and the secretary is expected to talk about and the u.s. response. he is expected any moment. we will have live coverage on c- span as he arrives.

john kerry is expected to give a situation remark on syria. a united nations team in syria came under attack after

investigating the possible use of deadly gases. we will have that statement as it comes available to us. now more on foreign policy challenges facing the u.s. a senior foreign-policy "thespondent for washington times." for discussion this morning about u.s. foreign- policy challenges, in particular, focusing on the areas of serious and egypt in the middle east in general. theill start with a look at headline this morning, obama reviews response options in response to serious. president mete yesterday with his national security team. what are they trying to figure out?

-- guest: how they could respond to the red line with syria. the president said the use of chemical weapons would be the crossing at a red line and that would suggest in the meeting in washington as a warning from president obama that the use of chemical weapons would trigger some kind of surgical military strike by the united states. they are debating what to do now. is it time for the united states to do some strike tom a war how can they talk their way out of not doing that and telling the international community we can move forward with our policy even if weapons are being used? this red line, what are the options for the administration at this point, in conjunction with our allies or through the u.n.? the presidentd

also friday morning in a rare out some, and he laid -- some of the challenges going forward on this. he did not lay out what might happen. we are hearing in the white house discussions, they are talking about perhaps starting with the cruise missiles that would be launched from offshore syrian military installations. i think the idea -- we heard in thelk also that earlier meetings in the white house that there was talk about ,aybe the coast of oh model referring back to that in the

1990', when president clinton ordered airstrikes against the milosevic regime. theink maybe where comparison is made there is that step that was taken without u.n. approval. because there is not going to be u.n. approval for anything the u.s. and the western powers might do here. russia would stand in the way. that is where xhosa vote might be a model, but i do not think in the sense that coast of oh -- on for three months and it was designed to turn milosevic away from the ethnic cleansing and things that was going on. in this case the first step missiles,y cruise warning shots, like do not do that again, and then maybe ratchet it up if for some reason the assad regime continued with

chemical weapon use. at first it would be kind of a for ag or a retaliation aimedic attack, but not at a full military intervention aimed at bringing down assad. host: we will bring our viewers into the conversation. join us by phone, e-mail, facebook, or twitter. numbers >> -- let's look at egypt as well as part of this conversation. report this morning in egypt they are moving forward with the trial of hosni mubarak. what is at play in this point?

he has been released from his military hospital, or at least the prison. what is next theiere? guest: what is at play, the military junta can control the situation on the streets. if there are not massive protests in the next weeks with clashes would also ring -- clashes resulting with the deaths of citizens, regarding what everybody else thinks about the muslim brotherhood, how can the government holding power in cairo create a peaceful situation? the question about mubarak being released from prison and calling to have a new trial is disconcerting from the washington perspective regardless of who is in power. that is the big question, how does this government shore up its reputation now of cracking wheren such a way

hundreds of egyptian citizens were killed and create a peaceful situation so there is a dialogue that could be created with the region and washington? recentlywas written about the role of generators -- generals. the president obama'on livingston cut off military assistance to egypt undermines him of a scene from "rogue back mountain." brokeback guest: i think he was saying that we are seeing the administration being careful about egypt. -- they saidant

they are not going to determine what happened was a military to because by doing that we would have to say it was a coup and we would have to -- for the last several days, president obama and his entire national security team have been reviewing the situation in syria, and i want to provide an update on our efforts as we to the user response of chemical weapons. what we saw in syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. morality.any code of let me be clear. the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. by any standard, it is inexcusable and despite the excuses and equivocation that some have manufactured, it is

undeniable. the meeting of this attack goes beyond -- the meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict of syria, and that conflict has brought already so much terrible suffering. this is about the large-scale indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else. there is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. there is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. there is a reason why president obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons and locked them down where they do exist. there is a reason why president obama has made clear to the assad regime that this

international norm cannot be violated without consequences. and there is a reason why no matter what you believe about in allall peoples nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to a short there is assre therety -- is accountability for ethical weapons. last night after speaking with ministers about the gravity of this situation, i watched the videos come at videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and i watched them one more gutwrenching time. it is hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us. as a father, i cannot get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him. the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of life or even a visible

wound. contorting in spasms. human suffering that we can never ignore or forget. anyone who can claim an attack of this staggering scale can be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass. is real,efore us today and it is compelling. so i also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in syria is grounded in fact, informed by conscience, and guided by common sense. the reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground, like doctors without borders and the serious human rights commission, these all

strongly indicate that everything these images are ,lready screaming at us is real that chemical weapons were used in syria. or over, we know that the syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. we know that the syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. we note that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. and with our own eyes, we have almost become witnesses. we have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed, together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead. our sense of basic humanity is offended, not only by this cowardly crime but also i the cynical attempt to cover it up.

at ever turn him a the syrian regime has failed to cooperate with you and investigation, using it only to stall and stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in in damascus. u.n.on said last week, the investigation will not determine who used the weapons, only if such weapons were used. a judgment that is already clear to the world. i spoke on thursday with syrian foreign minister -- and i made it clear to him that if the regime of deceit are, had nothing to hide, and their response should be immediate, immediate transparency, immediate access, not shulling. their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. failure to to merit that, i told him, would tell its own story. theead, for five days,

syrian regime refused to allow the you and investigators access to the site of the attack that whatllegedly >> that allegedly exonerate them. instead they systematically destroyed evidence. that is not the behavior of the government has nothing to hide. that is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons. in fact, the regime'decision to allow access is too late and it is too late to be credible. the attack ons of the u.n. investigators, together with the continued shelling of these varied >> of these never akens the regime's credibility. the administration is consulting

with members of congress and we will continue to have these conversations in the days ahead. the president has also been in close touch with leaders of our key allies and the president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this and discover this use of chemical weapons. , president obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world'most heinous weapons against the world'most vulnerable people. serioustoday is more and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny. thank you. . .

>> and a live picture from the white house briefing room where in just a moment we're expecting jay carney, white house spokesman jay karney to brief reporters after a brief vacation. the first time talking to reporters. we're expecting more on the situation in syria scheduled for a couple of minutes from now. it appears it will be a little later. we'll have it live here on c-span.

just a quick reminder that tonight we'll bring you a conversation with former vice president dick cheney along with his oldest daughter, liz, who announced her intention to challenge mike ince in the 2016 election. we'll have that for you hosted in colorado by the steamboat institute beginning tonight at 7:30 eastern here on c-span. once again, we're awaiting the start of the white house briefing with spokesman jay

karney. we'll have that in a couple of minutes. back to the washington journal segment on foreign policy challenges facing the u.s. >> broader look at middle east policy. you read about a couple of weeks ago after the crackdown in egypt that following wednesday. you wrote that the middle east democracy movement held over the last few years as the arab spring after the crackdown in egypt when the military controlling egypt opened a bloody assault that seemed to expose the limits of american diplomatic power to pursue lofty goals once envisioned for the region. do you think it will cause a reset? this is to debunk what's happening in egypt and syria whether it will recall the foreign policy? >> it's a lot different opinions

on that. but with regard to the lofty goals, not so much a reference to the last five years in the obama administration, but all the way back the eight years before that when really the neoconservative push from washington was to spread democracy to the middle east. you see a democratically elected government in cairo to get knocked back down by a military coup, essentially, even though the administration -- it's like the dirty word in washington to call what's happening in egypt a coup, to see that happening is raising the question hough are we going to proceed here? clearly the days of saying we want democracy to spread to the middle east and past. >> i think what we need to look at is reset, i don't know. i think the administration is still intent on -- would like to keep the middle east to the background. that's not what it wanted the focus to be.

obama came in as the president. he wanted the administration to turn away from the middle east, pivoted from the middle east from the foreign policy focus. chuck hagel is having to talk about syria and the middle east. but, the -- i think and i i also think that president obama knows -- this is coloring the decision. because president obama knows to get involved directly in the war in syria, that's it for the rest of the administration. so i think they're being careful about that. i think that he still hopes to yes, lofty goals for the middle east. but he still would like to engineer this pivot away from the region and putting american foreign policy attention elsewhere, primarily in asia. >> before we get to the first

caller, sam dagger, "wall street journal," middle east correspondent joining us from syria. mr. dagger, good morning to you. >> i think we've -- i think we may have lost him. all right, we'll go with our caller in yasmine in new york city. on our independent line. >> it's concerning -- it's concerning to me that the -- the reporting involving the chemical use in syria is slandered towards -- america has concluded that assad has already used chemical weapons. do we have any evidence that can be sustained in a court of law that assad used a weapon and not the rebels? we have concluded that assad used it as a pretext for, okay, now he's going to go to syria. what is the evidence? i would like to know. thank you. >> what's the latest? >> we don't have evidence that would necessarily stand up in a court of law. we have videos of people

testifying to reporters locally on the ground. these could be completely manufactured videos. but we do have footage that suggests pretty seriously that sarin gas or sarin-tipped missiles landed in a couple of towns. so it's a great question. and i applaud the listener, the viewer for bringing it up. this is something that the obama administration will want to kind of stra strategically hide behind. i don't want to use too strong of a word. but we've had a period in washington, a decade of about six or seven years of a militarized foreign policy where we responded to the threats around the world. and even going back to the former yugoslavia which howard brought up before, we responded to the threats with military strength. so there's a knee jerk sense here that we have to respond

with a military strength. i think the obama administration mat are a from the beginning is that we're going to be the administration that doesn't do that. they did it, a plus b equals c, we've got to bomb them. this is playing out, the jumping to conclusions. >> if i can just quickly -- you know, we did the organization just yesterday, or doctors without borders. said three of the hospitals they work with in the demascus area that is in the hours of the reported attack, thousands coming in with symptoms of some sort of -- they call it neurotoxic attack. now, we also have to -- you go back prior to that and both --

not just u.s. intelligence but israelis say the assad regime has been keeping very careful control as they wished they would. a very tight control on their stock piles of chemical weapons. that doesn't mean there's proof that it was assad and his regime. there's all kinds of possibilities. might it have been a -- how much is -- is assad losing control of some of his commanders, maybe? might have been someone who -- you know, an officer separate or who decided to test the limits on it -- we don't know. but the caller is correct in saying that the administration -- we also don't know what evidence has come in. as guy said, there's videos,

photos. we know that as of thursday and friday, the rebel, anyway, opposition representatives were working very hard to smuggle out what would be more conclusive evidence, you know, blood and hair samples and things like that. >> let's see if you can get update on the ground. we're joined by sam dagger who's in syria, the middle east correspondent for "the wall street journal." sam dagger, good morning, thanks for joining us. >> good morning to you. we had the first question here this morning regarding the attacks, the gas attacks. what are you hear ing hearing f demascus? >> we're dealing with the accusations of the opposition has made. >> we're hearing about the

eastern suburbs of demascus and other areas south of the city. i'm physically in the city, in the capital. and we had statements made yesterday by the syrian administer of administration. he was speaking with a news channel. and he's basically saying that it is most likely that the rebels themselves were the ones that used the chemical -- some sort of chemical weapon. and he also said -- you know, again, his government's denial so far that it would use the weapons against his people. he said it -- his governments basically had a set of moral values that prevented him from doing such a thing. >> the reports this morning that the -- the u.n. representative is on the ground in syria.

what -- what is the united nations hoping for with that representative there? >> well, i think to be able to bring -- as you may know already, i mean the u.n. team has been on the ground for the past week. they arrived last sunday in demascus. they were here to investigate accusations of chemical weapon use in public parts of syria in the north -- but obviously this broke out while they were here. so definitely the priority in the -- the top priority is to hammer out some sort of deal with the government here to be able to visit these areas. >> sam dagher joining us this morning.

he's "the wall street journal" middle east correspondent, thank you for your update this morning. >> sure. >> following on to your comments. "the washington post" reports this morning that the doctors without borders group and the receipt of all of the patients coming in. they write that the international medical aid group said the three hospitals reports seeing about 3600 patients with neurotoxicity symptoms in less than three hours. of the patients, it said 355 reportedly died. but the group itself wasn't able to confirm this was an attack. they came up short for describing it as an attack. >> yes. as they pointed out, these are hospitals that they work with and so, you know, they were going on the information they were getting from the hospitals. but i think the -- this sort of thing obviously it -- it's just no evidence that something

happened. but and i think that's the point of the -- the u.n. team in there. i think the point of secretary general ban ki-moon sending in his representatives in addition to the team is to reenforce with -- with the syrian government as ban said earlier in the week. if you have nothing to hide, how better to open up the area. that's how the forces have given the obama administrations that any un team coming into the area which is a disputed area with pockets of rebel-held territory that those -- any u.n. representatives coming in would be safe. i think there is an effort -- i disagree with the caller who --

that there's any rush to judgment here. i think there is. we saw with the -- with the attacks that were the original attacks, smaller scale seemed to be back in march. it took until april and then finally until june for the administration really to conclude that there have been attacks on that situation and at that time. and so i think it's a little incorrect to say it's a little rush to judgment. i do say there's a pretty close to conclusion on the part of the administration that it was the the syrian government. >> let's get back to the callers to boyier town, pennsylvania. on the republican line. howard franke, good morning. >> good morning. >> the first question is you try

to understand where you fellows are. i've been trying to follow this whole experience thing from the beginning. my question is why do you guys think that al jazeera is not available on any cable stations in the u.s.? and do you watch al jazeera. and my follow-up is -- it -- i don't know why no one there on this -- on the panel either the guys say anything like, well, would it be possible that cia agents are discharging this chemical to try to get us in the war the way we got in the conflict in libya and watching what happened with libya and qaddafi and syria. it was obvious that the bombing didn't want to get involved. why? that's not an open question. >> thank you for your call. >> these are great questions.

>> one of the hardest things you don't want to get sucked into the realm of conspiracy theorys when it comes to this. there could be generals in syria that are not in line with the assad government that are doing this. it could be -- just to sit back and say cia agents are doing this. it's a valid question. you have to say when you're out talking to cia and talking to policy makers on the hill who talk to the cia and monitor it, you get to the realm of conspiracy very quickly with this stuff. i want to say you guys happening in syria, we just heard from sam on this, at this point, it's an all-out civil war. it's not enveloped the entire country but there's large pockets of the country where there's serious fighting.

first casualty is going be the truth. figuring it out from a black and white perspective, who did this? it's not going be easy. sitting back on our laurels, saying, well, it's a conspiracy theory. that's the easy way out. the administration has a heavy task in trying to pursue the truth on this. >> caller talked about al jazeera. just a couple of reports from al jazeera. they report on the trial in egypt. the headline trial of muslim brotherhood begins. the muslim brotherhoods are arrested. president mubarak and his sons arrived when the trial was taking place. the former enemy of the muslim brotherhood faces similar charges to the group's leaders. all the men are charged with involvement in the killing of protesters, also this morning from al jazeera, they report on iran warning the u.s. against intervention in syria. iran -- noting the limitation of

the redline of the syrian front and any crossing of the red line will have severe consequences for the white house said a spokesman for the iranian government. sammy is in myrtle beach, south carolina. myrtle beach on the independent line. >> good morning. >> hi. >> i'm independent. and i'm in egypt and i have -- i have relatives in syria and lebanon. the administration -- egypt was wrong. the government said with syria, it was wrong. because i say they are not talking about this activity. and the discussion and they are

that solution. this is what will be affecting the new connections. for any republican or any democrat. >> thanks for joining us. you mentioned both syria and egypt. go to egypt next. waiting on the line for us is charles levinson. i believe joining us for the middle east correspondent of "the wall street journal." good morning to you. >> good morning. >> we're reading this morning about military trials under way or beginning to get started. what can you tell us about those? >> well, today is sort of a very

symbolic day, i suppose, in terms of, you know, everything that's happening in egypt that's counterrevolution as some would see it. you had all morning lawyers for president mubarak and former administer who are accused in the killings of protesters in 2011. you had that trial on egyptian state television all morning with their lawyers arguing that, you know, rearguing their cases that they should go free. mubarak is released to a military hospital earlier last week. and then this afternoon, we're going to have, you know, the top leaders of the muslim brotherhood basically with the first appearances in court since they were arrested in the past month. and so it's really sort of -- the time is changing, you know, back to the way things were, basically. we don't expect any concrete results from either trial today. but, you know, just the fact that you're having both of these cases, you know, visible on the same day really shows sort of i

think where we're at here. >> is security fairly much of a clampdown reading yesterday about the military making a strong presence in particular in front of the courts there in cairo. what's the situation on the street? >> we haven't -- since the -- since the initial days after the big crackdown on the muslim brotherhood that we saw hundreds killed, you know, there were several days of sort of ongoing instability and clashes. those have largely calmed down. there are supposed to be protests on friday, small ones followed by the muslim brotherhood. they were mostly fizzled. they didn't get a turnout. there wasn't a lot of violence. it seems like things are calming down here, partially because the muslim brotherhood is either unable or decided not to continue challenging in the streets and to the same degree in terms of the size of the protest. and partially perhaps because

the crackdown had been effective. >> on the release and retrial ahead of hoetzny mubarak, were people surprised by that? >> i think people were stunned. i think it was -- it seemed such a crude move. i mean, right after this ouster of morsi by the military which much of the world was calling a coup, and which the egyptians were frantically trying to argue was not a coup and really is a popular uprising. that was a continuation of the revolution, a corrective to sort of a revolution that it had gone awry. you then have after this crackdown that saw hundreds killed and denounced by much of the world in which the egyptian army again was trying to justify, you then have your surprising out of nowhere move toward releasing president mubarak. it seemed like even if it was the intention of the military or old regime types that it was the

timing was just extremely, you know, poorly chosen. >> before we let you go, one quick question about -- what do you see in the presence of the u.s. ambassador, other military officials in the days since the crackdown of a couple of weeks ago? >> i got in here relatively recently. so i haven't been in to see the, you know, the american ambassador, the americans are keeping a relatively low profile here. there have been some embassy officials doing some off of the record briefings with the press and, you know, small groups of press in recent days. but not -- certainly not taking a very large -- you know, a very high profile here. and obviously the whole outcome of this clash right now, the way this is playing out, the americans have found themselves blamed by both sides as back from the other side, the brotherhood is convinced the americans are conspiring against it. and all of the -- you know, all of the other side of it from the

revolutionaries to the old regime types to the military supporters are absolutely convinced that the americans are brotherhood conspireing with the brotherhood. so the americans are caught in a -- you know, a lose-lose situation here it seems like with the little -- with a little leverage over the course of events. >> joining us from cairo, an update from charles levinson, middle east correspondent with "the wall street journal." thanks for your reporting. >> my pleasure. >> about the trials that he's saying are on television, their state television in egypt, what do you think -- what do you think the purpose of that is? >> the trial is the -- >> they're putting them out and -- >> of the muslim brotherhood -- >> the leaders? >> yes, absolutely. >> well, i think we are seeing in egypt, we're right now the media are government controlled and the media are blanketed with with, you know, confronting the

terrorists, and bringing down the terrorist threat in the egypt. i see it in that context that bringing the media -- these were the people who were, you know, taking egypt in the wrong direction. these are the people who were -- and sort of juxtaposing this with the blanketed not really reporting. but blanketed coverage of the military's perspective that, you know, we acted against the terrorists who were taking egypt in the wrong direction. and i just see it in that context. >> what are the risks they run putting hosni mubarak back and retrying him here? and if they acquit him or convict him again, what are the -- what are the risks there for the generals, the military leadership there. >> the risk is they're going to undercut their own legitimacy with both of the brotherhood but then the secular young democracy

movement in egypt will see them as backing down and not upholding what the revolution was all about. i think we're also on that question of mubarak's sort of release from prison, we've got to look at the greater arab spring movement then and start with tunisia, with ben ali who ultimately fled. but you go to libya where muammar gadhafi was essentially assassinated in a battlefield situation. and then we could go back before the arab spring and look at saddam hussein, another military style leader who was ultimately hung after a trial had been influenced by the united states. so now this is fairly symbolic. this is big in the subconscious sense of what happens. >> of ousting the old and bringing in the new. >> what happens to mubarak ultimately. is he executed, walking free in cairo, what happens to his family as well. his son was being groomed to

take over the dictatorship in egypt. so what happens going forward is very, very important. >> is his son in captivity? >> no. at this point, actually, i believe he's not. >> i don't think he is. >> no, i think he got out of the country and is not. >> back to calls. republican caller. thanks for waiting, go ahead with your comment? >> good morning. i appreciate the two journalists acknowledging that we don't really know what has happened in syria in regards to these chemical attacks. i think you got to look at the fact that why would syria even use chemical weapons because if anyone on the ground -- the last month, the rebels are really terrorists. they use terrorist tactics. they blow up buildings. they engage in assassinations. they are killing christians over in syria. and desecrating churchesf --

churches. but they are the ones, they have the most interest of getting the united states intervened. they are being beat on the battlefield. that's where i think the u.s. or whoever should be looking at and that's what the russians have said is that there is the reasonables that have the most to gain from using chemical weapons to create the situation where the u.s. can say, well, we have go in. this is a disastrous foreign policy. we're supporting terrorists. they're using terrorist tactics. 70% of the american people -- that's from "the wall street journal" poll. >> the caller brings up a number of very good points. first of all, there are some of the -- some of the rebel s rebe

earlier in the front -- some of the rebels are listed as a terrorist organization by the united states. and nowhere near the homogeneous groups, the rebels. the chairman and joint chiefs the other day in a letter to a member of congress, congressman engle said, you know, if we get involved in syria, it's not a matter of choosing a side. we have to choose among -- among sides within the -- within the rebels and the opposition. now, the -- the point about it being only in the u.s. in the -- in the u.s. interests or in the interests of seeing u.s. intervention is that there would be a chemical weapons attack, i think that's a little -- that's

a little murkier. because, you know, we did see an earlier attack and president obama spoke rather forcefully about that. but nothing happened. and, you know, there's also the theory that first of all that assad is testing the limits, pushing things. you have to remember the most recent reported attacks happened in the -- as sam was telling us from on the ground from the demascus suburbs. this is a threat to the government. this is not -- and the government -- there had been fierce fighting going on in that area and they're continued afterwards. so it's not as though what

happened there was not, you know, reflective of a grave threat that the -- that the government of syria sees that it's facing when it has, you know, rebel strong holds in its own capital. and it cannot afford to lose demascus. >> how much is russia calling the shots for syria, the russian influence in syria? >> at this point, it's limited. i think in the global stage in terms of international rhetoric and geopolitical rhetoric, we hear moscow come up a lot in washington of sort of being the fly in the ointment of the obama administration's attempt to bring peace in syria. but when it comes to rubber meeting the road, the russians have acknowledged that the military presence, which had been a navy base in syria is the only one outside of the former soviet union, they're actually basically pulling out of it. i don't think there's evidence to suggest that they're telling

the assad government what to do or really have any influence in syria at this point. >> orchard park, new york. herb is on the democrats' line. >> yes. shades of iraq. if we remember just a if uh -- just a few years ago in the bush administration, we didn't give the united nations inspection team on the ground enough time. george tennett, the cia chief at the time, walked into the oval office just before the invasion and said, mr. president, it's a slam dunk. there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq. while we know how that played out. so i think that it's very important that we allow the u.n. inspectors on the ground to do a thorough investigation. but frankly, gentlemen, i'm fearful that the iraq scene could reemerge as we know about one month or six weeks ago. president obama was quoted as

saying, yes, they've used -- yes, the government of syria has used chemical weapons and i have proof of that. however, the president never indicated what his proof was. and that one tended to die. so, gentlemen, i'm fearful that the -- that the -- the warships that are now moving in closer to syria may -- may use their missiles to take out government airfields and government installations without waiting for the u.n. team to -- to do their full investigation which may well show the rebels are the ones come police it. >> herb, thanks -- thanks for your call. kind of ping-pong you between egypt and syria. i wanted to jump to an e-mail question that a caller had about a question about egypt. he said, gentlemen, does the gentleman think it's possible that mubarak has been, quote, pulling the strings behind the

scenes in egypt since the earliest day of the demise of the long autocratic rule of the egyptian people. that's from john in new jersey. we heard this theory even from some in egypt that mubarak is using exactly that phrase, you know, continued to pull the strings from his jail cell. and having -- we've seen pro mubarak response or demonstrations and the military. so, you know, in the military, taking steps and following sort of a pattern although in a more brutal way than egypt had ever seen.

