admissions process in order to justify the use of race, but i do think the court's moving forward may require universities to demonstrate that the non-racial approach to university admission was not producing the sufficient levels of diversity or that it would not produce sufficient levels of diversity and why those levels of diversity are essential to the education mission think the bar is higher now than it was then in terms of the homework we had to do behind the scenes of educational administrators. again, it is clear the use of race is permissible, but we might have to change a few practices. we might need to define our educational goals. i will try to get my faculty together to define what those

goals are. i suspect those goals may vary depending on whether you are teaching graduate and so, in engineering, it will be a very fact heavy inquiry. we will have to define critical mass, i think, based on into solution -- institution specific data. be differently defined than another at another institution. there are arguments in fisher were the court was asking, does critical mass differ depending on the location of the school? example, critical mass, you would expect is some significant or should of latino students because of the population. in pennsylvania, maybe not because you do not have as large

of a latino population. unclear exactly what critical mass is and how schools are defining that term and interpreting it and applying it. we'll have to give some thought as to how we do that going forward. i think we will have to give some thought to race neutral alternatives and why those alternatives do not yield sufficient levels of racial diversity that we need and why we need racial diversity in addition to other forms of diversity. i think we will have to track and record effectiveness of all the strategies that we have used. i think we will have to have a policy to reevaluate the need for the consideration of race in our admissions process. i would suggest we need to do that every few years so we can continue to justify our consideration of race in the admissions process. only dohink not

academic institutions have homework to do, but the legal profession itself. there could probably be some change practices in the legal profession. we could adopt adversity as a moral and ethical imperative in schools, which we do not. we could also strengthen that could edition rules with respect to law school. they require concrete action toward adversity, but does not really defined that. could include requiring rigorous academic support programs that all law schools approved and help increase the number of students who are entering the pipeline through the legal profession. areently, though standards -- thank you for your time. pratt.k you, ms. >> so must to discuss.

i have been drawing lines through my notes of what not to cover. i'm from deep south texas. i went to a community college appropriately named. when i applied to law school, i was a teenager. i finished high school at 16 and apply to law school when i was 19. it was at a time when law schools around the country were practicing affirmative action following what they called the harvard plan. i pled to michigan, harvard, a couple of other places. i got accepted. when i read that harvard, why me? at harvard,rived why me? it is difficult to get into a place like harvard. why was i selected? they said, we cannot tell you. we honestly do not know. there were so many parts of your application that we do not have at harvard. we have few women.

in 1979.back harvard did not have a tenured woman on his faculty. there were few from the south or the southwest. that could have been the reason they admitted me to harvard. iran into classmates who thought -- i wore navy blue and told everyone i was a pilot. [laughter] it could be that i was a first- time college goer. my mom and i was in college at the same time. it could be that i was attending college with my mother. ever so many reasons that i stood out. i was an amazing speller. i was a regional speller four

times. maybe it was my spelling. mewas my spelling that took to visit back in 1978. any of those differences could have been what made my application "sparkle." that is what admissions officers said they were looking for. they were looking for sparkle. brilliant these three law professionals, these experts say it is a challenge to make the right admissions decision, i agree with them 100%. it is difficult when you are talking about tier 1 universities that our research universities that high levels of competitiveness for very scarce of admissions. admissions officers is one of the hardest jobs. i'm very appreciative of those people who make tough calls.

because it is competitive, it is art than a science. thank god for that. if it was science, you would have to measure it and you have quotas. ,f you do not meet that hard finite, numerical standard, you not be given an opportunity to enter a tier 1, top-notch, research campus. the courts agree we should not have quotas. it shouldn't be easy. you should be able to pull a your ipaqhave calculated for you and tell you who gets in and who doesn't. it should be tied to admission. that is the why the word "mission" is in "admission."