but following the pattern of the long military rule. that is where that comes from. but we don't know if that's the case. there are certainly egyptians that feel that way. i did go back to the caller, herb, the reference to iraq. if you look at president obama's interview again on friday, he himself alluded to iraq without mentioning iraq by name. he said we need to be careful, judicious about this. that we have paid the price in the past for rushing into things, as he said. it the true the united states has warships in the area.

i don't know if any additional military hardware is moving in. i think we learned yesterday that a destroyer that is scheduled to pull out was retained -- was told to basically ordered to stay in the region. >> in terms of the president's approach to looking at reports of these weapons, how do you think their approach will be different from the bush administration? >> again, you have to consider the powell doctrine. it's going to be so much more important to this administration. >> which means? >> basically which means we're not going to do anything if we don't have a clear exit strategy. and you've got to ask yourself, with syria, i mean, if you want to pull it out, the 50,000 feet, what they're talking about at the white house right now is what would our exit strategy be? we're not -- we're not talking about putting a lot of american troops on the ground. but even if there was a commitment of surgical strikes or repeated strikes or kind of

military involvement, how do we get out of the situation. i don't think there's a clear answer to that which is why i don't anticipate we're going see a major u.s. commitment or engagement going forward. this is very different from the -- the previous administration which pursued a much more ne-yo conservative approach which was we have a exit strategy that's going to evolve after we use military force. >> back to our caller, prince ton, new jersey, keith, independent line? >> just a few things. i suggest the viewers go to youtube and do a search. you don't have to have a lot of training. most of the videos are pretty grim. you see people, especially young people dying in front of your eyes. so to me, it's fairly obvious just from what's out there as far as the video. the other thing is that -- >> we're going to leave this

washington journal discussion for today's white house briefing. jay carney is just getting under way. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for being here. thank you for your patience. as you know, we rescheduled this briefing so it would come after secretary kerry was able to make the statement he made about syria. again, i thank you for your patience. i have no announcement to make at the top except i'm glad to be back and with you. with that, i turn to the associated press. >> thanks, jay, welcome back. some tough language from secretary kerry today. are the options that the administration that the president is saying is that is this an opportunity to kind of change the course of that -- of

the fighting? >> thank you for your question. i think secretary kerry made clear not long ago that what we are evaluating now is a response to the clear use on a mass scale with repugnant results of chemical weapons. and there is little doubt that the syrian regime, the assad regime, used those weapons. because they have maintained control of the stock pile, of chemical weapons in syria. they alone have the capacity to use rockets to deliver chemical weapons. and they have continued to -- they had prior to the use of chemical weapons tried to clear that neighborhood and have continued to shell that neighborhood in the aftermath in the use of chemical we weapons.

what the secretary kerry made clear is a response to clear violation of an international norm. and it is profoundly in the interest of the united states and of the international community that that violation of an international norm be responded to. we have seen as secretary kerry said, the horrific results of the use of chemical weapons. we have seen it with our own eyes. and the evidence that chemical weapons were used is undeniable. and the proof comes from sources well beyond the u.s. government, open sources. international organizations, witnesses on the ground. this violation has to be taken very seriously. and president is consulting with his national security team.

the international community is the intelligence community is further assessing and evaluating what happened and we'll be able to share with you an assessment of the ic in the coming days about the use of chemical weapons on august 21. and the president will continue to consult and review his options in terms of responding to it. now, we have a clear policy with regards to the conflict that was in syria as well. and we have obviously provided substantial assistance to the opposition and we will co-n't to do that. it's important to make a distinction when it comes to the violation of an international norm. it's not just an incident that pertains only to syria or to the region. it's an -- a violation that pertains to the whole world. >> the president himself has

spoken about the difficulties of a response to something like this. but what would be considered a proportional response? >> i'm not going to speculate about potential responses. i'm going to make clear as secretary kerry did that the fact that chemical weapons were used on a wide spread basis against innocent civilians with tragic results is undeniable. and there's very little doubt in our minds that the syrian regime is culpable. we're continuing to review a potential responses to consult with our allies and partners, and with congress as we make that review. but i'm not going to engage in hypotheticals about potential responses or what might occur after any response or decision

is made about response. >> would the president act without congressional or u.n. authorization? or would they lay out the evidence personally? he said he came out with what the i.c. hoping to determine -- that the president himself made that case to the american people. >> well, i think uh you have heard the president speak on this issue in the past. i think you can expect to hear him speak on it again as he evaluates the potential options and responses. and as he makes a decision about a potential response. but he has not made that decision. and when he does, i'm sure you will hear from him. when it comes to congress, we're consulting with congress and we'll continue to do that. and when it comes to the international community, the president as you know as we read has had conversations with key allies, leaders of allied nations and with will continue to have conversations with other foreign leaders and will make

information available at those conversations as they occur. >> distinguishing the international community and international allies from the u.n. specifically? >> you're getting to a hypothetical about a decision that's not been made. i'll refrain from doing that except to make clear that the president is consulting with the international community as well as secretary kerry, broadly, with his counterparts around the world. and that will continue. >> anything on -- >> i'm not going to speculate about time frame. the president -- as secretary kerry made clear at the president's direction considers what happened in syria and the use of chemical weapons on this scale to be horrific violation of an international norm. extremely s ll lly serious matt. and he's evaluating the

appropriate response. but i'm not going to speculate about the timing of the response or decision. >> can you tell us what he me t meant? >> the intelligence community is making an assessment. if he has that assessment, he'll be able to share that conclusion with you in the coming days. >> what would the legal basis be for a military strike? >> i'm not going speculate about a decision that hadn't been made. >> the fact that americans show are reluctant to enter into another war affect the president thinking about how to respond? >> the president makes the decision about military action or potential military action.

with the national security interest of the united states in mind. there is no weightier decision for the president and he has made that clear on numerous occasions. and he makes decisions of that nature based on what he views as the long-term interests of the united states. again, as secretary kerry made clear and as i just repeated, this is a matter that is distinct from although part of the conflict in syria. this is a violation of a long-held international norm that bans the use of chemical weapons on a wide spread scale with horrific, morally obscene as secretary kerry said. >> the backing of the president? >> the president, again, as i

mentioned has been and will consult with foreign leaders, international allies. i don't have the specifics to preview for you. we've read out some of the conversations. we'll provide more information to you about them. when it comes to russia, i think it's important to make clear that the use of chemical weapons on a wide spread scale on august 21 on the outskirts of demascus is undeniable. the international community has concluded it occurred. russia and iran concluded they believed that chemical weapons were used. the united nations inspections team mandate is merely to establish whether the chemical weapons were used and that has already been established. the united nations team does not have a mandate to establish culpability. it's our belief, as the

secretary made clear that the regime in syria made obvious attempts to preclude a credible investigation into what happened. having stated initially they welcomed the inspection team to make an analysis. they then blocked that team from having access to the region for five days while they bombarded the region to destroy evidence. today the united nations team caravan was attacked en route to the site. and upon its return from its first day of work from the site, the neighborhood was again bombarded and shelled and a further indication of the utter lack of credibility of the syrian regime on this matter. we do not believe that that credibility is going to suddenly be restored. >> jay, earlier this afternoon. secretary kerry expressed his

personal feelings about what he thought about the images that were coming out of syria. as the president expressed what he was thinking when he first saw these images? what was his gut reaction? >> secretary kerry spoke today at the president's direction. the president shared secretary kerry's sentiments. i think all of us who have seen the visual evidence are repulsed by it and are heart broken by it. and it demonstrates the disregard of international norms of behavior and a disregard for innocent life and in this case for the innocent life of fellow syrians, it's appalling. indiscriminate killing of innocent women and children in an attempt to maintain his bloody grasp on to power is

despicable. but that's what we've come to expect from bashar al assad. >> jay, earlier this summer, there was some reporting out there there were divisions, that there was sort of a split inside the president's national security team as to what to do about syria. the chairman of the joint chiefs, martin dempsey, wrote a letter to congress talking about his concerns. why you should be cautious about unintended consequences. is there a united front given the secretary's comments given what you're saying? >> i think in response to that question i would make clear again that what we're talking about here is a potential response in consultation with our allies and partners, in consultation with congress to this specific violation of an international norm. by the wide spread use of a chemical weapon. while it's part of this ongoing syrian conflict in which we have an interest and we have a clear

state of position and it is distinct in that regard. so the president himself has spoken to the issues around our support for the opposition for and our views on the conflict in syria. but let's be clear that we have substantially stepped up the support for the opposition. and we did so fairly recently in response to our asaysment that the syrian regime had clearly used on a much smaller scale but on numerous incidents chemical weapons. this is on an entirely larger scale. that is in response to that, we're evaluating potential reactions. >> you said that the u.n. had stepped up the aid to the rebels there. at this point given what we've seen in the last week, is that

now a sufficient response in the eyes of this administration? or something now more necessary? >> i made reference to the increased support for the opposition in response to the previously established use of chemical weapons by the syrian regime on a smaller scale, a small scale. we are now evaluating the wide spread use of or the use of in a wide spread attack, chemical weapons with devastating consequences and hundreds of fatalities and thousands of casualties. and the response to that. so those are distinct. yes? >> back to the first question -- do you say potential response. i think you earlier said there could be a response. there are different levels, different scales. are you -- is the president looking to punish the syrian regime?

or to deny the regime access to the chemical weapons, or to turn the tide of the fighting? i don't think you have a hypothetical to give us a sense there of what is being determined and what is the president taking into account to determine the level of that scale. >> let me be clear. we are assessing a potential response or a response to the use of chemical weapons on august 3 the 1. the fact that those weapons were used with devastating consequences for women, children, and others, is absolutely undeniable. and i think i got the question earlier about the distinction between the ongoing conflict in syria and our support for the opposition, which has been stepped up and which continues. on the one hand, and a response to this -- to specific violation of an international norm. and a violation which we believe there is very little doubt was committed by the syrian regime. we're engaging in and this is

what secretary kerry referenced and i spoke to minutes ago in answer to jeff, an assessment by the intelligence community, a photo assessment that when it's concluded, we'll provide conclusions to you. about this specific incident. but in answer to your question, we are -- the president and his team are evaluating options with regards to responses to this specific violation of an international norm. the contributed use of chemical weapons against civilian populations. and that is -- that is part of but distinct from the ongoing conflict of syria and the support for the opposition. >> so any kind of retaliation would be specifically for this one? not necessarily the turn the tides of the war in syria? but -- >> i'm not going to speculate about what the -- what the decision will be when it's made, obviously we will make it clear.

and make it clear to the public what the views are and what the actions will be. but, the answer broadly is that we are considering responses to this transgression, to this violation of international norm. we are continuing our support for the opposition in its fight against assad. but we also have made clear for a long time now that there is not a military solution to that conflict. there has to be a political solution that ultimately assad has to step aside to allow for a better future for the syrian people. >> did the g-20 put you in a box as far as when the president can take action? >> i'm not going speculate about time lines. we obviously consider this matter to be grave and serious. and i think as secretary kerry reflected in his remarks earlier today, we are giving a great deal of attention. >> when the president was asked

about this on friday, he was not as aggressive in his assertion of culpability. what sense of more outrage than secretary kerry was today. did the evidence presented at the saudi national security meeting for the president for himself personally and the national security team, this is a more conclusive assessment that could be made, and that a response is required? >> i think we have in the days since the chemical weapons attack, the -- both through means that we have and also more broadly sources and other sources established very clearly and undeniably chemical weapons were used on a broad scale on august 21 outside of demascus. and i'm -- the -- the meeting on saturday, i'm sure, reinforced that factual foundation.

i think when the president had the interview, we were still only a day and a half or two days in the aftermath of the attack itself. i think secretary kerry's statements today reflect very clearly and specifically the president's views and the entire administration's views about what happened. about the fact that the use of chemical weapons on a broad scale is undeniable. and our view and i think clearly logical view that because syria has named -- the syrian regime has maintained control of syria's stock pile of chemical weapons because syria -- the syrian regime alone has the capacity to deliver those weapons via lockets and because of the actions that syria had taken in that neighborhood both prior to and in the aftermath of the attack, that it is -- that there's little doubt that the syrian regime is responsible for this attack.

but as secretary kerry said and i said, there's an assessment ongoing, a formal assessment ongoing by the intelligence community. when that assessment is concluded, i will make those estimates known to you. >> is it fair to say you have an inference now. not hard everyday. you mentioned the evidence had probably been destroyed. this is a circumstantial or inferential case. would you agree with that? >> i think you're blending two issues. one is did a weapons chemical attack occur? undeniably, the answer is yes. iran and russia -- even iran and russia agree with us and the world on that fact. >>'s the -- >> the other issue is culpability. we believe there's little doubt about culpability for reasons that i said. but we are obviously continuing to make evidentiary -- i don't have the presentation to make to

you today. the intelligence community is obviously assessing this and has gathered and will continue to gather information in that assessment and when conclusions have been reached, we will provide them to you.

>> is it reasonable to expect a that conference, even syria has used chemical weapons. some have said they have no negotiatenymore to something outside the assad or shame. where does the administration's stand on that prospect? therebelieve ultimately is no solution that does not require a political negotiated settlement. the fact that assad has continued to barbarically attack his own people, using means now mind and violate international norms makes the potential for that kind of negotiated solution more

difficult. but there is no solution, as we have made clear, for a syrian andre that includes assad, because of the situation on the ground and the military conflict , we have provided in or was amount of humanitarian assistance to the syrian people and substantial assistance to the military opposition. >> i want you to describe this strategic difference for the american government. countless women and children slaughtered in the civil war, almost 100,000 victims. abouts not only responding to a chemical weapons attack. what is the strategic difference between united states -- i am not trying to minimize it -- but 300,000 casualties of one ric act of war, what takes it to a strategic level of importance that entails a

military response? >> i appreciate the opportunity to make clear what is distinct .bout this particular atrocity the use of chemical weapons is contrary to the standards adopted by the vast majority of nations and international efforts since world war i to eliminate the use of such weapons. the international norm against the use of chemical weapons is fundamental to the use question to the interests of the united states and the international community. the use of these weapons on a mass scale and a threat of proliferation is a threat to our natural the >> national interests and a threat to the entire world. it is because this norm exists, because it has been so clearly violated, that we and many around the world have to assess an appropriate response. without question there is in syriaarbarity

perpetrated by the assad regime, and we have provided substantial assistance to the syrian opposition and we will continue to provide substantial assistance to the syrian opposition in their struggle with assad. this instance, this use of chemical weapons is distinct the cause it is so clearly violating an international norm that has been in place a very long time. >> does that give you a better legal case that launch killing action, because on hundred one 8000 people also violates international norms, right? >> i will not speculate about decisions that have not been made. thisld simply say that international standard, the international norm is something

that has been adopted by a vast majority of nations. it is the reflective effort that has been engaged in by the vast majority of nations since world war i, and for those who know their history, perfect use of chemical weapons in that conflict. distinct, it is a problem that requires a response. >> to other things. ink about the u.n.'s role this. my understanding of the inspectors, their mandate only allows them to determine whether or not chemical weapons were used, not who is culpable, and there's a question earlier, the u.s. government has already determined chemical weapons were used and you you believe who is culpable. why are we waiting for the u.n. team? what is their role in this if you have made that conclusion? have have concluded, as

almost everyone who has an interest or trusted opinion, that chemical weapons were used on august 21. russia and iran have concluded as much. we believe there is little doubt that for reasons i have made clear that the syrian regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on that date because they have maintained control of the stockpile of chemical weapons in syria, because the syrian regime alone has the capacity to deliver those weapons with rockets, and because of the actions the syrian regime has taken to clear this area prior to the attack and the fact that they have shelled it continuously since the attack. and are shelling it now, today, in the wake of the visit by the u.n. inspectors. when it comes to the inspectors and their investigation, let's calls fore let the

you and inspection of potential chemical weapons sites in syria. critical of the syrian regime for blocking entry and access to that inspection team. but at this point, we do not have confidence the u.n. can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened, and we are concerned that the syrian's delay is designed to create more time and space for their actions. as you state -- and you're right -- the u.n. has made clear their go so far ase only establishing whether chemical weapons were used. we have already established chemical weapons were used, not just the united states, but governments including russia and

iran, independent organizations, humanitarian organizations including doctors without borders and the syrian human rights council, the visual evidence is overwhelming and compelling. we have established already that weapons were used. on the issue of culpability, we have not concluded, but we believe there is very little doubt that the regime is culpable. he continued assessments and will provide conclusions when we have them for you. that the believe suggestions on some quarters that this thing is contrived or that the syrian regime was not responsible are very credible, for all the reasons that we have all been able to see and evaluate. >> based on the criticism of the

previous administration, not being able to clearly establish use of wmd, if the u.n. does not have the determination to determine that anyway, what will the present use on whether to decide to take military action? >> we are continuing to assess the culpability, and there is overwhelming evidence that the syrian regime is culpable, but we will continue to assess the incident and we will have more information for you to mock as secretary kerry mentioned, in the coming days about that matter. makee meantime we should clear from here and from the state department and elsewhere and in capitals around the world has verysyrian regime little credibility on this matter. if the syrian regime had any kerryst, as secretary said earlier, in proving that they had not culpable,

the opportunity to allow that you and inspection team to visit the site immediately. instead, they blocked access for five days while they shelled the neighborhood, killing more innocent civilians, in an attempt to destroy evidence. even today, when the inspection team began its trip to the region, where the attack convoy wasts attacked, they had to turn back, and then they were able to make it later into the region. after they left, the syrian regime started shelling again. the credibility here does not exist. >> it has been a year ago this month that the resident laid out a red line. since then many analysts have said assad has only gotten stronger since then, the rebels have become more fractured since

then, so more broadly, how does notadministration say it is too little too late? inlet me take that question pieces. first of all, on the issue of was ad line, that reference to the potential at the time use of chemical weapons , and when it was established by us that chemical weapons had been used on a very small scale, that in several instances by the syrian regime, we took action, we stepped out our direct assistance to the syrian opposition, the military opposition. have and the world has established a chemical weapons were used on a much broader and terrific scale a few days ago, we are establishing culpability in this matter. we believe there is little doubt about probability, and we will

consider the options, and the president will make a decision, and you will hear from him about that. on the issue of the ongoing conflict, there is no question brutal continues to be and assad continues to use every means available to him to assault his own people. conflict is far at this point from resolution. but for that reason, we and others have continued to step up our assistance to the opposition , and we will work with the opposition going forward. but as i have tried to make clear in response to an earlier question, this is -- the transgression here, the violation of international norm, is a distinct issue and we are considering options and responses stearate. >> you continue to use the phrase, international more. >> i will not lay out a legal case because we are evaluating potential responses.