you understand what the questions need to be for the students who will fit that mission of the campus. the mission varies depending on the campus. are to providee a university of the first-class to serve the entire student sector. not just a few high schools that have for many decades sent students direct duty -- directly to ut. they thought they had et al. meant to continue being overrepresented -- they thought they had a responsibility to continue being overrepresented. there was a period in our history in texas where the word "colored" was part of the official name of the congress. in one instance thomas -- in one instance, gender.

it is hard to do admissions. not looking for an easy wrong answer. if the courts agree that a lot of thought has to go into this, i will do the last two minutes what thisentation to meet up with that in the context for texas. it is not a new term. the supreme court in the fisher case that texas should not be given any shortcuts and given the ability to just give themselves them an a. 1978, merrily -- narrowly ailored --that has to be conversation of white admissions the admissionshy

process? what is our purpose? they should be race neutral if it meets the purpose. we are trying to serve the whole state of texas. you cannot come up with a race neutral way to eliminate most of the students in the state of texas. it is not meeting the objective. thirdly, there has to be a limit in time. don't just choose one admissions process and believe it will last 100 years. you have got to be realistic and continue to reevaluate periodically. if you lastedrge, five years under the same system, it is time to go back and look at it again. periodic evaluation to look at the effectiveness of the criteria selected, the manner in which you have gone forward in coming up with your criteria for

admissions. your decisions about admissions need to be done before the decision is made. i would hear people after the fact say, i have made that decision. i cannot remember. it must have been because --\ there has to be a clear understanding of what kind of students you are looking for a what criteria and means you will do to identify those students. justification for using race does need to be clear. it is not an either or of using it. there was a time in florida recently where they were both giving preferences in a race neutral means and giving preferences to race as one of many factors. of can keep data on both them and find out which one works better for you whether it is a combination.

that is why texas is a hybrid scheme. and using both geography, we are taking the top 10% of the high scho graduates across the whole state. the state has high schools. there are students who are geographically automatically admitted because great show they were competitive. at the same time, we are using race as one factor among every factor. we will your questions and answers. absolutely the admissions process needs to be changed. it is not a permanent admissions decision. they need to be changed. the periodic evaluation will inform how to improve the admissions. work --neutral does not by the way, we did a thorough

search and the department of justice help. there is no legal obligation for admissions committees to test race neutral when they know they will not be affected to meet the mission of the campus and its faculty and students. spende not required to taxpayer money on selecting a process that you know does not work. if it has been tested by another top tier university and it doesn't work, there is no requirement for you to pursue it because you know it will not work. neutralell you why race works in texas. in texas, we have racially locateded, racially high schools. we still should not have them. it is not 1954 anymore, but we still have them. because we still have them, our

admissions process that is race neutral which is being at the top 10% at your high school, it provides a big full of students that are racially diverse, geographically diverse, economically diverse. they are diverse and being first college goers, in gender, in so many different ways. ok? in texas, if we use the top 10% plan, there will be enough earned national there'll be an afferent that african-american -- the african-american that can give us the 12% that exist in the state. one out of every four asian- americans apply.

17 top 10% hispanics top 10%out of 17 of the african american supply. it is to be studied and considered and the corporative into our nash and incorporated into our admissions process. it is to be studied and considered and incorporated into our admissions process. narrowly tailored, when you arrive at the college and university, you hit the goal and you stop using race consideration. some campuses around the country are doing that. they have recruited so well. they have made allrs -- races welcome.

for the campuses that have fallen behind and are not meeting their mission, this discussion will go on. the difficult work of being sure that campuses meet their missions will continue. >> thank you. me i guess throw out the first question. fromt to read a paragraph this decision that i thought was relevant and gave an interesting ground to the fisher case. i will ask questions based on that. in the fisher decision points when racen the system was not considered, but admissions were aced on the top 10% land -- were based on the top 10% plan where they were automatically admitted to ut aus

class was a small percentage of african-american and another percentage of hispanic. iny go on to point out that the subsequent plan when race was explicitly considered, diversity in the incoming class actually declined. for african-y 0.4% americans and by 2.9% for hispanics. a point that in texas, the top 10% seems to be capturing diversity. do not that is fact -- i know, i'm reading from the court's decision. i assume that is based on the facts on record. one thought that i had is to what extent is this something wheres unique to states