>> what is the norm it is in violation of? >> prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. >> [indiscernible] the proliferation of weapons of mass instruction, which there is a -- clear use ofbeen a chemical weapons that has been violated -- i doubt it, but we can check. the question at issue here is whether or not the international community and the united states, as part of the international immunity, that shares this view can tolerate this violation, because it is in the profound interest of the united states for that international norm to be maintained. the use of anrate

proliferation of these kinds of weapons. obviously -- -- horri thein this instance, but norm applies to the whole world. and the implications of proliferation, of the use of chemical weapons around the region and the world are terrible, and that is why there is a view we have taken in response to this, and it is a view shared by many nations. >> why is that united nations responsible for forcing this? with are consulting partners and allies around the world and we have not announced a response, and the president has not made a decision about -- >> secretary carey said you guys are going to respond. kerry said you

guys are going to respond. >> assuming the united states alone is appalled by the use of chemical weapons in violation of international norms, that is not the case. i think leaders from other nations have made clear that they share our views about what happened in syria on this particular occasion. but i do not want to get ahead of a process. the president is consulting with allies and partners. secretary kerry has consulted with and will continue to consult with a vast array of his counterparts, and we will keep you updated as make these evaluations. >> can you detail the conversations that a been going on with congress? congress have been consulted, and those consultations will continue. we do not read out every phone call, but the white house and the state department had been consulting members -- >> can you give us some

examples? >> i can tell you members have consulted and will be consulted -- >> [indiscernible] ,> i think members of congress with a particular interest in this matter, have been consulted and will continue to be consulted, and that process is underway and will continue in the coming days. acto you need congress to on anything, or is that determination -- >> i do not want to speculate about what congress might do when we have not even reached a decision -- having that mean congress authorized any action? >> that is a statement of fact that you have made -- >> you thought that, too. >> we are consulting with congress on issues you raise,

reese opposing a decision has not been made. >> i want to clarify something you said earlier, that we would hear from the president when he makes a decision, not if he makes a decision. should we read from that that he will choose one of the military options that he is currently considering? >> the president and his team have not made a decision about the response. they are evaluating options. i think it is safe to say that feeling the gravity of this issue that the president will address it and you will hear along the way here. i am not announcing a specific presidential statement or speech because the process of evaluating our options is underway. >> when you talk about these options, you are specifically talking about them him choosing and military option. >> i do not think i said that.

>> what i am asking -- questions areese related to the potential of decision to use some kind of force. ,n response to smaller scale but proven uses of chemical weapons by the syrian regime, we did respond and we responded with an increase in assistance to the syrian opposition. in the instance we are talking about now, it is a much graver and broader scale, and merits a response accordingly. the international community is addressing this, our intelligence community is assessing this, it is established that weapons were used on a significant scale, and we are evaluating culpability. we believe there is out about who is culpable here, but we continue that process and we continued to consult with

congress and our partners and allies in this matter. are you saying one of the options the president is considering, they are not all military options, but he could respond to this by providing more arms? ini will not engage hypotheticals about decisions that have not been made. -- s it one of the options all of those are not military options, is what you're saying? >> in response to the previous use by the syrian regime of chemical weapons, we did respond id responded in a way that discussed in answer to your question and others. this is obviously significantly more serious with dramatically more heinous results, and we are evaluating our options in response to that in consultation

with our allies and partners and with congress, and when we have an announcement to make about a response, we will obviously make it. i do not want to get ahead of that process. >> in your answer to chuck, were you saying in the white house view no prior authorization from congress is required? assuming a decision that has not been made yet, and i am not going to get ahead of that process. is the president himself involved personally with some of these occultations with lawmakers, or is it all pentagon -- do not have specific conversations to read out to you. the white house and other agencies have been engaged in consultations with congress and that will continue. it has been the case that the president has discussed syria and assad with members of congress in the past, and i am

sure he will do so in the future, including on this specific matter. i will not itemize the calls or consultations except to say that they have been taking place and will continue to take take place. >> it sounds like you are laying the groundwork to make a case, a justification of a military option if that is the way you decide to go, and i know he has not made that decision yet. is it safe to say you are talking about the fact that this is a different level than the past? would you dispute the notion that the ministration right now is very publicly, whether a signal to syria or russia or to our allies, laying the groundwork in saying if we decide to take this route, it is because it is justified because of these actions? >> secretary kerry laid out in powerful and graphic terms the severity of this situation and the seriousness with which we

view it. we are not alone in taking that view. president has made clear for a long time now with regard to this issue, this red line, that he would not rule out any option , including military force. he has also made clear that he does not envision boots on the ground, and that remains the case. so from the beginning when it comes -- when it came to the potential use of chemical weapons in syria, as well as the views on a limited scale, limited scale, and now use on a broader scale, we have never -- never taken a military sawed-off the table, and we are not doing that now. >> i cannot help but think about the position of this with the week ahead, the anniversary of the march on washington, a promoter of peace, and the trip to sweden.

the wondering about president must desire for peace with the possible need for a use of force. is that something that has been on his mind? >> you have heard the president say in the past, and that speech comes to mind, but many other occasions come to mind as well, that there is no weightier decision that he or any of his predecessors can make, and that is putting men and women in uniform in harm's way. case thatlutely the as he said in his recent interview that we have tens of thousands of american literary men and women engaged in a conflict as we speak still in afghanistan, still as we draw down our forces there. only a few years ago we ended a long and costly conflict in

obviously cost in casualties and many other ways and reflected the extraordinary service of our men and women in uniform. these are matters the president seriously, as any president has and would. but it is absolutely the case that he takes action when he believes it is in the clear interests of the united states to do so. that has been the case throughout his presidency and will be the case going forward as he is president. but you are right to say that these are weighty decisions. >> you said that congress with particular interests in this

matter have been told about this. it has been said there is no confrontation. >> i said and i will not go down the path of there are quite a number of members of congress and quite a number of members who have a specific interest in this matter him and i can assure you we will consult with congress, we have consulted with members, and will continue to do that, both from the white house and from other agencies. you are not denying the house member saying there has been no consultation? >> i am not going to itemize calls or individuals. each member of congress who has -- >> why not elected officials? >> we are consulting with members of congress -- we spend a lot of time with these individuals-- >> we talked to these 15

senators -- >> we talked to a number of members of congress, the white house has, the state department has, and other agencies have, and that process will continue. i do not have specific conversations to read out to you, but i can assure you that process is underway and has been underway and will continue moving forward. you said russia technologies that chemical weapons were used. a spokesman for cameron said -- and putin said they did not have evidence that chemical weapons use had been taking place. you to the past indications that the use of chemical weapons on august 21 was acknowledged broadly by nations around the world, including russia and iran. i do not see that statement. but it comes to this particular matter and that conflict in as muche have not seen

cooperation from russia as we and many nations would like, but on the statement i do not have response because i have not seen it. >> at the moment [indiscernible] i do not have a schedule for you. obviously, the g-20 is being used in sync peter sure, russia host nation. as you know, we decided against a bilateral summit in moscow with president putin. >> would it be bilateral? >> i do not have a schedule of what our meetings look like. we are going to st. petersburg for the g-20. >> thank you. do you know if in his include thes

americans who are believed to be held by the regime in syria? >> we are obviously aware of those issues and many others. to make have a comment or assessment to make about how that issues raised in to these deliberations. we are focused on, the president's team is focused on the potential response to the clear violation of an international norm with the use of chemical weapons. >> has there been talk to the regime on getting those people back? >> you will have to be more specific. i can help you on that. the state department has more detailed information. new topic. the treasury department is just now saying the debt ceiling will

be reached in mid-october. does that change or budget calculation? do you anticipate a budget agreement by mid october, or do you still want to negotiate -- >> anything related to the debt and the issues like that, i would refer you to the treasury department. i believe you are referring to something secretary lew has put out. let me reiterate what our position is, and it is unequivocal. we will not negotiate with republicans in congress over congress'responsibility to pay the bills that congress has racked up. period. responsibility to maintain the full faith and credit of the united states. we have never defaulted and we must never default. that is our position, 100%,. . obviously we are going to be

dealing with congress on the .eed to fund the government the president has put forward a clear proposal, compromise proposal, that would reduce the death scene vividly, including through savings in a balanced way. we continue to await a response to that proposal which has been on the table now for which has n on the table now for many months. tworess has responsibilities. it has to pay its bills and vote on a budget. we hope that congress that fills those two basic responsibilities. i wanted to clarify two related questions about his goals. on the chemical weapons, is that the president's goal considering the concern of use and proliferation to locate the chemical weapons to have it in the community take possession?

andhroughout this conflict predating it, this administration has been onremely focused on working the counter proliferation including chemical weapons. syria has been as a regime that maintains stockpiles of chemical weapons a concern. since the conflict began to make clear our concern about the disposition of chemical weapons in syria. we have closely monitored the disposition of those stockpiles. it is our clear assessment that the syrian regime has maintained control over those weapons which is one of the reasons why we believe there is very little doubt about who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

that and the fact they have the records delivering the weapons in a manner they were delivered. the rest of your question gets to what type of response he may be considering. >> i was asking about the goal. the disposition remain separate from this incident. it is separate from the response that is decided upon in reaction to this use of chemical weapons. >> related to carol's question, because the president said it is not in the long-term to be infor serious position of these chemical weapons, and because you called

couldction and atrocity, you say at least the president aim is to have a certain response in reaction to what happened? >> we believe in the president and his team believes that there thought thathe reflects the seriousness of this transition. engage inant to hypotheticals. we are not alone in that assessment. far from it. just a fairly strong reiteration of no boots on the ground. no boots of any kind? i would refer you to what he

said on several occasions. >> does this take us beyond no- fly zone discussions? you know, i would refer you to pass discussions about this. i think the realities about the conflict are as they were. there are potential military responses to this violation of an international norm with the use of chemical weapons on a broad scale against innocent women and children. the nature of the broader conflict remains as it was when they have discussed that particular proposal that some have put forward.

>> to questions. chelsea manning came out as transgender. it does not provide hormone therapy or gender reassignment therapy. shows what he would face as a factor. >> i am not going to speculate about that. , the i showed it earlier white house will be holding a closed-door with bisexual issues. what made the white house decide to her -- to hold it? >> i do not have any information on you. >> there was a decision to be pushed back to 2014. was that true? >> that is being undertaken by the state department. i would refer you. >> i think i'm going to end it

there. thank you very much, everybody. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the questionsof from reporters at the briefing dealt with the use of chemical weapons in syria. and whether the syrian government is responsible for an attack last week and what response will be if any front the u.s. we had them refer to this. morallled the attack " obscenities." . the briefing. >> for the last several days president obama and his entire national security team have been reviewing the situation in syria.

i want to provide an update on our efforts as we consider our response to the use of chemical weapons. should saw in syria shock the conscience of the world. it defies any code of morality. let me be clear. the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. by any standard, it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocation that some have manufactured, it is undeniable. the meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict of syria, and that conflict has brought already so much terrible suffering. this is about the large-scale indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else. there is a clear reason that the

world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. there is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. there is a reason why president obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons and locked them down where they do exist. there is a reason why president obama has made clear to the assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences. and there is a reason why no matter what you believe about syria, all peoples in all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure there is

accountability for chemical weapons. last night after speaking with foreign ministers about the gravity of this situation, i watched the videos, videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and i watched them one more gutwrenching time. it is hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us. as a father, i cannot get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him, the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of life or even a visible wound, bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget. anyone who can claim an attack of this staggering scale can be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass. what is before us today is real, and it is compelling.

so i also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in syria is grounded in fact, informed by conscience, and guided by common sense. the reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground, like doctors without borders and the syrian human rights commission, these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in syria. moreover, we know that the syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. we know that the syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets.

we note that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. and with our own eyes, we have almost become witnesses. we have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed, together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead. that information in the days ahead. our sense of basic humanity is offended, not only by this cowardly crime, but also i the cynical attempt to cover it up.

at every turn, the syrian regime has failed to cooperate with the u.n. investigation, using it only to stall and stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in damascus. as ban-ki moon said last week, the u.n. investigation will not determine who used the weapons, only if such weapons were used a judgment that is already clear to the world. i spoke on thursday with the syrian foreign minister, and i made it clear to him that if the regime had nothing to hide, then their response should be immediate, immediate transparency, immediate access. their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. failure to follow that, i told him, would tell its own story. instead, for five days, the syrian regime refused to allow the u.n. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them. instead, they systematically destroyed evidence. that is not the behavior of the government that has nothing to hide.

that is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons. in fact, the regime's decision to allow access is too late and it is too late to be credible. today's reports of the attack on the u.n. investigators, together with the continued shelling weakens the regime's credibility. the administration is consulting with members of congress and we will continue to have these conversations in the days ahead. the president has also been in close touch with leaders of our key allies and the president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this discovery of the use of chemical weapons. make no mistake, president obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people. nothing today is more serious and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.

drawing the red lines what you're about to do is folly. the president cannot fail to act decisively. , aight at 7:30 p.m. eastern conversation with former vice president dick cheney along with his daughter liz who is turning the 2016tion to

election. here is a preview. in thedecisions we made bush administration, we basically made it that night after the day was over with. the president was back and addressed the country. we were evacuating off the white house. -- that issued your was a secure, undisclosed location. we wanted to preserve the continuity of government areas one of the things we worried about was we were very careful not to get into a situation or attack that could take us both out. i had the opportunity to set up their close to the night and watch the reruns on television of what had happened that day. what we to think about have to do now. how do we make certain that never happens again?

there we go get the guys that did it to us. the key decision was to say that was an act of war. then we were justified in gathering all of our resources including our manpower and intelligence capabilities and using all the powers of the president under article two of the constitution as the commander in chief. that is what we did. weing the course of that, put in place a terrorist surveillance program. it is are referred to as the nsa program. basically what it did was it confidence in the program we put in place. theve not been involved in classified substance and let they stop this. they put in place enhanced

interrogation program, waterboarding. some people said that was torture. i do not believe it was torture. the fact was that the enhanced interrogation program signed off i the justice department using techniques we used on their own will. it was not tortured on matter what anybody said. it was a, legitimate program. [applause] >> all of that conversation with vice president dick cheney along with his daughter liz cheney tonight on c-span at 7:30 p.m. eastern. at the museum -- , wend are original series looked at the public and private lives of the women who served as first lady during the nation's first 112 years.

as you move into the modern era, we will feature the first ladies in their own words. >> building human rights would onone of the foundations which we would build in a world an atmosphere in which peace could grow. i do not think the white house can ever completely belong to one person. velocity people of america. -- it belongs to the people of america. >> from edith roosevelt to michelle obama. live monday night including your calls, facebook comments and tweets starting september 9 on c-span. tonight we will conclude the encore presentation of season one with first lady ida mckinley. >> this morning at the museum in washington, the foundation mark the 50th anniversary on the

march of washington with a discussion on civil rights movement. participants include the president of the naacp as well as the president of the national urban league. this is just over two hours. >> good morning. thank you for saying good morning in a way that i would hear, and with that sort of energy. thank you all. this is such a joy to be here in this historic week, to celebrate our history and to envision and move forward toward creating the future that we all want, and certainly the future that our children deserve. i am gail christopher, the vice president of the program strategy at the w.k. kellogg foundation. i would like to welcome you on behalf of our staff and our grantees on -- all over the nation.

we stand in solidarity behind this idea that no lie can live forever, and we must heal for our children's sake. when mr. kellogg built the foundation he said do what you will with the money, so long as it benefits the children. during his lifetime he worked to help vulnerable children. when we sit back and look at the changing demographic of this country am a and we lick -- country, and we realize that most of the children being born today are children of color, and we see them growing up and -- in impoverished situations, we must help them. that is why the w.k. kellogg foundation, one of the largest philanthropic organizations in the world has made this their focus.

it is a topic that most people are uncomfortable with, and are in denial about. we launched this work in 2010 and here we are today, on the anniversary of what is perhaps the most the store -- historic galvanizing of human will to eradicate racism in this country. dr. king not only held a vision and a dream for us, but we believe in his remarks, made in montgomery, on the capital steps, when he asked winwood freedom, -- when asked when would freedom come, he answered that no lie can live forever.

we must eradicate the absurd notion of the hierarchy of the human family. that is the notion that gave permission for the enslavement of millions. that notion, that belief, it is antiquated, it is absurd, it came about in the 1700s, when the time of the printing press came about. it was proliferated throughout the world, it was embedded in all of our systems, that somehow the hierarchy of value -- immanuel kant said that people who looked like him should be at the top of the hierarchy. that was the foundation of the understanding and ignorance of those times. we have fought to eradicate

racism, but we have not talked about the effects of racism. we fought a civil war, but imagine if we, the abolitionists, had shed that belief instead of the blood of hundreds of thousands of people. imagine how the world would be if there had been a concerted effort to set things right and assert truly the equality of humankind. we will submit to you that the work of the 21st century is that work. we have new tools that we did not happen the 20th century -- did not have in the 20th century. we understand how the brain works now, how and by the -- how the ideas get embedded in the human conscious.

it is time to my wise -- mobilize those technologies, to change the fundamental construct on which our nation was built. we asserted a quality -- equality, but we built this on inequality. as we go forward into the 21st century, we ask, as the w.k. kellogg foundation, to move beyond rhetoric and beyond denial. there was a publication last week that suggested that we are contrary to a post-racial america, that less than half of whites actually believe we have made a lot of ryegrass toward -- progress toward dr. king's

dream. that means that some of us are moving past denial of the work that remains to be done. a lot of us are moving past denial. once we pass the denial of fact, we must move past the denial of the consequences, of the feelings. i want to tell you a very brief story of when i was about 13. i lived in an area that was all white, and they brought in colored kids from all over the country. it was my first exposure to different backgrounds. my roommate was another young

woman from my town. we got along famously. at the end of the summer i came home to our house, and there was an ambulance in front of the door. they brought her out on a stretcher. they were taking her to the hospital, because she had attempted to commit suicide. they showed me the letter that she had written. it was almost time for us to go home, and she was afraid to go home, because her father had so convinced and indoctrinated her as to the inhumanity of blacks. that she should hate black people. her experience over that summer had been a complete contradiction to what she had been raised to believe, and as a young white, she was so confused.

the irony? her father was a police officer. that story speaks volumes. i told it because it shows the immense progress we have made over the years. the human brain is wired to accept stories. if we keep telling stories, we will accept the same thing. if you turn on the television and see another story that disenfranchies the people of color, say no. our panelists here today represent amazing organizations that represent millions of people all over the country who have been working to eradicate the scourge of the belief in hierarchy. to make right the injustice to this work. they are also part of a larger

network of hundreds of community organizations all over this nation that the w.k. kellogg foundation has founded to do this work. they're going to share with you their perceptions of what we need to do to bring about change. most importantly, they reflect the diversity, they reflect the inclusion, they reflect the power that is embodied in this charge. which is, we have to work together as a nation to heal this nation. not for those people, or those people, or those people, but for all of us. if we just raise the average income of the people of color to the average income of whites, we would increase our gdp by $1.8 trillion, and that would translate into billions of dollars in corporate revenues.

the blessings that would flow into this country will flow into this country when we have eradicated racism. those blessings are immeasurable. that is where our focus has to be. the experiment -- that is what democracy is, a great experiment, a great experiment in human empowerment. it cannot survive without human equality and human equity. this is our work, it is the work we must do, and like the work of the civil rights movement, that work will be looked upon and emulated, and embraced by other countries around the world. if we heal our legacies of racial division, imagine what it will kneel in -- will mean for the rest of the world.

we are blessed today to have a sheat coanchor to our panel. has worked with abc and nbc and lifetime television. she is no stranger to our community. agreedvery happy she has to join us today. i used the word moderate with a great deal of courage and trepidation, because it is going to take some energy to moderate this panel. but join me please in welcoming carolyn sawyer. [applause] thank you so much. thiss an honor to be here. initiative, america healing, is important work.

as i became familiar with this organization earlier this year, i hope you will also become addicted. i have a distinguished panel, and about an hour and 10 minutes to cover a large number of topics. we are looking at the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. let me introduce the panel, give you their names, organization, and you can hear more about their work as we continue this discussion. please welcome this morning miles rapaport. thet to him is rinku sen. president and executive director of the applied research center. next to her is judith browne dainis. thet to her is marc morial.

president of the national urban league incorporated.next to him is alvin herring.the senior vice president for programs. chiefe ralph everett, the executive for the center of studies. and economic please welcome gordon whitman who is the director of policy for the pico national network. next to him is philip tegeler, who is the executive director of the poverty and race research action council.welcome. next to him is the president and chief executive officer of the end -- naacp.benjamin jealous. welcome to all of our panelists, and to the audience.

we will begin our discussion coming off a big weekend here in washington dc. the historic 50th anniversary of the march on washington. i know we talked about it earlier, but can you tell us about your reflections from the weekend? >> it was a powerful weekend, a great crowd, a glorious and beautiful day. there was a tremendous amount of energy. those of us who were involved in the mobilization, got grounded in a couple of ideas. it was a collaborative effort by civil rights labor and civic organizations who came together under the leadership of a. philip randolph. this year the mobilization was a i thinkrative effort. what you saw

speaking from the lincoln memorial, what you saw was a broad array from all walks of life. we needed to focus on the new america, the new civil rights movement. the new equity in the backdrop of the supreme court's horrendous decision of section four of the voting rights act. the justice system's insufficiencies and disparities and need for reform shown by the trayvon martin case. what i was struck by is the large number of young people, including children. i was struck by the fact that everyone had a phone, everyone had a camera, so there should be an ample record of this. it is a game changer for those of us who are here on this stage.