this type of diversity can be achieved? that brings me to the question that i had. in chargeary who is of the office of civil rights department of education in the clinton administration, the way tailoring, itrow has to be consistent with the mission of the school and has to years.ewable every five there has to be some theoretical end game when race neutral alternatives can be used to achieve diversity. it strikes me as what fisher said. i don't know as -- if concern is the right word. there were some comments about what fisher is doing to change

faculties toequire engage in defining their mission .nd justify i guess the question is, does fisher really change the law or is fisher restating the law as we have come to understand it? >> fisher is not changing the have alreadysities been classy and it -- classifying it. tailors.ly if you're wearing a suit, you do not want the pants too big and the collar too tight. you have it where you need it and not be on that. rights in thel

we were very fact specific. what we wanted to hear is what object to is they -- what the objective is they are trying. if you're trying to do a quota, you got trouble. we do not allow quotas to happen. if your object to is critical mass, which the supreme court has left, describe for us what that critical mass looks like in your campus. at ut austin, there was a lot of research conduct did. the response we heard from faculty and students is a concern in which they do not want one african-american student isolated in a big classroom of 150 people with everyone turning to that one student and telling them, you represent your race. when you talk, you are on the spot 100% of the time. critical mass was not a number,

but the concept was enough students so that people did not stereotype a racial group, didn't put people on the spot because they were the only one of the racial group able to be part of that conversation. it was thought that it was not a hard and fast formula. quite the opposite. it required an understanding of how education works. a way education works is the professor doesn't just lecture anymore. , criticalplex thinking skills. one asian- and have -- ican in 150, >> i think fisher does slightly

change the game, the landscape. before fisher when i taught law , there was deference on both prongs of the strict scrutiny test. that clearly is no longer accurate. very clear now that there is going to be some measuring difference on the compelling .overnment interest from i have been at penn state most of my academic career. given, taken it as a that diversity is a necessary component of delivering a top great education to our students, to all of our students. i'm not so sure we can take that as a given anymore. i think we will have to link diversity that we seek to that mission of penn state university

. we will have to do that at both the undergraduate level and law school level. it is a little bit easier in law school. , there are very robust discussions around social to havehat require you various viewpoints in the classroom to discuss them in a educational sound manner. fisher points to this. when you are in the engineering department at the graduate level , and undergraduate admissions are done across the board rather than college by college, i think inquiry by the court with respect to, why are you conducting this search for diversity in all of those cases are going to the sociology and education departments and you're

not getting that diversity in the engineering department, and you claim you want diversity in all of your classrooms? youare not practicing what preach, right? we have to get thought of how to conduct the admissions so we are having diversity and putting it to work in a manner that justifies the consideration of race in an admission. >> i fully agree with and understand the pressure that the division puts on administrators. i do not want it to seem like it didn't. it is going to be a big challenge going forward. what are great ideas of administrators could do to justify their plans. a lot of thing that people were expecting from fisher was the question of whether critical mass would be a

concept done away with. that did not happen. it doesn't mean that it has been discussed. that there are better ways we could define and operationalize what that is. board with all of those suggestions. to my notedback relief, i guess that it was not worse. i think we should send that message loud and clear to administrators and to students. tone in thea supreme court decision of fisher. of chastisinge judges in general and not the university. the tone is that the courts acceptves must responsibility of being conscientious of reviewing facts dealing with the use of race.