it is a time for us to use the energy created by the historic 50th anniversary to look ahead. not to simply be commemorative and nostalgic, but we've got to be inspired by that. this needs to be framed by what i would call the go forward issues. it is a powerful day, a wonderful day, and i just feel privileged that the national urban league, which was there in >>63, was there in 2013. ralph, real quickly. >> i too, like marc, was struck by the energy there on saturday. it was for me, a time of reflection, having grown up in south carolina.i was 12 at the

time of the march. remembering how far we have come. what i was reminded of during this march was the energy and the young folks, how much work we still have to do, but it felt really good the number of people that were there. a bunch of young folks, so it just gave me new hope that the new generation will be able to tackle all the problems that we still have existing. >> we were really pushing, the crowd that day was pushing on those two core decisions. -- court decisions. the first -- second was the decision in florida on the george zimmerman case.

the crowd was reflected in the -- theity of speakers. diversity of the crowd was reflected in the diversity of the speakers. at it will go down it as one of the most diverse marches in washington ever. and that was reflective of decisions that have been made over the last several years. as the tea party has risen up, and government becomes more aggressively extremely conservative, all of us in labor and full rights and -- civil rights, and other communities need to recognize that this is the moment to come together, in the model of the three musketeers, and say all for one, that is why like

a state like maryland -- just in passed american marriage equality, and abolished the death penalty. in a state that is as drenched in the legacy of slavery, it is the state that harriet tubman escaped from, the 18th state in the confederacy if president lincoln had not taken extreme action to keep that from happening. what the civil rights and human rights communities have been able to compete -- achieve there in the last year should be a beacon for the entire country as we move deeper into the century. it is not just people's color as our demographic, they are

getting more inclusive than we have seen before. >> the hispanic community was engaged in the 1963 march in ways that we do not think about. he was galvanized to do all that he could for the poor hispanic community because of dr. martin our long-term leader was a medic at the march in 1963 and went on to do great things. he went on to do great things inspired by that day. that march was about jobs and justice, and we have made a lot of ground in the area of rights, and wealth for our communities. what struck me about the march is how all of the communities came together.marcy talked about

a new america. that was totally reflected in the march. it gives us great hope as we look at the young people and demographics of today about going forward together and shaping this country for the better. >> one thing that i will remember from this march, definitely, is that women were on the stage, and speaking. this is women's equality day, folks should know. i remember being in a planning meeting for this march, and i are member -- remember marc saying look at the sisters in the room, sisters will be on the stage. i think that is important because women have played such an important role in the civil rights movement. we continue to play an important role, and i think about all of the women like ella baker, who were phenomenal women, phenomenal sisters to the movement.

i think it is great to see the spectrum of women, from young woman, latina sisters. we really did have the mix of rollingho do hard work. up our sleeves for the movement. also, i think young people -- young people were there because they know what happened to trayvon could happen to them. they all know a trayvon. i think out of this, we have had a lot of progress. young people are ready for more. that is where the energy are -- is there now, this has really been the summer of discontent. people are ready to move for something bigger and be aggressive at it. for us, we are working in a very big dream defender, and they were there in numbers. there are a number of people saying we are going to make that

happen. >> a couple of moments really stood out for me, speaking of women. one of my favorite moments was when i was walking past that planned parenthood banner. i tweeted most of the march, and as i was walking past planned parenthood i heard a couple behind me, and one of the woman was talking about the banner. one said to the other, girl, you know they are trying to take away our birth control. clearly on the agenda. [laughter] the other thing that struck me was that i did interviews with lots of people. one of the questions i asked them was when do you think we are going to achieve racial justice in this country? when is it going to happen?

there were three responses that i got that really ran the spectrum. one was, i don't think we will ever achieve it fully, but we have to keep working toward it. the second was, i think we will only achieve it after more time has passed after slavery then we spent in slavery. another 250, 300 years or so. the third response was what a lot of people think because there is a paradigm shifting. i think it is very difficult to it isthose three realities. never going to come fully. it is going to take hundreds of years, because we have spent young -- spent hundreds of years with slavery as the main show in our history. not a show, and a vent. -- an event.and it is going to come tomorrow. because we are working on making it come tomorrow. we are making progress, we are

winning things. we are on the verge of ending the city's practice, no matter-- in new york city where i'm from, we are on the verge of ending the city stop and frisk practice, no matter how much mayor bloomberg defends it. the women's agenda really needs to be a part of the agenda, in preparing for racial justice to be here tomorrow, and for it to never be here. speaking to the diversity of the march, and really the purpose of the american healing program, we have seen the growth and diversity of the population, especially with immigrant communities. expanding the population in the

-- in the united states for the past 30 years, and really the 2012 elections were a wake-up call to both parties. the overwhelming response from both latino and asian-american communities for the president was a wake-up call for how important immigrant rights are and how much this group works together around immigrant's rights. around justice, and a whole range of civil rights issues that are important to the whole country. it is important, not only to this work, but to the work that we've been doing over the past many years. >> i think marc brought forward a key issue that was on the minds of many people this weekend. the question i would put out is where would we go next, what is next? >> the folks right now are focused on three or four big things. we have to get comprehensive immigration reform through.

we have to get section four of the voting rights act restored. we have to raise the minimum wage higher than we ever have before. and then, bullocks are also focused on -- folks are focused on racial profiling that has come out in the racial trials, like the trayvon martin trial. there is a wider range of issues --at we need to support. continue to support. at various movements are pushing forward. we can hope, that in our lifetime we will see a renaissance of ideas. we are seeing that happen now, because we are winning more state-level battles. the problem is that we are going to be winning in state where we are winning, and losing in the

states where we are being challenged. >> i want to hear each spent -- perspective from each organization. what do you see as next now that we've gotten the supreme court ruling on the voting rights? >> i think we are going to see a -- i think we have to fight against the things that we've seen in the supreme court ruling and states like yours caroline out where awful things are happening. at the same time, i think there opportunity toe really open up the voting process and get millions and millions of people registered. whether it is through state legislative changes, or whether it's through battles in the courts to really expand or to utilize national tools that we have like the voter registration act. i see the opportunity over the

next several years to really expand the voting. >> you shared with me this morning a tactic to use the affordable care act, can you share that with us briefly? the affordable care act, because it gives people public benefits, not just insurance, but medicaid and children's is covered under the national voter registration act. therefore, all the people who go to those health benefit exchanges are required to be asked whether they want to register and vote. if the 68 million people take that opportunity, it will be a will be change that's possible. that is a huge opportunity not to be missed. three states that have committed to this process?

>>vermont, north carolina, and maryland have all said they will include the voter registration question with their health benefits. it is a big deal. >> legalization, regularization for our 11 million immigrants who have been here for years. after that, and hand-in-hand with that is voter registration. getting more hispanics registered to vote. getting hispanics who are registered to vote to vote in off year elections and to change the conference.-- change the congress. if we can do that, this country will be a changed place. >> we saw in less than 30 days that what we projected if the supreme court ruled the way it did in shelby, what happened -- the attorney. general of texas did not even take time to read the decision before he announced he would implement legislation that had been ruled discriminatory by a three-judge

move.we saw north carolina swiftly to pass draconian, anti- democratic legislation. but here's what is good, he has -- attorney general holder has acted swiftly, two, indicating his resolve to use the justice department to protect democracy. private counsel are already mobilizing to use state constitutional provisions, the voting rights act to protect democracy. we need new, strengthened, armies of lawyers. we need armies of activists. we need to elevate the idea that we cannot allow, but -- the clock to not be turned back. it is a turn back to the old

literacy tests. it's a turn back to a time of provisions that happened in the post reconstruction period. the late 1890s, the constitutional convention. we have to elevate that as a nation involved in democracy protection in places like they cannot be allowed to shirk their moral responsibility to protect democracy here at home. we have got to say it in those terms. we have too narrow a question of it is a biggers.

conversation about what democracy means in the 21st century. we all have to draw a line in the sand. we have to ask all to account on where they indeed stand. it is fundamentally -- these retrogressions happen in a drip, drip, drip. there is a law over here -- there is a statue over there. soon, you look up, and you of loss tremendous ground. we have to fight back, regain our ground. >> i just want to support what really, if you think of those people who are i in short, people on medicaid, this is an opportunity to get to communities that are traditionally disenfranchised, and you can get them to vote and act on the national voter registration act, they will be able to shift

according to what marc is include more of our population who are disenfranchised. if you have these core groups who have been disenfranchised turned around, it will make a big shift. >> i come from alaska. alaska is one of those states where we have challenges. they were looking for the supreme court decision so they can move forward. since that time they have made some decisions about eliminating some voting places. they do not have early voting. 20% of the population is alaskan thatve, and can turn a vote. comes from our rural communities. when the rivers are too frozen to travel, and you cannot get to those places where early voting is not prohibited, that 20% is we are other than

the hispanic, we are the only other population where our primary language is our indigenous language. voting rights protections, it can substantially impact native americans and a lasting -- and alaskan natives. those things are really important for us. particularly because of issues like protecting our indian welfare.-- indian child welfare. we have a lot of unique laws to us as an indian people. right now we are having a case that is being determined on the same day as the supreme court case remanded the baby veronica child remandedee back to the south carolina court. the south carolina court didn't even have the rights of the child for the hearing to take

place in -- the child has asked to return from her cherokee >>ther to an adoptive parent. absolutely. i saw that one as well. >> the shelby county case opened the floodgates to what we will see as kind of a really aggressive rollback of voting rights. it was already happening, it was happening as kind of a retribution for the turnout in 2008. when african-american and latino voters, and young voters turned out in record numbers. we saw this wave already happen of trying to pull us back, but now with the supreme court -- the you're out of the feds are out of the picture, we are going to see northloodgates open.

carolina, front and center. we are working very closely with the folks at the branches of the naacp, because they have very it wassive voting laws. plugged -- it was because there had been a movement there for years. they were able to secure free, fair, and accessible elections. because that state has become progressive, there is this fear that north carolina is the rest of the south -- is a sign to the if norththe south. carolina can become a progressive state with a rising demographic, the rest of the south will go. so, they passed legislation that will cut early voting. 70% of african-americans voted by early voting in the 2012 elections. they have cut same-day

registration during the early voting period. voter id will be in place, the cutbacks to students, we are seeing this in every place. we need to understand that this is the real fight. the voting booth is the one place where we are all equal. on election day you walk into the voting booth, and it does not matter if you are white, does notich, or poor. matter your race, your sexual orientation. we are all equal. it does not matter how much money you have. so that is where they're trying to make the difference to be able to win. >> i want to thank you for giving some specific examples, because i heard this morning that the national -- was saying he did not understand what the big deal was.>> don't call his name. [laughter] >> yes, do. [laughter]

>> i want to echo what judith was saying. we saw last year that making it harder for the african-americans to vote backfired. we saw incredible turnout, incredible civic engagement. i am thinking about a pastor who did not hold his services on sunday and sent people out to vote, because they had put out incredible efforts to restrict we are in a huge fight. we have to be on the offense on it. we are very happy as pico to be working to re-enfranchise the estimated 1.4 million previously incarcerated men and women who are disenfranchised in florida. it is true in many other states. we need to go on the offense.

what is exciting about that is it is led by people who are directly affected. what we have the opportunity to do over the next few years -- it is not just did this weekend. really, we will be celebrating -- and incredible string of social accomplishments. healthcare, medicaid, civil when changeemind us is led by the people most . it isy affected combining that work with local communities. i'm thinking about johnny perez, who led an effort -- a 19-year-old young man who was formerly incarcerated led a movement in california to convince his county not to expand their jail even though they had state funds to do that. to take that money, and put it

into prevention, job training, job access. when the newspaper story about that effort was written, johnny said at 19, if you had told me a year ago when i was sitting in jail that i would be outside leading an effort to convince my county there was a better way, i would've said you're crazy. the district attorney said, i'm disappointed there will not be 150 more beds we planned. that local work tied together with this infrastructure will get a string of victories on voting rights, on jobs, on citizenship. i think we have a remarkable opportunity, but we do have a ton of work to do.

>> we have people in the audience who we want to hear from as well. we provided cards for them to fill out questions. we will actually share those questions with the audience. if you want to tweet and shoot a question, that is available as well. >> one thing i was really proud about last year, being part of this group, part of the large civil rights community, was the litigation that went on in the courts. the civil rights movement, at its best moments, has been about engaging the community and the courts together. i think the push back that we

saw to voter suppression, we have a lot of exciting legislation all across the south to push back. that was hand-in-hand with community engagement and mobilization. often in the past we have seen litigation and the judicial system driving the values of the community. i actually think that the shelby case was a disaster. the voting rights act took a big hit, but section two of the voting rights act is still alive and well, at least for now. i think we have a huge opportunity here, while we are waiting for congress to act, to bring a whole new wave. i know it is already starting, and i think that is really the best tradition of the movement, the lawyers working together with the community, and that is a two-way reciprocal relationship. that could be the silver lining of shelby, but i don't want to go too far with that.

[laughter] >> there is? >> we are a nonpartisan research organization, and one of the things that we do is provide the research and data on all of the things that we have talked about to our congress and to our legislators to help them make the right decisions on things going forward. the voting rights is so fundamental to all of the things that we have been discussing here in terms of making changes and making things happen. when the joint senate first started in 1970 there were 1500 african-han 1500 americans who were elected to office. that in part directly related to the voting rights act. i grew up in south carolina, and

i had folks that died in order to get the vote. what is going on now hurts me very deeply, and we need to vote we need to fight and make sure we continue to get this right to -- fight and make sure we continue to get this right to vote. >> here at the healing america conference, we had the verdict on trayvon martin. what does this mean for america, we had the marches after it, what does this mean for america and what can we do collectively as organizations look to, to change the outcome for young men and boys of color? >> i think this moment really, for many of us personally, was a --ry disappointing moment. difficult moment.

i'm sure many people can remember exactly where they were when they heard that there was an acquittal. many of us had to support one another through that moment. now we have to move forward in changing the outcomes. the outcome is not just about that case, it is not individualized, it is what is happening for children of color generally in this country. we are galvanizing the young children, and there is beauty in that. if you think about the role that those young people, those college students, and younger than that play, they are ready. we have been working very closely with the supreme defenders in florida who, right after the killing, took over the police department because they were upset there were no -- days had passed and

there were no arrests. after getting the arrest, they moved on to after the acquittal, taking over the state capitol. over the 31 days, young people stayed there, and i had the opportunity to stay with them. i really strategized with them what was next, how to change the anger into a movement. what we have been doing is working with them and the naacp, in drafting what is known as trayvon's law. we have three components of it in florida. one is which is repealing the stand your ground law. the second is to stop those things that are really racial that means to stop things that are happening in terms of suspensions. we have people who are like george zimmerman in school, profiling kids in the hallways.

we are going to see this movement growing. it is not going to be just florida, but it is spreading because people have decided that this is their issue. what is important is that we give them the space to actually do that. >> when i heard about the trayvon martin decision, as i was driving, i picked up my cell phone and i was stopped by police for using my cell phone with my children in the car. i agree with everything judith has shared. i think many of us immediately asked the justice department to

to revive its investigation on whether any federal laws were violated. the family has civil remedies. i've seen ms. fulton on a number of occasions, and while she has conducted herself with a great deal of dignity, and strength, and made the rounds on television and in the communities, i see a mother in pain. and i see in her the other mothers in pain around the nation who have lost loved ones due to senseless violence. the idea of what we do to push comprehensive reform in the criminal justice system, racial profiling, stand your ground, unfair sentencing processes and procedures, inadequate public

defenders in the criminal justice system. i think that also has to include more candid conversations about what was referred to on saturday as violence in the community, where we have to assert ourselves because too many young people are dying each and every it has got to include gun legislation. we have to seize the moral ground on this issue. we are losing more people to gun violence every year than we have lost in iraq or afghanistan. the numbers of young people that we lose every year in this country trumps any engagement we have. whether it is the voting rights, or trayvon/george zimmerman, it is time for a wake-up call for the nation. >> so, i think that one thing

the zimmerman verdict gave us a chance to talk about is how to define racism today as opposed to how we have defined it 50 years ago. i think americans still think of all racism as being individual, overt, and intentional. if there had been a newspaper saying, or that george zimmerman had used the n-word, when he went after him, people cannot recognize that as racism unless someone says explicitly race hateful things.

what we need to pay a little more attention to in our fight is the notion of implicit bias. it is the notion of unconscious racism. it gets codified in our institutions by our practices and unwritten rules. if we can take the opportunity to talk with our fellow citizens about how racism actually works and that it can present even among good people. i am not saying there were good people in the zimmerman situation, but among people who think of themselves as good

people, we can cause a lot of racial harm. we need to focus on how to interrupt those implicit biases. how to create the type of protocols and practices and tools that get people to actually stop and think, not just go on their first assumption. to ask themselves a set of questions, whether it is in police departments, hospital, or schools, that start to disrupt these biases that most people are not aware of, but that do terrible damage nonetheless. >> philip, you have to jump in here and talk about these implicit biases. >> i do not want to get in the way of ben, but in terms of your point earlier about how long it is going to take to get to a better place, i think we have to look at the disparities and

discrimination and implicit bias. one of the key distructions that we look at over and over again is racial economic segregation and separation. looking at the implicit demands -- list of demands from the march 50 years ago was not about freedoms, it was about integration. why the movers of the march supported racial integration, it was not about aesthetics, it was about equal opportunity and they had heated discussions about how it led to stereotypes, and misunderstandings. there are many structures and

policies that we have to look at that reproduce inequality and racial disparity but i think segregation is one of the key influences. we have more people living in concentrated poverty than we did 30 or 40 years ago. our schools are more segregated than they were at the height of the desegregation movement. these are things that -- we have a lot of faith in our young people, america's very diverse, but we are still separating. the next generation, coming up, is much more enlightened than we were, but they're still living in a system that produces the same patterns that we see. it is an inconvenient thing to talk about, but has to be on the agenda like it was 50 years ago.