this was an unusual posture for a case. the way this got to the supreme court was at the district level, there were some motions made by the plaintiffs and by the defendants at the university of texas. we did not have a full try and testimony and cross-examination the way you see in tv. what happened in this case was very well written briefs with lots of attachments that had a lot of research that were submitted to the district court. the plaintiffs were so confident that they had a winner in the case that she was going to be automatically admitted my order of the judge. the plaintiffs thought they would win. the university thought he had followed so carefully the supreme court's decision in router versus michigan. the state thought they would win without having a trial. when it came to the supreme court, it was without the

benefit of a bench trial. judgemonishment to the was, be sure you understand all of your fax. -- facts. that then't anything universities had not done. there was a hint of optimism in the supreme court ruling that the court of appeals it self but does go back and calm through those records that were attached to those motions and not need a bench trial. we are in a place where the decision happened so recently that we do not even know if it will get sent back to just the court appeals. that is why we call it the lower courts. ut austin. i'm confident all the information is on the record. invested so much time studying and reevaluating and

doing that aligning of our action to our mission. will leave that question up to each university to know if they have done enough to satisfy what i do not think is a new standard . it is an old standard that has a new lash light that has been applied to it. now you see it more clearly, but it was always there. >> questions? while we're waiting for questions, a follow-up. i'm puzzled. -- i'm was a bench trial sorry, if this was done in judgment, does the record explained why diversity decreased when a race conscious neutraled to race standards were used? one would think the use of race

conscious standards would increase diversity. >> or if you think of racial diversity in a very inflexible way. you could just be announcing it is time to submit your application. if you are inflexible about the use of race, every time you add another race conscious measure, race will go up. that is not true in the ut system circumstances. we defined a university as more than just race. the auger feed, gender, leadership, work experience -- that diversity, gender, leadership, work experience on a disability. britney spears, disability.

there were so many different factors. sometimes a racial numbers go up and sometimes they go down. it could be an indicator that you are being not so obsessed about that one factor. they're trying to be a diverse university to represent the entire state. it does serve the mission of that campus. if it keeps on going down, there will be a lawsuit. i have talked to parents and students who are concerned about a trend. if he keeps going down and becomes less diverse, keep reevaluating. if your techniques don't work,

change them. >> questions. yes? >> good afternoon. an article years ago proving discrimination in a minority contexts. is issue was of race neutral alive and well. it has been around for quite some time. it also proved to be ineffective in the minority business context in order to achieve equal opportunity for minority businesses and women businesses. how do we look as race as an ofernative in terms residential segregation? what types of alternative ways are proxies could one look at or not face the

question of what would be another ruse for race? >> thank you. question -- the top 10% plan could not exist without segregation. they cannot work to achieve diversity. ginsburg in that dissent for some time. to -- weion goes back are talking about the state of texas. there are all sorts of other institutions out there, law schools included, that cannot use a program like this. law schools, as you may know, have been permitted with socioeconomic factors, zip codes as nonracial alternatives.

that is not produced the benefits or the results that they had before using race conscious factors. when you talk about what are the nonracial alternatives, you only have a few alternatives to look at. none of them seem particularly successful. -- what are the alternatives that are still out there? again, for all of us, what are the alternatives that might reduce a critical mass that we are hoping for? court intimates ok. proxy for race is it is pretty clear that the 10% plan is intended to do just that.

usenot worried if schools proxy for race in admissions process. i think that would be within their parameters. i think you would be on solid ground to do that. i agree with professor garcia. i do not think you will yield the critical mass that you are trying to achieve through race neutral measures. i think very few jurisdictions would be able to do that. some other things you could consider -- social economic status has been successful. to consider race as a component of socioeconomic -- we talk about it, it is hard for me disaggregate race from that equation. you could look at first- goers and lawlege students. those students are disproportionately minority.