>> ben, i told you i was going to get to you. judith outlined the trayvon law, and my question is how will you have to attack with this? will it be county by county? will it be state-by-state? what is the approach? state, county by county, city by city. cp -- the dna double -- i will turn in one .7 million to the u.s. department them toce calling for file civil charges against george zimmerman for violating trayvon martin's civil rights. a half of those signatures came in on cell

phones. young people primarily organizing on their smartphones. tragedy, we have played a decisive role in removing the chief of police in sanford, florida, and replacing him with someone who has the interests of the entire community at heart, and he was being strategic about getting the community -- and is being strategic about getting the community back together. we played a critical role in delivering a vetoproof majority to outlaw a racial profiling. put in place for the first time, for the nypd. perhaps the only major police thattment in the country did not have an inspector general. we are focusing on victory and pragmatic reform that people's

lives on the ground. there will be a federal version of trayvon's law. , he will congress probably go as far as the racial profiling act. we will be focused on winning in the states where we can win. but frankly, pushing in states where we may not be able to win now, but we will be able to win in the future. to takerespect, we have a cue from the voter rights movement. the tea party showed up, and they started hitting home runs. we need to understand that after 30 years or so of evolution of power to the states that in this century, passing state legislation and county legislation will be as important as passing federal legislation. are in 12 hundred places

throughout this country, active in every state capital. we have two branches in the state of alaska. the most important thing for all of us come up for all of our neighbors, is to get organized. i tell people, i don't care if you join the naacp or another group. you better join something. a democracy, there is organized people in organized money as the sources of power. onlyized munley -- money wince when people are not organized. when people are not organized. >> this moment we are in, after the zimmerman verdict, is we are in crisis. our babies are being killed. it is trayvon, but it is jordan davis. i met his parents yesterday.

who was inoung man the car, playing his music too loud for a white man, apparently. a white man allegedly pulled out a gun. well, he did do that part. and killed him. teenagerts for a young in florida. for music that was being played to loudly. crisis when young, can be shot dead because their music was too loud. as a community -- it's not just young, black men. it is how young black girls are being treated. how young people of color are being treated as predators in our country. we have gotten away from the idea that they are our babies.

don't know that this is the 911 call, that we have to organize around, if we miss this moment, we can forget it. the racial justice moment will not come. if we cannot fight for our babies, to have justice for our babies and allow them to live and be treated as human beings, what are we doing? this is a time when we have got to make the call. people have got to do the organizing, getting back to the old school organizing of the naacp, of sclc. we've got to get back to it. i agree. it happens at the county level, city and county level. to move hearts and minds, it to bees arts and culture

engaged. i was in oakland. i went to the fruitvale convention. it pulled together the community in oakland. spoke to implicit bias, the institutions and systems that allow something like that to happen. i appreciated the filmmaker's work. say, he was telling a story. he told in a way that was sensitive to the diversity in communityhe way the comes together, and the need for organizing and how important that organizing is. it really is the life of our children, and the lives of our families. on all those levels, the organizing at the various levels, and moving hearts and minds with arts and culture is such an important piece. >> i think what ryan did with his movie to really humanize

oscar grant as a full person, a human being, and all the complexity is how we honor trayvon martin. on us is to bring about thousands and thousands of conversations that are multiracial, that occur in local communities, where people talk about their own experience and we have honest conversations about what it is like to grow up , and what theued opportunity structures are. that american conversation has to happen, and it has to get connected to what dennis talking about, really concrete changes reallyis talking about, concrete changes. there is no reason why so many young people should be killed in cities across the country.

most of the gun violence deaths are happening in 50 cities. saw the sandy hook discussion open up some conversation about violence, but because it wasn't racialized, it did not come with an understanding of implicit tos -- we have to learn how talk about race, and how it works in our society. it's not hard, it takes a lot of work and effort. we have to put the will into that. an opportunity, but we can't squander it. it really starts with these conversations that need to organize and change the local and state, and ultimately, we have big national policy change we will bring about. >> absolutely.

for so long, so many journalists have covered you individually. jaclyn, i know you want to get in. i know you are a southern guy, and you would like a lady to go first. [laughter] lessonsarned a lot of with the violence against women. we came together from a lot of different communities, and came together based on our backgrounds and the issues here it the conversation happened in our communities, amongst our women. we had a message, and we were able to accomplish it. even though we got the violence against women act reauthorized, the conversations have not ended in our communities. we learned a lot from each other. kellogg had sponsored another event not too long ago, where some of us were in switzerland. we talked about privilege and oppression. i don't think we have enough

conversations. that is one piece of it, the gapnscious bias, the wealth . those things have to be on the agenda. the impact is beyond the trayvon martin case. race is one thing that is very uncomfortable for people to talk about. i believe we need to have the conversation, but we need to seek out people who are different from us to have the conversation with. i also applaud president obama for his statement on the martin case, when he came out and did the 70 minute speech from his heart the talked about that. able as the president of the u.s. and a black man to convey to people who do not think they are racists, the kind

of things that happened to him behind locked doors. they do not think they are racist until you actually call them out on something. you also need to help your theyds as they do things do not believe are racist to call them aside and say, do you know how that made them fail -- me feel? need to have this discussion and dialogue. race is a very uncomfortable thing to talk about. >> do you want to jump in here? >> this conversation makes all of us very sad. years,back to the 150 how long this is going to take. when we think of trayvon martin, we think of policy response. trayvon martin was a kid going to a store. he was not a high school dropout.

had beent someone who adjudicated. he wasn't all those things. these are our normal, everyday kids. race isersation about going to have to complement the legal work we're are doing, the voting work we are doing. this is the part that will take 150 years, and the part that makes me sad. it is the part that is about individual to individual, and we cannot forget that when we think about how we change laws and how we create policies. it is about human to human. >> one thing we do at the applied research center that has helped in those conversations spendoften is, we try to more time talking and thinking about impact rather than in tension so that when the person says, i'm not a racist, i did not intend to offend anybody, i did not intend to oppress anybody, i have learned to

accept that lack of intention. maybe i feel confident that it wasn't there, maybe i don't. if the person says, i did not nownd to, my usual reaction which i had to train myself into is to accept that and accept it on its face. if they said, i did intend to, that would be a different conversation. [laughter] i have had that conversation, too. better if you don't intend to, in my view. if you don't intend to, we can accept that as a promise. we can move -- i miss -- premis e. we can move on from there and talk about the impact of positions and behaviors. often, ifthat quite you can reinforce people possibly intentions, -- people's

intentions, they will have openness to changing their behavior. if their defenses go out right away, and you as the mature, justice heroacial canhat conversation reinforce what is good -- can't reinforce what is good and a lack of racist intention, that is a person -- if you can reinforce, that is the person you might be able to recruit into this grand project we have. >> i have heard martin luther king the third say this weekend that 50 years ago, when his father was delivering his speech , they came to washington and it was about civil rights and labor. he talked about it being about justice and civil rights and jobs. we have not talked much about jobs.

it is sometimes difficult to fight the good fight if you don't have a check in. >> we have to recognize that there is a jobs gap in the nation. there is a growing income inequality, which when combined with the racial wealth gap -- america today has a larger income inequality than at any time since the 1920's. ground lost tremendous in terms of that. while we have a stronger safety and overall standards of living are generally higher, we -- althougheople there are still people who have to use an outhouse. 1925,as the reality of particularly for those in the rural south. we dedicated our work at the national urban league for 103 plus years to jobs and economic

equality. we launched in may of this year a new initiative called, jobs rebuild america. we have an unprecedented level of new job training programs. some targeted at the formerly incarcerated, both from the juvenile and adult system, that we are going to try to help train and place into jobs. tell you that from a public policy perspective, the most important step we have got to do is help people move towards livable wages. we need an increase in the minimum wage. we need to make work pay. work needs to pay. the large number of americans who work and are still poor cannot make ends meet. it is a tragedy. there is a tendency to think of the poor as being unemployed. so many of the poor are working poor.

so many of the working poor are women with children, young women with children, young women of color from all communities. issues, we have been thwarted for a number of years. wall street got is bailout program. -- it's bailout program. main street did not. things like the american jobs , it is not just about public policy. public policy is crucial and key. that is why yesterday was about jobs and justice. 1963 was about jobs and justice. when it comes to the african- we have acommunity, higher unemployment rate in 2013 than we did in 1953. we have got to elevate economic

policy. those of us who work in the justice community also have to focus more on economic policy. when people are economically independent, self-sustaining, they have less challenges when it comes to things like health and education. , and matters work together are most importantly the work we do because we are a direct services organization. what i'm looking for is some of the work we are doing to help those who have been incarcerated. when we get success, the message is going to be, we need to expand this kind of work. we already face the barriers of people who debts -- do get training, not able to get work because of barriers on hiring people who have any blemish on their record.

economics is so crucial to this new civil rights movement. >> in some ways, the issue is even larger. we were in the middle of the rising economy, a growing middle class. we were doing better. what has happened now is there have been so many structural changes in the economy that it's not simply getting people into the economy. our task becomes changing the whole structure of the economy such that it is more people centered. that includes a lot of different things. it is also tremendous investment in education.

it requires a lot more investment than what he calls for. in theires a real change tax structure, so it is much more progressive so we can start to compress that inequality. jobs,s not only about it's about an economy that works for everybody. we need a democracy where everyone has an equal say. the margin 1963 was followed by acts of presidential courage -- march of 1963 was followed by acts of presidential courage. , to say in every job that is federally contracted , everyone has to be paid a living wage, even those privatized services were now people are being paid seven and , that would make a huge change. he could do it. he should.

>> sometimes we are watching and listening. [laughter] >> i think we are in the middle of a movement on jobs and the economy. living wage fights of the local and state level, we need to be clear that we cannot get to where we want to get to with a race neutral approach. if we just talk about jobs and , weng wage and minimum wage will not get to the vision that was laid out 50 years ago. part of what is so unique and valuable about this conversation is that it is an opportunity to bring that targeted universalism, that sense that if you look across the spectrum, almost all americans have been

disadvantaged by the economic decisions we have made over the last 30 years in the wake of the march. it is federal policy, minimum wage, how we treated unions. the people most affected have been african-americans and latino, especially urban, rural communities. we've got to be able to talk about that explicitly and build into our strategies, lift everyone. we have got to establish living wage jobs and an ability for everyone to get full employment. we have got to remove the barriers to people formerly incarcerated. state-level efforts on collateral sanctions.

ohio pastor mark boal remarkable -- passed legislation. be a bipartisan effort. it can involve a broad set of people. it has to have a race consciousness to it. that is why this kind of conversation is so valuable. we have to establish that we have an interest in solving this problem. in replacing this bottom scraping minimum wage. going back to the myths there is a notion

that not only is there a hierarchy that is defined by shades of color, but the oppression towards those of us us.are not white only hurts my mom published a book called, combined destinies. about sharing grief racism. the notion that in the human family, you can hurt most of the family and not hurt the whole family is ridiculous on its face. you see it in the economy. like most of the world in the last century, we were placed with a strict racial hierarchy. the world has become increasingly flat since.

also with this fight on the , wemum wage, quite frankly can get that wage from seven dollars until $10 by five cents. most of that money will go back into the same corporations that are complaining about the impact. i saw jack cap so emphatically portrayed. he was talking about the crisis he felt about the young people down the street, the public school in south central. he leaned over and said, where is he from? where is he from? i said, i don't think he's from south-central. so whose kids is he talking about? i think that is the point, that

they are all our children. that's the place we have to get to. >> just a small example here. a study was done recently that said if all of the retailers, the big-box retailers, simply waged or raised the lowest wages to the point where a family of three would be over the poverty line, which is about $12 25 cents an hour, in just doing that, it would have taken 1.5 million families out of poverty, created 130,000 new jobs, and cost them one percent of their cost. the idea that we are in a permanent, low-wage, low- opportunity ladder economy is the most devastating thing. and it hurts every single person. people of color, yes, absolutely the most, but the level of economic security now for white working class families is higher

than it has ever been. it is not just about having the economy work for an additional group of people, but an economy that is no longer working for anyone except for the 1%. if that doesn't change, the rest of the century looks bleak. if it does, we really can lead the world. >> for the longest time hispanics have a on him, reagan african-americans. that is changing. -- for the longest time, hispanics had higher and implement reagan african- americans. that is changing. i think we need to stop the wedge that is breaking up our group. trying to break up the civil rights community. because hispanics do work and a lot of low-wage industries.-- in a lot of low-wage industries. they are the backbone of the fast food industry in many cases of the service agencies, who cleans the offices at night. but we -- this week in the newspaper was filled with whether immigrants were going to

take jobs away from white and black americans who would be willing to do those jobs. people talk about this as if people want to be a low-wage jobs. taking them away because they want to be no stops. what we are forgetting is that we are creating -- talk about a permanent underclass. we are creating a permanent underclass when we act as if that job is a re-ward. you're very fortunate to be working in a fast food industries, fortunate you can work two jobs, clean an office building at night and work in construction during the day. we have fallen back from some of the strategies that we know work work, like educating our children to a level they can compete with anyone. like protecting worker rights and having people understand what their rights are as employees and as human beings. and the kind of work they are entitled to and the kind of pay they are entitled to.

all of these issues can't be solved a groups alone, by individual groups, hispanic groups, african american groups. we have to do this together because we are becoming pawns against each other in this bigger economic battle. and that is one of the things that a civil rights community, we can come together on it as a group and talked about the economy as something that we are going to lead in the future because of the changing demographics, and this is in the interest of everyone in the country. >> there is another set -- and i couldn't agree with you more, but there's another set of economic headwinds that is a phenomenon of post-recession america, and that is the idea that those that achieve a college degree are having difficulty finding a job in their chosen field of study. having difficulty finding a job that matches "their educational qualifications level." finding a job that allows them to pay back your student loans.

what that does is is it puts pressure and competition because they are now competing for jobs that they may not have been interested in 10 years ago. that is one set of economic headwinds. another set are the large number of what i call mature workers. they're in their 50's. in their 60's. they find themselves being laid off, out of work for the first time in their careers. who are not old enough to collect social security, who didn't work in an industry where there was a private retirement system or an adequate private retirement system, who find themselves in the economy competing. we work with 55 and older americans, low-income americans, who are looking for work. and the pressures on them. so now there is this increased

competition for jobs that were in fact mainly populated by younger workers or less skilled workers. to miles an comments about the structural issues, those are the things we have gotten away from the discussion in economic policy. so much of the focus has been, let's just get economic growth and a rising tide will lift off. now we know a rising tide will not necessarily left off boats, it will lift those who don't have a boat or lift those boats that are stuck at the bottom. >> that may give you good example of that. in indian country has the highest systemic unemployment over any other group. and usually we are never

mentioned because we're the asterisk to the data pools. but given that i'm a is is a good example of where one of the places were indian country has been left off the table continually. not only from the conversation, sometimes within our own group, but mostly and the policy decision makers sony talk about structural racism, you look at policies that actually are supposed to help the economies of other governments. financing, energy tax credits, green jobs, all kind of other kinds of labor programs and they all forget indian country. so if you don't add in tribes to authorizing language or included in policies, we are left off the table. once again, the community that has the largest systemic unemployment gets left out of the proposed solutions. i think what is important to this is to really be able to make sure that we are inclusive in the group for but also that

the recommendations, this conversation needs to happen around education, because it is not just about jobs but about education and opportunities, about access, rural america. there are a lot of players that need to be in this conversation. >> thank you for that comment. >> we have spent a lot of time today looking back on the last 50 years and i think the question now is, how do we look forward to the next 50 years? really this question of what has been the comprehensive set of policies that have structurally shifted our economy and our society that have prevented our communities and families from really getting ahead are really just being able to sustain themselves, where it be

education, the economy, health health, the justice system -- all of these things, if we think of them as a complex have really been structurally disintegrating in a way that has prevented our families from even maintaining. how do we think about a racial justice agenda, as you mentioned, looking forward over the next 50 years that can really have a comprehensive agenda that looks at all of these things in concert with each other? how do we improve the education system at the same time were thinking about the educational system making sure that people have the right to health care and housing and all of these things? and of course, all undergirded by justice system that really recognizes the needs of everyone in our community. >> you have posed a pretty lofty question. keep working with me because we're going to get there. i want to get thoughts from everyone on that question. i did promise ralph to get in here. >> i agree with need to be inclusive, but i also want to make sure we remember youth unemployment, 18 to 24. joint center is completed a job study on our website that shows

in some cities that youth unemployment is as high as 50%. we need to make sure we focus on those older folks, as mark mentioned, but it is also an issue we need to focus on. but so the racial justice agenda i heard statistics from a small study in virginia that asks the question about whether or not people believe they were still judged by their color. 71% of those polled said, yes, they do. then they said 54% believed their children would be. as we think about that agenda and we look forward, dr. king did not necessarily put a timetable on it, he just said, "i hope one day." do we think he meant 100 years? where are we going? >> i try not to think about the struggle for racial justice is having an endpoint.

because i think the gap between the endpoint and where we are is so intimidating that there is no coming out of that gap. it has no end point. our task is to make as much progress in every generation as we possibly can. no victories are ever permanent. there are always holes, always attacks and steps back, so i just figure this is what it is going to be and i try to prepare myself for an endless struggle. even though it is endless, it is also beautiful and there's a lot of humor that comes along with it. we have great moments. it is a joyous struggle. so i think, though, in the next 50 years we could actually do some things. i think we could end the war on drugs. i think we could end racial

profiling in a number of arenas in which it is now accepted as regular business. i think we could get a handle on the future of the economy and begin to reshape some of the -- begin to shape some of the very big questions we need to make like, what are people going to be doing for work? automation and technology makes it so that in fact we need fewer human hands in a bunch of arenas where we used to. so that means we have to think about work quite differently and about what society needs for contribution. i think our best chance will be a getting to some of those changes if we have a really fully multiracial racial justice movement that is explicit about race in the ways that gordon mentioned, and that engages everybody who has a stake in

taking the racial order a part. >> judith? >> i am hopeful about the next 50 years because i think the changing demographics of america presents such an opportunity for us. we are coming into a time where we can redefine what it means to be americans. for too long, that has been a title that has been really captured and owned by white folks. and many of us, even though born here, been here for 200, 300 years, been here since the very beginning before there were white folks, you know, it's really not feeling like we were american, right? we were the "other." i think we are in the moment where we are getting ready to actually co-opt it back and to

really own what it means to be american, and i think that from that will come a different dynamic because the power is going to shift. i think it presents a real opportunity, and i think for the folks on the stage and the people who do civil rights and racial justice work, for the lgbtq community, we have to make sure we manage the change in the right way. because we could miss the opportunity if we don't politicize our communities, if we don't educate our communities about the history of this country. if we don't have a progressive idea of where we're going, we could actually really fail in that moment. but i think because of the work that has been happening together across all of those lines that we are moving in the right

direction, so when we see that shift, when we see the minority become the majority, that we are going to be in the right place to make a progressive america. >> i can't agree more with both statements. the only thing i would add is create a framework for the ideas , specific engagement. we have got to find ways to empower our people. having been around in the 1960s, i remember people talking about taking the power. well, we're going to have the power just because of the numbers. what we've got to learn to do is use the power in a responsible way, use the power in a way that we would want it used with us. and use that power in the american way, which is what we are all striving for, is to be engaged in building society as a valuable member of society. and we have got to find ways not only to register voters, but to make sure they turn out at the polls, to make sure they are informed about their communities communities, and to be able to

become the leaders that they are going to be set up for in the next 30, 50 years. >> i have a personal story. it builds off of your opening this morning on telling a story. i think of my dad in these situations. in 1963, i was five years old, and he sat me down the night before i went to kindergarten and said to me, "you're going to an american school tomorrow. and you're going to have to do better than everybody else in school because your chinese." even though i was born here in america. "and you have to prove that you're smarter and better than everyone else just to be treated equally." i know that resonates for a lot of us.

>> i hear the amen from the choir. >> yes, it is all those things, it is in viewing them people their own leadership also teaching our children that they will face racism. but what is the response? it is a personal response to bring forward the relationship, but to say that her responsibility beyond your family to your community, to organize, to teach, to lead and that is really the way that we will make change. >> my thought is, we do our work and i think we are doing a great job collaborating and working together and we can always work to improve it, but as i look at the next 50 years and i really think about this a lot, specially for my community, and i've taken on this challenge almost like succession planning, with that same kind of fervor. i am looking at my next generation and i realize my big responsibility is teaching the next generation. i can do this as my day job, but my full job is running

succession for the next generations. we need them to understand why this matters. we need them to understand sovereignty for indian countries, to understand the civil rights movement, human rights movement. we need them to feel comfortable in each other's community. we need them to understand the history that is not told in our history books so that we can actually have the next generation more educated. so i spend the majority of my time thinking about the plan and how i can keep working with the next generation. if we could do that more, not just with our families, but then our families and all -- within our youth groups and families, we will have a lot more hope than this generation may have. >> ben? >> norm manetta who represented congress for so long and was transportation secretary under bush and before that clinton,

tells a story about coming home from the internment camps. and being a young child, an older person and committed to-- standing up in community meetings and saying, we can never afford for there to be an anti-japanese party again. so i'm going to pass my hat and you're going to put money into it and we're going to sponsor a young people to go to the republican dinner every year, the democratic dinner every year. his potshot was usually, "thank god i got to go to the democratic dinner." there are similar stories told in the black community about men coming home from world war two and deciding to join the democratic republican party, to push us all rights agenda. we are on the verge of having anti-civil rights party in this country, having civil rights be one party issue.

there are still allies in the republican party, still governors are making great strides and sometimes it is on the take of affirmative action. we have to really think deeply, not just about how we build bonds amongst each other, but how we, frankly, reintroduce sole rights to the republican party, which for 100 years was the party of civil rights. in many ways. and i believe if we in the next 50 years can get a little more sophisticated about how we work our politics, if in the next 50 years we can be able to more inspire -- quite frankly, by our grandparents and lessons they understood very well -- and we can get back to a place for civil rights is a little less partisan, then we can move

forward even faster than we think is possible. i think we have opportunities right now with criminal justice reform him an opportunity with the voting rights act. and we need to see those not as exceptions but as toehold toward getting to that place that those men and women coming back from internment camps understood. but those black soldiers coming back from world war ii understood. civil rights has to be a universal thing in this country. universal belief, set of values. but that moment that we were closest to that after world war ii, even after the early 1970s, is where we sell the advance so quickly. quite frankly, the first courageous steps happen with us saying we are going to have the hope to actually talk to the other side of the aisle. right now things are often -- we use self reinforcement of our own agenda in ways that are maybe expedia -- expedia in the short-term but the torrential in the long term. >> i would be remiss, i need to call my colleague from bet.

welcome. [applause] i will come back and make sure you get your comment and, philip tegeler. >> we want to thank the panel and are excellent moderator for what has been a thoughtful discussion. [applause] we had been taking your questions, taking them online, social media, bt.com and have come away with lots of interesting questions. there's been a common theme throughout many of them. i will bring up the highlights. we also want to make one brief disclaimer that all of the comments are independent of the kellogg foundation and bet. with that let's get our conversation started. this question is from susan. can you discuss how much voting rights regression we have seen? have we seen it at the local level yet? are we seeing it in our school boards?