there are a lot of white kids that fall into that category as well. you could also look at students who are coming from households where english is not the primary language or more than english is spoken in the home as a race neutral measure. there are some out there. i'm just not confident you are going to achieve the measure of diversity that is going to be useful in the classrooms. singlenot have the one student of one particular racial group sitting there in the classroom. you have the one asian student and everyone is looking to that student to comment on the case. are you are studying and the african american student is dreading the opinion because he or she will be called on and have to speak for their race. we do not want anyone to have a

bad experience and educational -- and educational experience. i think race neutral measures are out there that could be tried. not optimistic that they would achieve the same diversity as race conscious measures. >> to be clear, the court try those that offer some opportunity to be effective. that theis a wild idea weight of the student is important, that will give you more diversity by weighing everyone who applies. you do not have to try that. ok? is we are talking about looking at race neutral reasonablethat show promise to be effective to create a more diverse student

body. >> it is important for show thattors to their weight was considered and dismissed because that wouldn't really get -- hire the 1960s, they would police officers based on their height. they believe that tall persons were more effective and efficient police officers. they found out that women and latinos -- they stop making a decision based on that fact your. >> other questions? ask one. as i was reading justice ginsburg decision, she cited another decision as well for the descent.

points -- one of the points that they make -- the disadvantage -- justice ginsburg's words were, i remain convinced that candidly disclosing the consideration of race is preferable to concealing it. maybe that goes to your question. if these are proxies, to what entirelyr schools safe, even if they say, we know the top 10% is a proxy. it is a complete proxy for race and we are using it for that purpose alone. our educational institutions given the language safe in using to use that are intended race and concealing?

>> i do not believe the university could find a safe say they are completely invulnerable and use 100% proxy for race. i think the courts would look behind that decision. ways of classifying that our courts have approved. geography is flexible enough and allows for movement so you could move to another school district a move to a close town. you could therefore have more control of where you fit into that category are not. john defeat is one that the courts could say that is not a proxy for race. just like they cannot decide or move to an asian the lovely city of separate

cisco. geography is one of those instances where -- lovely city of san francisco. jug or fee is one of those instances where -- and that's geography is one of those instances where -- >> one of the reasons it was able to pass is because a lot of representatives across texas announced that their students from the small high schools often would not be given the opportunity to go to the flashy school in the state. they do not have that opportunity. the geographic diversity that it .ields is also a benefit geographic diversity brings with it the background of being from a town of 100 people as opposed to being from an urban environment. to strikeu have pretty hard to find something that is a 100% proxy for race.

sure that some are ok with the proxies. for some members of the court that are very against any kind of race consciousness. case, as long as you are looking for five members of the court, i think you're ok with most of the proxies. absent any additional questions from the audience, i will close with one final question. forward in aes go post-fischer realm, are there any piece of advice you would offices andissions

university administrators? anything to keep in mind in designing how to process and foster diversity and education pipeline? by saying and policy decision is what we are talking about. it is more policy than law. admissions committee is having to do the political work of engaging faculty and engaging a lot of stakeholders. there are education leaders, the 2 pipeline, the creditors, regulators, civil society in general are all stakeholders in what admissions committees do. it is a political process of working out a solution that fits the need of that campus. ultimately, it is about the university or the college being

-- be effective. when admissions work really well, so does the campus. >> my piece of advice would be for admissions officers to work closely with the faculty of academic institution to understand the mission of academic institution. make sure the admissio process needs are in line with a wave that have students advance the mission. it will have to be tied to that mission. there are some law schools that do not have a mission. the law school really needs to think about that and how diversity relates to that issue. >> i would agree with everything they said. i will have to talk to you later about some of these ideas and putting them out as advice to law schools. a lot of this has been focused on law schools.

some of us who have been in these institutions no that we probably spend less time that we should about what we are trying to achieve with admission policies like these and what kind of critical mass we are trying to get in the classroom. in terms of our own backyard, we should have more conversations about what we are trying to achieve with our admissions policies. difficult andore wide-ranging discussion. highlightshink it .he need for outreach get the message out. get the welcome mat out in terms of these institutions to people

of different backgrounds. that is one of the things we can all do. >> thank you to professor and thankan pratt, you to the audience for being with us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on this weekend "newsmakers" representative steve scalise. it talks about republican effort defund the new health care law. he also talks about other budget