what tangible effects have we seen? >> i will start. i think since the shelby county case the supreme court, clearly we have seen a number of states may very quickly to restrict the right to vote. you had texas literally in the moments after the decision, the attorney general tweeting that they would start to immediately enforce voter id. as i mentioned, north carolina actually had that piece of legislation pending, and after that decision, then passed it. we are also seen at the very local levels. decisions like in north carolina, one of the counties that was covered by section 5 where a college campus immediately closed the polling

place, and that was a place that had elected president obama. we are seeing these little places bubble up in little counties were things that are that small as closing the polling place of that communities of color cannot access the voting booths, that is happening. what we are doing is with civil rights community and those of us who do voting rights litigation but also with organizations like the naacp and those who are on the ground, is to monitor that. because it is popping up in every little hamlet and town across the country that these kinds of small changes are happening. >> anyone else? stories on the ground? >> we work very closely what

with the small group of folks that we are focused on quite frankly is activating 1200 units to serve as an network. we brought in folks from all 38 of our state and multistate conferences. that was a couple of weeks ago. they're doing the training right now with those units. we are dealing with polling places that are shifting, attorneys general -- i don't want a repeat everything that we have gone through, but i think we do need to understand this is in many ways a long fight. when we reinstate section 4 in the voting rights act, we will still be fighting. folks have decided to take a very old playbook off-the-shelf, and using the law to suppress the vote. what most of us grew up with was breaking the law can't to suppress the vote. this is an older playbook because back to the founding of the country itself. the very first group to be disenfranchised, somewhat surprisingly, were the privates

in the revolutionary army who were told, no, we're not letting the negroes vote or our wives vote or you to vote. in the words of john adams, that would be mob-ocracy. we need to understand that virtually all of us in this country descend from someone who was categorically denied the right to vote, the vote was oppressed, whether that was a black person or a native person or a poor white man, or a woman. at the very least, we all dissented from women. they took the playbook off-the- shelf product to the civil war instead offer 40 years. this is likely to continue to be a tactic right up until or

shortly after this country becomes majority people of color in 2042. >> our next question comes from the social media world twitter. what specific steps can we take with coworkers towards address and acknowledge implicit bias? >> there are few steps -- a few steps we can take, the first or the sequence might vary depending on your particular workplace and what you're dealing with, but some of the options are, one, to have a direct conversation with a coworker. if you're going to do that, try to remember focusing on impact rather than on intention. one of my colleagues who does the great online videos under the name ill doctrine, he says focus on what people did rather than who they are. the second thing you can do, though, is to try to get your workplace, your employee o-- employer or management to take a deeper look at the workplace culture and at the kinds of both the written world, the policies, but also the unwritten rules,

the practices, that might be creating exclusion or disparity or inequity in the workplace. i like to think of workplaces as like hardee's. you can invite people to a party, but they have no ability to change the music and the music doesn't suit them, they're not going to stay at the party very long. we kind of argued out whether we ever really wanted them at the party in the first place. the way that plays out in a professional setting is, you can be a person of color, you can get to the meeting, you can get to the table but if there isn't real equity, no one is going to listen to anything you say. so getting your employer, maybe to have a diversity program or training or committee, to think of that as an equity and inclusion committee rather than

just as a diversity committee, that may help to have your whole work lace begin to think about -- workplace think about some of the structures you have in place of everybody in network lace -- in your workplace can participate fully. >> sometimes it can be a door closer, so it is difficult. what are other techniques you can use to bring up? >> i use the "e" word because it is equity. we're doing antiracist work, which means i'm going to be against you, the racist, or whoever against whoever is being called a racist, thinking about racial equity, racial inclusion work. it is a very subtle shift but sometimes it opens up space and it gets us out of that cycle of accusation and defense that it is pretty hard to find our way

out of when we are in it. so focusing on impact, thinking about structures as a collective workplace, and knowing that it is going to take some real time and energy. it is not a discussion you can have once in a move on from. so try and prepare your coworkers for an ongoing set of work will help. and then, of course, for yourself, if you're the person making the intervention, just really taking care of yourself. do your meditation and making sure you get your exercise and get enough sleep. because, in fact, you have to have the internal capacity to deal with very difficult things. and keep your cool while you do it. so those are all some tips. at color lines.com, folks can read a lot of stories of people who are making that kind of change happen in the neighborhoods and in their communities. there is a lot to learn from

their examples as well. >> all right, a question that a lot of the local sports fans will definitely want to hear your thoughts on, 50 years after the march on washington, will we see a change to the d.c. football teams name? >> i would love to answer that question. [laughter] so to the local team, as we call it, i absolutely think so. i am feeling very optimistic because i believe that more and more voices of the people are stepping up. i think it will get down to economics of the owner, who has definitely put his line in the sand. but as the national football league and as other sponsors of the team have been starting to urge the team to reconsider action, i think -- i also want to say one other thing. we always want to create winning opportunities. i am more than willing to figure out how we can create a winning opportunity for the fans who should be, you know, excited about their local team, to come

up with a name that is heroic and honorary and that we can all stand behind. i would love to be part of that process. and have an open invitation to do so. >> any other thoughts? >> well -- >> i love sports. here's the deal. go for the sea statehood, give tc two united states senator and name the team the washington senators. celebrate removing d.c. as a colony. look, it is these sorts of things, it will happen and needs to happen, it is time for it to happen.

the awareness has been raised football i am probably a best -- assessed with football. when i watch the team now, it goes through my mind, has the time just come for this image and for this name to be changed? this is the nation's capital. its institutions and football team as an institution and they need to be standing with the best for the future of the nation. i think it is just that simple. >> excellent, we move from sports to entertainment. will someone speak to the role of media, music and entertainment? the role it plays in formulating our ideas about race? what are the responsibilities of music, media, and entertainment? >> i started to talk about that a little bit earlier about the power of entertainment, the media, to really move hearts and minds. i think that is really, really important. because art really touches one's soul in a different way than

policy analysis or any of the other kinds of things that stimulate our thinking, and the progress that has to be made in terms of policy and other kinds of articulations of change. a really touching people's soul and touching their hearts is really the way to open people up to really engage in the kind of conversations that rinku sen is encouraging us to have or i'm encouraging people to have other children and families about how do you become that change, how you graft your own -- grasp your leadership and contribute to organizing and strengthening this country. i do think it is very, very important. it -- we've also seen the flipside of how harmful

entertainment and media can beat your own self-esteem, our own psyches. certainly in the asian-american community, this has been a huge issue, that you don't really see asian-americans but as foreigners. so that can be really harmful to people and how they view themselves and how they understand their place in the world, but also their community. i think it is an important part. if there's a way we can bring together arts and civil rights community even more strongly with the media and entertainment industry, i think that would be a wonderful partnership. >> ben jealous? >> i was just at a tech conference and spoke to someone who works with code and was

hat while we are talking about while the grown- ups are upstairs, if you will, talking about the influence of music and rap videos, our kids are in the basement playing video games. i think it is important actually expand our analysis to include or content of those gains. some sort of a space invader. blank.ht to be more the relationship is so intense. there's also the media piece that is clearly important. there was a discussion of race. what station you're watching determined what that discussion was going to be.

was that discussion about race going to be about african- american males being more violent and saggy pants and all of that or was the discussion going to be about some of the problems that young black men face? then you have the stations that kind of give a make us where you have a particular person who had a rant about -- which started from a discussion about what happened on another channel, and he started to have a discussion about the baggy pants. but it has opened it up. it was very offensive. i happened to be in an airport watching it, screaming at the tv what are you talking about? that conversation about race is not the conversation we should be having in this moment, but it is about why young black men are

seen as less than human and are being killed on streets and stalked and killed. media clearly can frame our politics and frame how people engage with our politics in the moment. and that responsibility is very important. >> excellent. let's head back out to the twitterverse --where is the discussion about monetarily supporting primary education as a necessary step in educating america on race? >> i think all of us on this stage believe it is a given that that is what we have to do. we are going through another wave where people are recognizing early education. we have been through several waves and never seem to carry it through. this time is our opportunity to make sure not only the federal government but the states look at the responsibility to young children. because we all know that if you have got a good solid preschool

education, you're less likely to drop out of high school. you're less likely to end up in prison. and you are much more likely to earn more money than those kids who did not go to preschool. so it is a given. and we do have a crisis right now. >> i mean, black and latino and latino children are more likely to be in public schools that are being closed. as we see this fiscal crisis playing out in cities across the country, our children are on the short end of that state. i think we have to recognize that this is part and parcel of the dismantling of the public good of public education. and that if we allow this to happen, what we will see is more privatization, more charters that are run by nonprofits and private companies, more testing, more money being made out of education than what we're putting in in terms of really

actually teaching our children and giving them a really sound basis for becoming citizens. so we have to keep that -- that is really one of our main crises and public education and how to save it for all of our children. >> we see privatization not just in the private schools and charter schools but in the public school system itself. the opportunity structures that create essentially private schools in predominantly white suburban communities, a sociologist calls this a version of opportunity courting. i think structural racism are closely tied. we will not achieve the goal we are all seeking here without breaking down those structures and privileges. folks who are sending their kids to those schools are not going to give this up without a fight. you have two separate structures

for poor kids of color and the rest of society right now. that is most prominent in the public school system. just pouring more money into that system will might address the problem ultimately. you know, this is being recruiters also in higher education. i read a study last week out of georgetown university, huge disproportion between white kids graduating from high school and attending elite colleges. the vast majority of new enrollments of black and latino kids are in the non-competitive two and four-year schools that are open enrollment. there is a huge split going on and increasing, increasing the

racial split, with more whites going to elite colleges and black and latino kids getting sent to schools that have lower resources for kids and lower quality outcomes in terms of graduation and employment after graduation. that is one of the things president obama spoke to this week when he talked about rating colleges. there are other issues, but i think we need to look at those structures. we need to realize that the folks in the 1% and the 10% who are getting the benefit of these opportunity structures are not going to give those up without a fight. >> from the church house to the schoolhouse now. lisa harper, an attendee here today, says the march on washington in 1963 was fundamentally led by the church. what is the role of the state community today quest -- of the faith community today? >> historically, one of the ways in which we have gotten off course is for the religious community, the black church specifically, in some ways being separated from the movement we're building. i think reconnecting this and understanding it and not forgetting it, it is fundamentally a moral fight we are in and defined the country we live in. it needs to be led by religious leaders.

i think we have seen one of the most powerful organizing on the ground in response to trayvon martin, in response to levels of urban gun violence, being led by the religious community, multistate, multiracial. but i think it is connected to as a movement, civil rights movement, post-civil rights movement, movement for racial and social justice in this country, entertainment, religion, even sports -- we have to connect to beagle where they are at at and make sure we are not disconnected -- we have to connect to people where they are at and make sure we are not disconnected. >> the civil rights leadership was distinctly ministers, because they had independent jobs. they did not owe their job for working for a company or institution. so they could not be fired.

there is a practical reason. that independent spirit sometimes in a community, those who have a degree, those that are independents lady a large role. so there is a practical reason. >> they are going to fire me because we are past our time. >> i just want to say also -- [laughter] in the work of unity, we have to look at non-judeo-christian states. since 9/11, muslim americans have been profiled and the level of hate violence has increased significantly. whether it be buddhist or muslim or other faith-based communities, those also have to really be incorporated in our sense of justice and our sense of bringing our communities together. >> let's give the panel a hand.

thank you. it has been a pleasure. [applause] >> i really cannot adequately sum up how wonderful and historic and rush us this morning has been with all of you. it is amazing to five years ago we could not have had this conversation. this conversation today with this audience represents progress. and we need to take heart right now and realize that we are not where we were five years ago. we could not have had this kind of honesty and inclusive representation of the future of our country. and we can have it now. we must seize the momentum of now, as our panelists have said

so eloquently. we would not be having the need for this work if there was not still the residual belief that some people are better than others. and so when we talk about what will it look like when we have a victory, and i have started saying when -- not if, but when racism has been eradicated. because race is a social construct. it does not exist. every branch of science tells us that we are one human family. the genome has shown that there is less than 1% difference in us. so what does that mean? we have to teach our children that. they have to open their books and say, you know, there was a time when america believed in racial hierarchy. and this is all the harm that we created because of that belief, but we are now a different america. that is what our children have to learn. the wk kellogg foundation is humbled and privileged to be able to partner with these organizations. remember, hundreds and tens of hundreds more in this country who have the courage -- i want to emphasize courage, because it still does take courage to do this work. so we applaud all of those who

have the courage that we know if we took all the money that exists in the world of philanthropy, and every foundation, we would be putting a drop in the ocean that is required to do this work. so i say to you, the public sector must invest in this work. the private sector must invest in this work. the future of our country requires that we get it right, that we eradicated the scourg and its consequences of this absurd notion that some children have less value than others. so when you leave here today, please leave here with a sense of determination and commitment, knowing that this is our work. this is the work of this century. please take on that work as a part of your everyday life, not just on the memorial and the remembrance of dr. king's

wonderful leadership, courage, and a sacrifice and the hundreds of thousands who sacrificed with him. this is our work. it is everyday work. ultimately, our health and the health of the nation will be greatly enhanced when we have done this work. it is a social determinant of health and well-being. when we address this, we will do much more than the affordable care act could ever do. i love the affordable care act. it has to happen. it has to be fixed where it is not perfect, but it is a wonderful the three.

true health in our country depends on healing our hearts and allowing our most than a mental need to be addressed, the need to be in a relationship, beloved, and be connected, and not be discriminated against as an other. so thank you all very much for being with us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national x the satellite corp. 2013] federal government will enter tomorrow. coming out of the county universe to avoid hitting thick 16 point ella trillion limit. $6 trillion limit. republicans have said they want to reduce future deficits by

cutting back on spending. democrats have proposed a mix of increases. here is jay carney. he was asked about the debt ceiling during a briefing. >> the treasury department is just now saying the debt ceiling will be reached in mid- october. does that change your budget calculations, do you and spit a budget budget agreement by mid- october? related to the debt ceiling and issues like that, i would refer you to the treasury department. i believe you are referring to something secretary luis put out. negotiate with republicans in congress over congress's responsibility to pay the bill that congress has

racked up. period. it is congress's responsibility to maintain the full credit of the united states. we have never defaulted and we must not default. that is our position 100%. we are going to be dealing with congress on a need to fund the government. the president has put forward a clear, broad compromise proposal that would reduce the deficit significantly, including through savings in our entitlement programs, in a balanced way. we continue to await a response to that disposal, which has been on the table for many months. congress has basically to responsibilities. it has to pay its bills, and it has to vote on a budget. fulfills thoses two responsibilities. >> the top democrats in the

house ways and means committee released a statement about the debt ceiling -- >> coming up in about a half- hour here on c-span, a a conversation with former vice president dick cheney and his daughter liz cheney, who last month announced her intent to run for senator in wyoming. here is a preview. >> we made in the bush administration, we made it basically that night and the next morning after the day was over with, the president was back to address the country. lynne and i were evacuated over

the south lawn of the white house in white house helicopters .p to camp david we wanted to make sure the president and i were not in the same location. we wanted to preserve the continuity of the government. one thing we word about was -- we were worried about was to be careful not to get in a situation where the attack could take us of out. i had the opportunity to set up here most of the night and watch the reruns on television of what happened that day. as people all over the country did. we began to think about, what do we have to do, how do we make nevern -- certain it happens again. the key decision was to say that was an act of war. inn we were justified marshaling all of our resource, including our intelligence capabilities emma using all the power for the president through the constitution as the

commander in chief and that is what we did. , weng the course of that put in place a terrorist surveillance program now referred to as the nsa program. basically what it did was it , i am confident with the program we put in place -- i have not been involved in the classifieds of at the white house -- but the program we put stopped over 50 united states and our friends overseas over the last 10 or 12 years. we put in place the enhanced interrogation program, waterboarding, and some people said that was torture. i do not believe it was torture. they may have felt like it was torture. the enhanced interrogation program signed

off by the justice department using techniques we used on our own people in training. it was not torture no matter what anybody said. it a good, legitimate program that let us develop the intelligence we have had to keep americans safe. [applause] >> you can see all of that conversation with former vice president cheney and his daughter liz cheney here on c- span in about a half-hour. >> i have been writing for years the pc has peaked and the proof has arrived in the last year or so, where you have seen pc sales actually falling dramatically, in the double digits, five quarters in a row. before that, it had been quite flat. some of this had to do with the

economic meltdown around the developed world and the whole world. over the last four or five years. even as economies have recovered, the pc has beat. -- peaked. not mean it is done. i do not mean people will throw their pcs array -- away. i do not think smartphones can replace everything a laptop can do. what is happening is there are enough scenarios for which people used to grab their laptop that are more conveniently done now on a tablet. 's the wall street journal tonight at 8:00

p.m. on c-span2. original series, "first ladies," we look at the public and private lives of the first ladies during the first years. now as we move into the modern era, we feature them in their own words. >> the future of human rights will be one of the foundations on which piece can grow. i do not believe the white house belongs to one person. it belongs to the people. whoever is the first lady should preserve and enhance it and leave some of herself there. >> season two of "first ladies." monday night, starting september eastern.

>> president obama today awarded the medal of honor to ty carter -- carter at the white house. >> let us pray. almighty god, we have a knowledge your providence and prayed your favor upon a military force dedicated to defending military -- liberty and justice for all. shared blood and sacrifice have born with it our nation's first , andiples of virtue, honor patriotism. our hearts are touched for the bestowing honor upon an american soldier whose actions to stain his comrades in

battle. sergeant ty carter for his actions in battle remind us that iss simple and elegant award born of loyalty and reveals the depths of the patriots love and devotion. today, our nation pauses to honor an american soldier and give thanks to the memory of the men who fought with him that theirven as we grieve loss, we give thanks to the strength of his family. increase our faith, renew our hope, that our lives be marked by virtue, honor, and patriotism. amen. .> please be seated welcome to the white house. welcome back.

many of you joined us earlier in the year when we presented the medal of honor to clint for his actions in the very same battle we remember today. he could not be here. he is engaged this week in a cause close to all of our hearts, ending homelessness for our veterans. we are honored to welcome back some of the men who fought to members of the-- goldstar families of those who gave their lives that day. as these soldiers and families will tell you, they are a family forged in battle and loss and love, so today is something of a reunion. we come together again with gratitude and pride to bestow the medal of honor on a second member of the family, ty carter.

we are joined by many distinguished guests and we welcome you all. i want to focus on our most distinguished guests, more than 40 members of type of his ,amily, your parents, your wife yourou call the ceo of family. you are a wise man. i have got the same arrangement. your beautiful children, 14- year-old eight -- eight-year- old, in her new dress. she was telling me about her new room as we walked over here. and your nine month, for whom we will try to make this brief because we do not know how long the cheerios will laugh -- last. [laughter] ty said he would show them the sights and

history. james madison, if you want to know what makes our country truly great and what a true american hero looks like, you do not have to look too far. you have to look at your daddy. he is the site we have come to see. your dad inspires us, just like all the big monuments and memorials do. this is an historic day. for the first time in nearly half a century since the vietnam war that we have been able to present the medal of honor to two survivors. indeed, when we paid tribute earlier this year, we recall how clint and his team recovered wounded americans in a humvee to make an escape their the metal we present -- we present today, to a soldier we happenedstory of what in the humvee, the story of what our troops do for each other. , itome of you may recall

was not just one of the remote outposts in afghanistan, but one of the most vulnerable, on low ground, deep in a valley, surrounded by mountains. when soldiers like high arrived, they said they could not believe it. their worst fears became a reality. 53 american soldiers were suddenly surrounded by more than 300 tally than fighters. the outpost was being slammed from every direction. machine-gun fire, rocket propelled grenades, mortars, sniper fire. it was chaos. the blizzard of what's and steel into which ty ran not once or twice or even a few times, but

perhaps 10 times. in doing so, he displayed the essence of true heroism, not the urge to surpass -- surpass all others at every cost, but the urge to serve others at every cost. he grabbed some ammo and he ran into bullets coming down like rain to resupply his comrades in the humvee. when they needed more, he ran ,ack, and sprinted yet again dodging explosions, darting between craters, back to the humvee. five american soldiers, including ty, found themselves trapped in the humvee, the tires flat, rpg is pouring in, peppering them with shrapnel, threatening to break through the armor of their vehicles. fightersall, tell upon were headed trading the cap.

the choice was simple. stay and die or make a run for it. stepped out into the garage and provided cover for the other three as they dashed for safety. in those hellish moments, one man went down and then another. then disappeared into the dust and smoke. he held outhumvee, for hours, rolling down the window just a crack, taking a shot over and over, holding the line, preventing the outpost from being completely overrun. ty would later say, we were not going to surrender, but fight the last round. then they saw it, everybody, on the ground, wounded, about 30 yards away. the moment was right, ty stepped out again and ran,

applying a tourney get -- attorney kit to one of his legs, grabbing a tree branch to split his a goal -- his ankle. if you are left with just one image from the day, let it be arms,cradling him in his and carrying him through all those bullets and getting him back to that humvee. ,hen ty stepped out again recovering a radio, finally making contact with the rest of the troop, and then they made a plan. these three soldiers made their escape. carrying on a stretcher through the chaos. the battle was still not over, so ty returned to the fight with much of the outpost on fire, the , and heearing down stepped out one last time,

exposing himself to an -- enemy fire. grabbed a chainsaw, cut down a burning tree, and held to rally his troops as they thought. they pushed the enemy back and the soldiers retook their enemy cap here it now, ty says this award is not mine alone. that day, he will say, was one team in one right and everyone did what they could do to keep each other alive. i have to repeat this because they are among the most highly decorated units of the entire work. , 27 purple hearts, 18 bronze stars, nine silver stars for .heir gallantry the soldiers, please stand. [applause]

today, we also remember once more the extraordinary soldiers who gave their last measure, some of whom spent their final moments trying to rescue others in the humvee. we stand with their families who remind us how far the heart break ripples. five wives, widows, who honor their husbands, several boys and girls who honor their dead, at least 17 parents, mothers and and stepdadsmom's who honor their son, and 18 siblings who honor their

brother. long after the war is over, these families will still need our love and support for all the years to come. i asked the family to stand and be recognized. [applause] finally, as we honor his courage on the battlefield, i want to recognize his courage

in the auto -- other panel he has fought. openly withd honesty and elegance about his struggle with posttraumatic stress. the flashbacks, nightmares, the anxiety, the heart ache that makes it sometimes almost impossible to get through a day. he has urged us to remember another soldier who suffered, too, who eventually lost his home life back home who we remember for his service that day. at first, like a lot of troops, ty resisted seeking help, but with the support of the army and his commanders and most importantly with the love of shannon and the kids, he got help. ty pain of that day, i think

understands, and we can only imagine, will never fully go away. he stands before us as a loving husband, an exemplary full -- soldier, to read deploy in afghanistan. he wants to help other troops and it is absolutely critical for us to work with brave young ty and put an end to any stigma who -- that keeps folks from seeking help. to any of our troops or veterans watching and struggling, look at this man, this soldier, this warrior, and he is as tough as it comes. to not only seek help but also seek out -- speak out about it and take care himself and and stay strong, so can you. as you summon that strength, our nation needs to keep summoning the commitment and the resources to make sure we are

there when you reach out. no one should ever suffer alone. waitinghould ever die for the mental health care they need. that is unacceptable. all of us have to do better than we are doing. part of healing is facing the sources of pain, as we per pair, ty, to neveru, forget the difference you made on that day. soldiers are alive today, like -- i owesaid, "i know ty my life." army families can welcome home their own sons here it because of you, stephanie's mother, who joins us again, is us too say, he brought safety, which gave him more hours on this earth.

to tyded, i am grateful more than words can describe. that is something. god bless you. god bless all our men and women in uniform. god bless the united dates of america. with that, i would like to have he citation read. >> the president of the united states of america, authorized by an act of congress march 3, 1860 three, has awarded in the name of congress the medal of ,onor, the united states army conspicuous gallantry, at the risk of his life above and

beyond the call of duty. specialist ty carter exiting -- distinguished himself, at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a scout, third squadron, fourth per grade combat team, fourth industry -- ingery, armed enemy afghanistan, october 3, 2009. on that morning, specialist carter and his comrades awakened to an attack of over 300 enemy fighters occupying the high ground, employing concentrated fire from rifles, rocket propelled grenades, machine guns, motors, and small guns. he ran twice through a 100 meter long list of enemy fire to -- and voluntarily remained there to defend the isolated

position. heed with only a rifle, placed accurate deadly fire on the enemy, preventing the position from being overrun over the course of several hours, with complete disregard for his own safety and despite his own wounds, he ran through machine-gun fire to rescue a critically wounded comrade. specialist carter rendered life extending first a and carried the soldier to cover. he again maneuvered through enemy fire to check on a fallen soldier and recovered the squads radio, which allowed them to coordinate their evacuation with fellow serb -- soldiers. he assisted in removing the wounded soldier 100 meters through withering enemy fire before returning to the fight. specialist carter's heroic

actions were critical to the ,efense of combat outpost saving the lives of his fellow soldiers. -- tylist cai carters carter's are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, third squadron, fourth brigade combat team, and the united states army. [applause]

>> let us pray. ,he god who rules the world speak to our hearts when our sitege fails and our grows dim and our bodies may grow real -- weary. and steadfastte

to things that cannot be shaken, bonding and hope in knowing our labor is not in vain. keeping our faith in each earn a purpose, renewing us that love which never fails, lift up our eyes and behold beyond the things which are seen in temporal, the things which are on scene in -- unseen in eternal. in your we pray blessed and holy name, amen. >> thank you very much, everybody. i. i hope you all enjoyed the reception. ty andto not only thank his extraordinary family, thank you's unit, and thank all of you for being able to write knowledge the extraordinary sacrifices our men and in uniform make every single day. ty is a representative of exactly the kind of people and quality of people who are serving us.

we are grateful to them. god bless you all. god bless america. thank you. [applause] ♪ tomorrow, michael steele discusses his party's opinion on syria, healthcare,

and president obama. discussn dorgan will cyber security issues and a recent book. then later, a look at eminent domain laws, by our guest stephen eagle -- steven eagle. now a conversation with former vice president dick cheney and liz cheney. >> well, we are delighted to be

here tonight. i have watched the development of bill andization tony thompson. i probably would not have gotten ifcted to congress in 1978 they'll and tony had not helped me get cheyenne. not agree with the outcome, but it was all liberal. to haveeen a privilege the opportunity to spend time with my daughter. the finished up my time in white house, i decided to write a book, and it is nice to have your oldest child interested

stories.ld war i notice she has the book in her lap. i have no idea what is planned. i am not sure where this is going. what it is all good, all good. i'm delighted to be here tonight and have the opportunity to spend the time with all of you, and with that, i will introduce my daughter, liz cheney, who is seeking political office, but this is not a political event, all right? not working. >> is there a way to turn off their? all right. i am guessing we will have the opportunity -- [no audio] hello? >> move the mike up.

ringing.s >> talk into it. >> thank you. i think the nsa is not operating these microphones, clearly. or maybe barack obama is. that is a good point. it is wonderful to be here tonight, wonderful to be here with the steamboat institute. it is long past time that the aspen institute got a dose of truth and reality and facts. we are thrilled to be part of that effort here tonight. we thought we would do a couple of things, talk about current events, but the most important current event in our lives, in our family, has been the fact that my dad was blessed, we were

all blessed because my dad was the recipient of a new heart a little over a year ago. and his story -- he talks about his campaign for office when he was elected, and 1978, when he was running the first time, was also the first time he had a heart attack. forve been going back reasons you can imagine, looking at old clippings for political campaigns in wyoming, and came across one where my dad was asked about his heart attack in 1978, after he had the attack and decided he was wanting to stay in the race. he was interviewed, and the porter said to him, are you concerned that having had a heart attack it might hurt your ability to get elected question ma?

nobody has ever tried the heart attack shtick before. i wanted to talk about his book called "heart, " and it talks about his challenge in dealing with and disease.g heart i want to start tonight as the you to talk about that, you are this most famous cardiac patient in the country and maybe in the world, and you accomplished great things while you doubt with the challenge of heart disease. a be you could talk about how you dealt with it and in what i think is interesting is the mental attitude you always had about the disease and not letting it pull you back. >> well, thank you liz.

most of you know i dealt with a few heart problems along the way, in the midst of my career, obtained i finally a heart transplant 16 months ago, my cardiologist came to me, john reiner, and he suggested that there was a book that he might do together. if you look back at the historical record, between 1968 and 2008 we reduced the herdence of death by disease by 60% in this country. the fact that i am here tonight at all, that i survived, through that time, and he described at one point to me as the only he still had a live who had a heart attack back

in the 1970's. we had the experience a couple years ago, what happened was i had lived and dealt with this in ,ts various forms from 1978 through congress, vice president, and so forth. stage went into end heart failure after i left the white house. they worked on me one night and put in a pump to supplement my heart. that got me through the transplant 16 months ago, and it is nothing short of a miracle. it is an interesting story, the way john told her, and i got a phone call one day for the transplant from the cleveland clinic, and they were going to put on a conference on innovation in cardiology and care of heart disease, and they said, we have all the suppliers,

makers of the device, so forth, we have a lot of the docs coming, but we decided we needed patient. somebody said, let's get cheney. up to that point i have not had a transplant yet. this gave us the idea that you can tell the story of that 40- year miracle, really, of what has happened with respect to our ability to deal with heart disease in this entry through my story and my case history. and most of the things that saved my life over the last 35, 40 years were not even around when i had the first heart attack in 1978. the treatment then is what dwight eisenhower got 23 years before in 1955 when he had a heart attack in colorado. so what we do with jonathan reiner writing as the physician, i write as the patient, and we

tell the story of all those developments, including the historical background to where stents and deferred relators come from, and transplant surgery, the whole body of technology and development of medicine of cholesterol-lowering drugs, etc. we tell that story to my case. also lay it against the background against mic, and public service. i was uniquely blessed in many respects. obviously you can never express enough ready to for a donor or the donor's family. iu can not talk about what went through and how i survived it without talking about liz and her sister mary and their with whom wife, lynn, i will celebrate my 49th wedding anniversary next week.

through everything we went through as a family and the only way to go through it is as a family, if at all possible. i wake up every morning with a big smile on my face thank ful for a new day i never expected to see. bought by simon & schuster. it is called "heart: an american medical odyssey." it is not political. it has a thing to do with politics. i suppose you could say all of my critics who said i never had to have thatant proposition challenged now, that i have proof that i do have, but been an important part of my life. you do not talk about it when it is going on. evil were not interested in me as vice president, secretary of

defense, if i had a bad heart. they wanted somebody to do the job. great support that i had from my family, from friends all over america who prayed for me, and who were there when i need support and help, made it possible for me to live a very full and active and otherwise normal life in spite of the fact that for regarding five years i was a cardiac you had everything done to him that you could do to a heart patient. i am grateful to be here theght, grateful for all of support that the people have provided over the years, including many in this room tonight, and grateful to be here with my daughter and my first child and hopefully my -- that remains to be seen. that. leave it at >> you are supposed to tell a

story. >> oh, yes. she has the script. she never gives me the script. five of our grandchildren. kate is the oldest, the sophomore down at colorado college starting this fall, but the youngest is my namesake, richard, and after i had the transplant, the rule is you cannot sit in the front seat of the car because they do not want you to get hit with an airbag, hard on the plumbing, and instead of sitting in the backseat with might grandson richard, and he said, did you get a new heart, grandpa? did.d, yes, i he started asking questions. i did the best i did to explain the process and so forth, and how it all came about. listened very carefully for about five or 10 minutes and the yeah, i hadid,

one of those when i swallowed the quarter. my other favorite richard story kindergarten, came home from school one day, and he told his mom, he said, mom, tomorrow i have to stand up in front of the whole class and tell what is special about me, why i am special. she said, what are you going to say? he said, i have two choices. i could say my grandpa was vice president of the united states. she said, yes, that is a good answer. what is the other one question ? he said, i could tell them i got my hat at the dump. and you can guess which one he used. -- my cat at the dump.

and you can tell which one he used. >> i will now tell a richard story. this was not in the script. the other thing in our lives -- obviously, caring for my dad has brought the family together. we are a family very much, politics has brought us together, and the chance to campaign together as a family when my sister and i were young and we traveled wyoming with my mom and dad and grandparents, it brought us together and gave us a chance as kids to see how democracy works, to understand how important that process is, and it is a process that i am with myg to go through own kids. people have asked me, you have five kids. how is it that you are able to run for office with five kids? what of the things i know for sure is the exposure that i had,

the chance i had as a little girl to see what democracy looks like was an invaluable lesson for me. it is a lesson that i am really honored now to be able to share with my own kids. event we didatest together was the wyoming state fair parade in douglas, wyoming, last weekend. we had my kids and my cousin's kids, so we had a gaggle of kids walking into parade with baskets full of candy. my campaign manager decided that it would be important for the prayed again or us to brief the kids, because when you're out there tossing candy, it can get dangerous. she brought them all together and she said, now we will talk about the roles of being in a parade, the rules of throwing candy in a parade. rule number one, and my older son raises hand, said, do not check the candy heart. she said, that is right, that is

an important rule. what is rule number two? girlf my cousin's little said, do not throw it in faces. my manager said that is right, do not throw that faces. three, andle number richard raised his hand, and he said, no farting. that is a good life lesson. in addition to the life lessons that you learn in a campaign, we want to talk about current affairs and about what is happening and about the concerns i know that steamboat institute has and about the concerns that people across this nation have about the direction of the country. and we are not here to do a

political event, but it is very those are concerns that made me decide to run for office this time around. i believe that we are living very clearly at this moment through a critical point in our nation's history. you can look back at other nations and at our own, in other times, and see when it was that countries came to a fork in the road, when they came to a turning point. you can think about winston churchill and his election as prime minister in britain in 1940. the extent to which people around him said you got to seek terms with adolph hitler, that if you do not surrender, you will be destroyed. he refused, he refused to capitulate. he knew the odds were against him, but he saved civilization and freedom by doing that.

you can look at margaret thatcher when she was able in 1979 to safer country from the ravages of socialism. turn this'm going to nation around, against all odds. in our own nation, ronald reagan of aded that same example president who came to office and who saved us from the malaise of the jimmy carter era. i think many times in history when you look back, you have the ability to see those moments. you do not always know them when you're living through them. we know right now as we sit here tonight that we are living through one of those moments, and it is a moment that we have all -- we have got to make a decision -- what are we going to do? are we going to let this president to his country down a path which could lead to instruction, or are we going to stand and fight and defend our freedom?

and i know that you think of this like i do, when you think of it in terms of the blessing that we have, this nation that we live in, the legacy that we have inherited, the unbelievable miracle of our fan think, when for the first time in the history of the world, the founding fathers said this nation will have its people be the sovereign. it never happened before. and it is an unbelievable blessing that we get to live in a nation where we are free and where men and women have died for our right to be free. but that fact imposes an incredible obligation and duty on every single person in this room, every single american across this country, and that is a duty to defend that freedom and to defend that freedom enemies,oth external

against terrorism, against threats to our national security, but also to defend it against residents like this radical man in the oval office today who believes that the government is the answer to every problem, does not believe we are an exceptional nation, who is that we ought to control economy who of our said that the private sector is the enemy. opportunityave the today, the opportunity over the next year, frankly, to be in a position where we send a very strong message to washington and that is a message that we are not going on to get along anymore, we are not content with business as usual, we are taking back our freedom, taking back our values, and we are going to fight to defend what every one of us knows this country was built on.

and before i get the mike back to my dad, do not lose hope. it can be really easy, particularly if you listen to the mainstream media, to think that somehow conservatives are a minority, that we are powerless, to think that we ought to just be discouraged about 2012 and give up the fight and sit down and be quiet. if you start to lose hope, think about this -- the president of irs,nited states used the i've used the power of his -- his to go after office, to go after political opponents, conservatives, publicans, members of the tea party. he had the irs people asking what people said in their prayers. american.n- it tells you something about our

power. the president would not bother the to use the irs to go out after us if he was not afraid of every single one of us. wherever you live, you have the opportunity to cast a vote, work for an important cause, to work for an important organization, dedicate yourselves over the course of the next year to 2014 will behat critical for us, critical for taking back the nation, and it is going to be a moment when everybody around the country can hear especially from those of us in the rocky mountain west, that we are not going to stand for it one minute longer. one of the questions i get a lot and then i will ask my dad, because i would like to hear his view, the media in particular likes to talk about how the republican party is in disarray.

we are facing these huge challenges, but we have got this abuse going on inside our party. i would like to hear you talk of about the introspective's on it, as somebody who has obviously participated in politics and policy for a long time and who has seen our party and the democratic party does through times of change. i would be interested to hear your thoughts on where the party is today and what we have got to do to take back the white house in 2016. the -- obviously i was not happy about the outcome in 2008, but president bush and i have had our eight years, we had worn out our welcome in some quarters, although we are looking better and better every day.

it was easy after -- not easy, but it happens to a lot of people, to be down after the lost, bution, and we then we went through -- i can remember that morning on january of 2009, when we swore in the new president, there is a certain ritual that goes with that that i have always been fascinated by. there have been five republican presidents since eisenhower. i have worked with four of them. part of with a fifth as the congressional leadership. i have been intrigued why that transfer of power. i can remember when president ford lost in 1976. one of my jobs as chief of staff his cap concession

statement over the telephone to jimmy carter, because president ford had lost his voice. he had been working so hard in this closing weeks of the campaign, his voice was gone. all he could do was a bear whisperer. he called me into the oval office. we drafted a telegram, and then he told me to get governor carter on the phone, which i did. he introduced me and then i had to read that statement. that was a real armor. that was about as low as you could get when i think about my political career. as i look back over it now and those particular days, but a lot of my experience out of adversity rises opportunity. back to that time when we lost the 1976 election, on the heels of watergate, nixon had been forced to resign, and a

lot of things you should be pretty grim about, but with the perspective of a little time and history, we had to go through that jimmy carter period to get to ronald reagan. that morning when i read that telegram, at was for me the beginning of what became the reagan revolution, when we were all reaganites, when we got behind governor reagan and i think did some tremendous work, took back the senate that day and put a man in the white house who believed in all of those things we all believe in, in the creed, if you will, of your institute. i tend now when i look at what is going on out there, and there is an awful lot that i do not like about what is going on -- i will say a word or two about it in a minute -- but i look forward to the next election and all the elections coming up as -- it is not going to be easy,

nobody will hand it to us, we will have to earn it one vote at a time, we would have to raise money, recruit candidates, build the organization, and put forth a program that the american people will believe in and will support, and it is our right as americans to go do that and right to go change the government. that is by golly what we are going to do. there is a lot of concern, i hear a lot of discussion and debate these days that is focused a lot on domestic affairs, for good and legitimate reasons. but i am perhaps even more concerned were at least as concerned about what is going on internationally as i am about obama and his administration are doing domestically. why do i say that? of the most memorable days

of my life was 9/11 when after the planes struck the world trade center in new york, i was in my west wing office, working with my speech writer, and some of the staff gathered around when word came down that there had been an attack in new york and shortly after that the war to my office burst open, one of my secret service agents came in , he was sitting down in a chair, and he said, sir, we are leaving now. he did not ask. was ok withay if it me. he grabbed my about with one hand and propelled me out the door and down the stairs, headed for the emergency operation bunker underneath the white house. he got part way down there, got into a tunnel, and he told me the reason they had effectuated me was because there was a hijacked aircraft that have been reported by dulles, haeaded towards crown. that was american flight 77 that

went into the pentagon. what emerged out of that whole day obviously was not a terrorist act, it was not a law enforcement problem, it was not a matter of us sending out the fbi to go find the bad guy, bringing to trial, and lock him up, it was an act of war. it was worse than pearl harbor. perld more americans than herbert did, took place in the heart of new york city and washington. if it not been for those brave passengers, they would've taken out the white house or the capitol building in flight 93. it is as bad as it gets. one of the key decisions we made in the bush administration, and we made it basically that night and the next morning after the day was over with, the president was back and address the country.

lynn and i were evacuated off the south lawn of the white house and flown up to camp david, and we wanted to make sure that the president and i were not in the same location erve thewe want to prese continuity of government. we were careful not to get into a situation where an attack would take us both out. i got enough there'd you watch the reruns on television on what had happened that day. people did all over the country, i am sure. we began to think about what did we have to do now, how do we make sure that never happens again and we get the guys at his to us? the key decision was to say that was an act of war, because then we were justified in marshaling all of our resources, including our military manpower, capabilities, using all the powers of the president under

article as commander-in-chief. that is what we did. that, wee course of put in place at the terrorist surveillance program that is now referred to as the nsa program, basically, what it did was it allowed us, and i am confident --the program we put in lace and we have not been involved in the classified stuff -- but the program we put in place saved as general alexander has said at on must stop over 50 attacks the united states and our friends overseas over the course of the last 10 or 12 years. we put in place the and enhanced interrogation program, waterboarding. some people so that was torture. i do not believe it was torture. wasmay have felt it torture. the fact was that the enhanced interrogation or graham signed

off by the justice department using techniques we used on our and people in training, it was torture, it was a good program that allowed us to develop the intelligence we needed to keep america safe for 7 1/2 years. and it worked. the record speaks for itself. the cia put out a classified report in 2004. ksm was subjected to enhanced interrogation. a report was published, classified by the cia, and it has been declassified, although it still has parts read acted. the headline is college chick mohammed preeminent source on al qaeda. that is the place where we learned most of the intelligence in the mid part

of our time there, about what al qaeda was about, about where they were base, how they were funded, where the training camps were. on 9/11 we did not know that. we knew osama bin laden was back, but that was the extent of our knowledge. the way we kept the country safe was get that intelligence and according to the agency itself, the way we did that was by subjecting him --because he was ejected more than anybody else -- to enhanced integration techniques. this administration does not get it. they do not. obama made a speech here not too long ago to the national defense and basicallymay said ok, now we are returning back to the tree-9/11 days. we are not at war anymore. we are going back to pre-9/11.

we will go try to round up the guys when they blow up. we are no longer on a war footing, if you will, in terms of thinking about the state we're in. i think that is dead wrong. totalan absolute misreading of where we find ourselves today. as i look at that part of the world am a north africa, a good part of the middle east, not just afghanistan, where they launched 9/11 from, but also yemen and the major struggle underway in egypt, the muslim there,hood taken power the group having spawned all those other radical groups, and out of that has come most of the major islamist terrorist organizations. they are out there. and at benghazi in libya, ,ll across the middle east

clearly in other areas such as pakistan, iran we see obviously significant delegates of radical action andlief and activity. they have a much larger geographic base from which to operate now that they can use as safe harbors than they ever had on 9/11. we have got major problems with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. nobody likes to hear that. that is a dirty word after we went into iraq because of our concern of weapons of mass distraction. that was a legitimate concern. she dumped hussein twice had nuclear programs underway. in 1991 we took it out in desert storm. he preserved the technology to get started up all over again. when we took down centcom, we shut down the iraqi nuclear threat. when we shut down the iraqi

nuclear threat, muammar gaddafi surrender all of his stuff. he had centrifuges, he had a weapons design, a chinese nuclear weapons design, all that stuff now resides in the united states. gaddafi did not want to have happen to him what happened to saddam hussain. in the end he got worse. when we went after gaddafi, we went after khan. he went into the black market operation himself and was selling nuclear weapons technology to the libyans. they were his best customer a. to the iraqis, north koreans, khan's blackdown market operation. we took out three major sources of proliferation. that in and of itself is reason enough to for what we did to saddam hussain anorak.

the threat has not gone away. you may remember it was discovered in the spring of 2007 that a few months after new earth korea set off their first nuclear test that the north koreans had built a nuclear reactor a couple of producing cerealum in the eastern -- syrian desert. serious a mess today. imagine what would have happened if the israelis had not taken out that nuclear reactor. khan thatound from pakistani officials were bribed for the latest technology for and reaching uranium. we know from a scientist who has seen it that the north koreans now have 2000 centrifuges operating to produce enhanced

uranium. the nuclear program is better now than it has ever been. they have already proven to be first class proliferators. this administration in the midst of all that that is going on claims there is no problem. we got bin laden. there is no terrorist threat in benghazi. that turned out to be frankly a blatant lie. they are still covering it up. eir recognition of the threat out there. it is basically nonexistent. in the midst of the week that obama went to israel and met with that and yahoo and they talked about the uranium, the nuclear threat from iran, thereafter they announced they were cutting their naval aircraft are your battle groups onehe persian crops down to

-- in the persian gulf down to one. do not cross that red line, and at the same time pulled a wasier out, the truman scheduled to deploy to replace it, and it is still tied up at the dock in norfork. they're cutting the defense budget by huge amounts. one of the great things we had with ronald reagan was a man who understood what was needed in terms of our national security capabilities, build it, and the first call i made after desert storm was over with was to ronald reagan in california, and thank him, and what i said was mr. president, i want to thank you for all the $600 toilet seats you bought. a darn it, it did not cost $600. then he got the joke. our capacity to win in desert due toas in those part

the decisions he made 10 years before about our military capabilities. thek for a minute now, massive cuts underway, sequester of the budget, we have trouble keeping pilot in the air force because they do not get to fly anymore. squadrons have just been grounded. we have a lot of them now who are not and they are leaving. but we are doing by the actions of the administration, in some cases, the in action, we are crippling the capabilities that a future president will have 20 years from now to deal with the next crisis. that is how long it can take to don't all of the military forces. it is not like letting a highway contract and somebody is pouring concrete. it takes years to get a first- rate top-notch nco in the marine corps and the other services. to develop the technologies we need, to build tanks and provide for the training and proficiency that our troops demonstrated so

tremendously in desert storm. that capability is not going to be there after barack obama gets through his eight years in the white house. one of our major priorities has to be to recognize the threats that still exist that does not matter that what he sells, they are still covering up benghazi, they do not want to admit there is a major threat out there and he could care less about the quality and the state of our military capabilities. a lotk not only are there of very good reasons to be concerned about where he wants to take the country domestically, with obamacare and abuses like the irs, but i am deeply, deeply worried about what kind of national security posture we will have, how good our word will be around the word, our capacity to do with threats, and if you cannot even mount a rescue operation from an hour away from benghazi, and four of

our people are being killed by al qaeda terrorists in libya, what does that say for the next time we have a big problem to deal with and hundreds of thousands of lives at stake? i think the biggest threat we face is the threat of terrorists armed with something deadlier than airline tickets and box cutters, and we have to be able to defeat that threat. i am sure i have gone on longer than i was supposed to. x i have a question. i want to go back to the nsa program. he said something important, which is you could vouch for the program that was underway when you were in office. into theusly not the program now, it is a different situation. i think everybody in this room would agree barack obama is no -- dick.ey

who you have a president has shown himself to have such a complete the search are for the rule of law, who has shown himself willing to use the irs to go after political enemies, who has shown himself willing to completely disregard the constitution, to decide i am not going to implement the employer mandate because it is inconvenient for me even though it is the law, who has shown himself frankly completely irresponsible when it comes to protecting americans'privacy, you have a lot of americans out there now, and in light of a lot of news stories we are seeing, that say the nsa made a mistake and they listen to phone calls or washington, d.c., because it which is area code similar to the country code for egypt. there is a lot of concern out there, and when you think about the threats that still exists and the fact that we have got to

be able to defend ourselves both from the threat that the president is posing to our freedoms the mystically, also from terrorists internationally, what do you do in a situation were you a have a commander in chief who has put an important program at risk, in my view, who may well be undertaking a real abuse of power. if he is willing to do it in areas we can see, what makes you confident he is not doing it in areas that we do not see? >> you get yourself a new commander in chief. >> i have some ideas about that. >> no question this is a difficult subject matter, and i know there are a lot of americans, some good friends of mine, who are concerned about the nsa. part of the difficulty is -- and

i plead with people, do not conflate the nsa with the irs -- those are totally different problems, totally different issues -- i believe there is ample evidence for the irs that it has abused its power, that the power and authority of the iris has been used, misused to go after the opponents of the administration. no question in my mind. be -- my mind it ought to we ought to investigated, subpoena whoever we have to subpoena, bring them to trial, and make certain that we build the safeguards that cannot be again. that can be used but it would be a terrible mistake because the irs has been abused by barack obama and his people we would therefore turn and say we are going to get rid of the nsa program because it might be abused by this president. but there are not really good examples out there of how the

nsa program has been abused. you do not have the kind of evidence there that you got with respect to the irs, or you have old who had been interrogated by the irs about their political and keith alexander, the commander of the national security agency, four star now, he is one of the finest officers i have ever known, as is also -- now ieople like for got his name. >> allen? >> before him. i am thinking of mike mcconnell. mike mcconnell was a navy captain on my watch when i was secretary of defense, on the joint staff. i got him promoted to three stars. he ran the nsa on my watch when i was at the fence. mike hayden, in charge before

alexander, and then went on over to run the cia. those are three gentlemen, all the nationalnded security agency at one time or another on my watch. i served on the intelligence committee, worked with them him a they all worked with me when i was secretary of defense. the secretary of defense controls the bigger part of the intelligence community that does the cra -- than does the cia director. i know how hard they work to put together a good program and a program that would allow us to collect intelligence, while at the same time we safeguarded civil liberties of the american people. i am the one that took the president to the after i met with the c.i.a. director, the director of the nsa shortly after 9/11 and said that the experts tell me we could do more, we can learn a lot more, we could understand better the threat if we can get additional authority.

and that is in fact what the president did. what are the caveats, and he had to review it every 30 days and reauthorize it, or it was going to stop. in terms of the congress knowing about it, well, i used to brief the committee's, the chairman and ranking members of the committees on the status of the program. we once had a meeting in the situation room which included the speaker of the house, majority, minority leaders of the house, majority, minority leaders of the senate, the chairman and ranking embers of of intelligence committees both houses. nancy pelosi was in the group. i had been sit down, and the question that was, do we need to get more authorization for this program? this was in 2004. i had been briefed. general hayden there was that day, showed what we have

learned, what we have accomplished, and i went around the room, saying, does anyone >> doesterminate anyone believe we should terminate the program? no one. they were unanimous. absolutely not. you bring it back to the congress, italy, and you will tell the bad guys how we are reading their mail. that was the situation we were there. now inkeith alexander is command of the nsa. i have not been involved in classified meetings since i left four years ago. with men like general alexander involved, and given the professionals in the intelligence community i have never seen a situation where

they violated for political purposes the way has happened with the irs, the authority they have. i do not know how obama deals with that. know how we dealt with it. we were screwed us in making sure that that i our is never a group used. every once in a while, a big organization, there were problems that cropped up, but there are safeguards built into it. we have the fisa courts, the foreign intelligence surveillance act courts, that they have to sign off on these programs. before you can dig into any of those records, in terms of reading content, for example, you have to have the authorization from fisa. i know everybody is concerned about it. i understand the concerns. the last thing i would want to recommend is, well, obama might abuse the nsa authority and therefore we ought to shut it down. last possible thing we ought to do. these are good folks, doing the best they can to safeguard the

and i like keith alexander covering my back anytime. we can move on off of this, but i think again, if you look back and you talk about abuse, you guys were also scrupulously careful not to have the head of the irs in the white house. he may have been there once. we know the president had him in something like 72 times. and i think there is a real question about in a democracy, under threat, you have programs you put in place to defend the nation. then you end up with a commander in chief who seems not to care about defending the nation, the constitution, the rule of law,

givesans'privacy, and it rise to concerns. i think you have to talk about there has got to be a priest -- a place between saying that you are going to trust him implicitly, because we trusted you guys and you had the programs, and we will throw the program out. and i guess that would be my final question on this. don't you think there is a legitimate question the merit people should be asking, and you can't say that program is classified to you cannot talk about it. but when you begin to see the kinds of things we are seeing about the program, those of us who know we have got to defend against attacks from the outside , at the end of the day, that comes directly into barack obama's lap. it seems to me you have to say this is a president who has put us at risk because of his unwillingness to exercise the kind of care and concern for the

constitution that you guys did. >> so what is your solution? >> a new commander in chief. exactly. i understand the concern everybody has. i am as much of a small government guy as you are going to find. but i believe very strongly for a strong national defense. i served over four years on the house intelligence committee. i have been heavily involved in the intelligence business a good part of my career. how dangerous a world we live in, how difficult it is often times to collect the intelligence we need to make sure we get it right, and it is not a perfect business. it just is not.

it is very hard. after the secrets that are being are by the worst regimes the ones more than anything else they want to protect. sometimes the intelligence community makes mistakes. but as a general proposition, i would argue that for the most part, what we have done with our intelligence community, especially since the 9/11 period, has been by the book, ,ell managed, not perfect nobody is perfect, but they do have in place for teachers to make corrections -- in place procedures to make corrections. the last thing i want to do is be in a position to say now we need to shut it down or we need to significantly limit their capacity and their capability, so we will be confident they are not abusing our authority. -- their authority. and we will only reduce their capabilities by 10% or 15%.

of the next 15% attack are you willing to accept questio? there was a book written about percentd "the one we have to bese 100% successful. host businesses, most line of works, if you get a success rate of 80% or 90%, that is pretty good. when you are defending against the potential attack against one of our major cities by terrorists armed with a nuclear weapon, are you willing to accept 99%? i am not. you have to do everything you might stop whatever conceivably be coming out you, and that means you have to be aggressive with the military,

you have to be overseas and be actively engaged to make sure that people with technology did not provided with the people to use it against us. it means we have to work doubly hard at home to make certain that we can indeed defend against that next attack. and as i am saying, based on my withxperience, both resp respect to our success and respect to our success after 9/11, as well as our military forces, to prevent the next attack, i think nsa is a well- run program, an important program. we have a president that concerns us for a lot of reasons but i would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. i would not say just because we have a president who we do not think is up to the job or does not have the same concerns and cares about the constitution

that we all do, that we therefore ought to minimize the capabilities of our defense capability, our defense forces. and our intelligence forces to protect the nation. the wrong way at around. we got to beat him at the next election. we got to get him out of office. and we got to a people that we can trust and have confidence in. it is a tough problem. i do not deny it. i despise what he has done with the irs, and what has happened in benghazi. but we should not -- i know so many of our intelligence professionals. they put their lives on the line day after day after day for all of us. and we were successful at stopping all further attacks against the united states during boy, i 1/2 years, and, would do everything to suport

them, because they deserve it. >> i am glad to see you have not gone squishy. >> ok. >> he will take a couple questions from the audience. for, i wanted -- before, i wanted to end by talking about our men and women in uniform. when my dad's memoirs came out, we spent time gather around the country talking about his life and talking about his career. and when i would ask you the question of what was your job that you treasure most, or valued most, i know secretary of defense was normally the answer. and the time you got to spend with our men and women in uniform. and i know one of the reasons submitted people are concerned aboutthe budget cuts and what is happening in the defense

department, because of what it is due to the military. you mentioned earlier what it is doing to our readiness, that we are halloween out the force, but also what is doing to our veterans, and what we owe to those veterans and put their lives on the line and they come home, and the extent to which the kind of budget cuts we are seeing may well mean, that we are not taking care of them the way we should be. there is a story you tell in the book and it is a prayer that i wanted to see if you would ebnd our session with and i cannot tell where this prayer comes from, and read this section. ll, toward the end of my , lynn andce president liz and i were invited to a special occasion. i spent a lot of time when i was at the fence and vice president with our guys in special

operations forces. have developed over time a social get-together, and it is all done -- it is not classified, but it is not done out-- there is no press. they get together and honor one another. family is included, and spouses are included eerie at linda and i were invited to attend one of these -- are included. invited to were attend one of these. chapmandinner, a young

to deliver the invocation. soldiers, agents of correction. word -- world see the power of strings. -- strength. may our enemies continued to inescapable taste of freedom. >> i think there are questions somewhere.

>> the question is -- i think it , liz.dressed in to you >> you go first. >> i have not signed on with anyone yet at this page. -- stage. i think we should undergo a generational change in terms of think wep. i do not are likely to see somebody who has been engaged in the past regenerate a new successful

campaign. there comes a time when your moment has passed. i want to see somebody else take over, and there are some promising folks out there. i think of people. a lot of you know them. like kevin mccarthy. how many of you know kevin? he has got my old job. trainss of making the

run on time he has got a key job. i am trying to remember the name martinez. i loved her speech at the convention. they had a certain appeal. they are actually making those budgets, cutting taxes.

not pessimistic. i am inclined to think what they are trying to do is a good thing to do. i do not think we need 23 debates or however many it was. have eaten up on each other. beaten up on each other. we need an orderly process. we also need to do a better job than we have before in the party mechanism. was the machine they built to get the vote out. they built it in 2008, and they kept it going until 2012.

it is still cranking out tonight. we need to be better organized than the democrats are. things thatlot of will enhance our chances. i think we will see a lot of people come to the forefront. we end it soon enough so it does not become a death march for whoever we nominate. agree about the next generation, and i think people should think about that when they are thinking about hillary. she is the last generation. she is not the next generation.

as the esteemed former vice president pointed out she blew it benghazi and light to the american people about it. out thatnted to point the commissioner of agriculture used to be the republican party chairman. adam will run for governor. i think we clearly have the obamay to defeat barack in 2016, and we have the obligation to do so for the sake of the nation. in case you think you might not be pessimistic, this particular question might change

your mind. is a composite of several questions that were sent out. despite how we got here, the places we were in and the middle iran,ith egypt, syria, seems as intractable as any of us will ever see. on the political side, does it concern you with some people who lean towards the libertarian side of the party that questions on what to do with countries like this might up being off and end horrendous in the future? >> those are key questions. partly it is important to distinguish in different areas.

i look at what is going on in today, and i have been supporting the military. experience with the military going back to 1990 when it was time to get organized and deal with saddam hussein in kuwait -- they are a pretty professional force. i think they got involved in the because there had been an upwelling of support from the egyptian people where petitions circulated that could be signed only by egyptian , and they got far more petitions that called for the removal of morsi, and they got far more signatures than the previous election.

majority viewis a among the egyptian people that they do not want egypt to become an islamist state like a ram, -- oughtran, and i think we to preserve our relationships with the egyptian military. i think it is a lot like turkey in the 1920's. he brought turkey into the modern era. i do not automatically say this is a coup that is bad. my observation is the military theresponded to concerns of people, and what will arise from that will be free elections and another shot at democracy. in terms of the overall situation with respect to

, it is a hugeria mess. it is almost like whoever wins we are going to have problem's. shape thats time to it was some years past, and today we are in terrible streets, but they are also in a situation where you have to be concerned about who is going to weapons ae chemical already possess. they goodness they do not have a new look, but it is a worrying situation. >> the political side of it -- if somepens politically of the people have a strong tendency? >> i understand the temptation

it is their problem, let them solve it. we decided in 1941 that did not work as a basic policy. a lot of people believed in the 1930's the united states should not get involved overseas. it was lit -- a legitimate debate. people believe that. i do not see any way you can , theat the threat potential for an attack, and say, what happens is none of our concern. trained inrrorist afghanistan. the nuclear trade

is taking place. got pakistanis dealing with libyans. spreading, and we have to do what we can to stop it. when you have got 19 guys who come into the united states with airplane tickets and box cutters and do what they did to us on 9- 11, how can you ignore that. have support, but they have said, that is your problem. we are going to hunker down behind our oceans. is a pipe dream that was over decades ago. >> do you want to say anything about the situation?

>> i was pointing out what we are seeing across the middle ant today is a result of american foreign-policy attempting to turn back on our allies. if you want to understand what when america leaves a vacuum you have to look over there than syria. the historical record is very that a strong america is one of the best guarantors of when youthe world. have a president who has really attempted to weaken us, to bring us down a notch, you see a vacuum created like in the today, and vacuums

like that are filled by those who wish us ill, filled by those who are using chemical weapons against their own people on the one side of the fight and on the other side you have got al qaeda on the rise. the world is more dangerous when america walks away, and that is a clear lesson you can see just from turning on the television. >> one more political question. that asof us realized republicans we are painted as the rich white guys. unfortunately, some of the people in the front make that an easy case to make, but it is not true.

geteed to find a way to around that and present ourselves as more populist, , and what other things would either of you recommend that we can change this persona most of the electorate seems to have of us? are a rich white guy, maybe i will answer this question. >> cheap shot. i think it is an important question. against have anything rich white guys obviously. i love a number of them, but i think as a party, that is how wants totream media portray us. what we have to be able to do,

it depends on who is speaking that isfor the party. very important, but i do not want to see our party falling into the trap of classifying people by the coupler of our skin, by our gender. that is whatthink the democrats do. we have to be the party of ideals. got to be the party that knows what it stands for. i do not want to see us trying to be all things to all people. ronald reagan made it clear the political party has got to stand for something. we cannot have a tent so big nobody knows what we believe in, but we have to be able to articulate our beliefs. we have to be able to say we believe in the free enterprise system, and we believe in it not only because it makes people wealthy.

because it hast raised more people out of poverty than any other system invented by men. we are the people of opportunity. we know the american dream can be real again, but it is not going to be real if every single young person falls under the and thea rock obama democrats, who are attempting to you assistance all along the way. kids, it isof five amazing for me to sometimes think about the fact that none of them when know what the soviet union was if i was not telling them. there is a history that seems recent to many of us, but to get today they did not live through the fall of communism. they did not live through watching nations try to control every aspect of their citizens lives fall apart and crumble.

we know what happened. you can see it today across europe. those are the policies the president is trying to advocate. there is anay economic renaissance possible if we have the kinds of policies that would allow us to get access to energy resources we have here in the united states. if we had a president really committed to energy independence we would have economic growth you could not even imagine. across the board, talking to them, explaining to them, you want the government out of your life. you want to get back to the point of government is best that governs least. the more this government tries to give you things, give you benefits, tell you they can run

your life, tell you they can make your life easier, it is a pipe dream, and it is going to end up that for all of us. the benefit we have as republicans is the truth. is on our side. we have to be unafraid about standing up for what we believe in and making the case to the american people, because if we do it with conviction and pride, we will win today. >> thank you very much, and thank you both for being here. [applause] >> in our original series we look at the public and private lives of the women who served as first lady during the nation's

first one 12 years. we will feature the first ladies words.r own >> human rights would be one of the foundation stones on which we would ill to an atmosphere at which piece could grow. >> i do not think the white house can completely belong to one person. people, ando the whoever is first lady should season two of first lady is, live on monday night starting september 9 at 9:00 eastern on c-span. we will conclude season one of our series with first lady ida mckinley. a discussion on tuesday on the 50th anniversary of the

march on washington and the civil rights movement with congressman john lewis of georgia, julian bond, andrew young, and dorothy gilliam, the first african-american female reporter at "the washington post post." -- the washington secretary of state john kerry said the chemical attacks in syria should shock the world. from the state department, this is about 10 minutes. >> for the last several days president obama and his entire national security team have in reviewing the situation in syria, and today i want to provide an update on our efforts as we consider our response to the use of chemical weapons.

in syria should shock the conscience of the world. it defies any code of morality. that me be clear. the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses some have manufactured, it is undeniable. the meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict in syria itself. that conflict has already brought so much terrible suffering. this is about large-scale indiscriminate use of weapons the civilized world long ago used atmust never be all, i conviction shared even by those who agreed on little else.

there is a clear reason the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. reason the international community has set a standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. there is a reason president obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons and to lock them down. there is a reason why president obama has made clear to the assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences. there is a reason why no matter what you believe about theory -- yria, all-- about s people must stand up to make sure there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so it never happens again. last night after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of

this situation, i went back and watched the videos, the videos anybody can watch in social media. i watched them one more wrenching time. it was hard to express in words the human suffering they lay out for us. as a father i cannot get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him. the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of lead or a visible wound. bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering we could never it are or forget. anyone who could claim an attack of this gail could be fabricated -- this scale could be fabricated needs to check her own moral compass. what is before us today is real, and it is compelling. to underscore that

while investigators are gathering evidence on the ground, our understanding of what is already happening in syria is grounded in fact informed by conscience and guided i common sense. of victims, number the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground like doctors without borders, these strongly indicate everything these images are already screaming at us israel. -- is real. chemical weapons were being used. regime the cerium maintains custody of these weapons. we know the syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rocket. we know the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those places

where the attacks took place, and with our own eyes we have become witnesses. we have additional information about the attack, and that is being reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead. our sense of basic humanity is offended i this crime but also the cynical attempt to cover it up. every turn the syrian regime has failed to cooperate. stymie any attempt to bring to light what happened in the middle of the night. -- unu in investigation will not determine who used

these weapons, only that they were used. i spoke to the syrian foreign minister, and i made it clear to him that if the regime has nothing to hide, their response should be an immediate transparency, immediate access, not shelling. beir response needed to unrestricted. failure to do that would tell its own story. instead for five days they to theto provide access site of the attack that would exonerate them. systematically destroyed evidence. that is not the behavior of a government that has nothing to hide eerie at that is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world it had not used chemical weapons.

to allowed decision access was too late. at president obama's direction, i spent many hours on the phone with foreign ministers and other leaders. the administration is actively consulting with members of congress, and we will continue to have these conversations in the days ahead. president obama has also been in close talks with leaders of our key allies, and the president will make an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons, but make no mistake. president obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the most vulnerable people. today is more serious