related issues, including upcoming debate over raising the debt limit. here is a brief look. public outcry going on throughout the country. senators will face reelection next year. how do they get back home when they cast a deciding vote that the president health care law stays in place? , there are as back lot of legislative things we have available. the c.r. is one. the debt ceiling is coming up. punchingake sure the -- the country pays its debt. theill put things like pipeline in the bill. this will create thousands of jobs. why don't we actually say yes to

those american jobs and get our economy moving again? jobhows we are doing our and will keep government funded. >> "newsmakers" tomorrow on c- span at 10 a.m. >> c-span online archives will redefine social studies education in america. it is a great resource to view and share content anytime. it is easy. here is how -- go to c-span.org and go to the video library to watch the newest video. click on what you want to walk and press play. you can also search the video library for a specific topic or keyword. you can type in the name of a

person. you can go to their bio page and scroll down to their appearances. you can also share what you are watching. title and click share. library isvideo searchable, easy, and free. created by the tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. remarks from chinese foreign affairs minister, wang yi. he discusses u.s.-china relations. they talk about the syrian civil war. this is a little more than an hour. >> good evening. it is my great pleasure to

welcome all of you here in this evening for what will be a rare opportunity to hear from the foreign minister of the people of china. wang yi. i see many friends and supporters of the institution. friends of china and from china. forgrateful to all of you making the effort to be here this evening. we also have quite a number of representatives. thent to say thank you for help and cooperation and and puttingpitality together this evening's program together. i think everybody knows a lot about our guest of honor's distinguished career. he came into his present post in march after spending virtually all of his career, including the stint

visiting scholars at georgetown university, as a specialist on asia and a specialist on japan. for the rate of that region that is asia, he played a vital role in getting the diplomacy involved with north korean nuclear program onto a constructive path. japan,a's ambassador to he was there at a sensitive time in the bilateral relationship. , it cannd of his tenure be said that the relationship is on a steadier course. he also served as director of the taiwan affairs office in the

state council. us at brookings with his presence before. all very grateful to have an opportunity to hear his views on a new model for great power relations between the u.s. and china. that is the topic that occupied a good deal of time between our presidents. it is also an issue that is very much on the agenda here at brookings. both in washington and in beijing, we at brookings are doing as much as we can to

improve and identify areas of cooperation between the u.s. and china. that we that spirit welcome the foreign back to brookings tonight. the minister is going to offer some opening remarks. there are earphones on your tables. the simultaneous english interpretation can be found on channel 2. when he finishes his remarks, there will be a conversation moderated by my colleague. he is a former deputy secretary of state for east asia. mr. minister, welcome. the podium is yours. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to be here to meet old friends and make new ones. when i was preparing my speech in beijing, my colleagues encouraged me to speak english, and i agreed. but finally i found i have not had time to practice my english. so i decide to speak my own language, chinese. because, you know, georgetown

they only gave me half a year. [laughter] maybe less time i can do it. so you can use the handset. [through translator]: it gives me great pleasure to be back at the brookings institution and share with you my thoughts on a new measure of relations between the u.s. and china. before i start i wish to thank the brookings institution and the president, strobe talbott, for graciously hosting this event. over the past few years i was here several times to meet your

experts and scholars. as the president said just now, at that time i wore the hat of the minister of the taiwan affairs office. i was in charge of affairs related to taiwan and the reunification be china, so the topics focused on the subject of taiwan. i remember at that time many wanted to ask me on issues of foreign policy, and my reply was always, "sorry, they're beyond my portfolio," but today i will not say sorry again, regardless of what questions you may ask. this is a year of great significance in u.s.-china

relations. last june the two presidents held a successful and historic meeting in annenberg estate in california. the most important outcome is china and the united states agreed to build a new model of relations between the two countries. the agreement is strategic, constructive, and path-breaking in nature. it has charted the future course for our relations. it will surely produce a positive and profound impact on the asia-pacific and indeed the evolution of the international landscape. with the agreement come two questions. first, what is this new model about. and second, how to make it the reality.

president ping has laid out the essentials for the model.number -- laid out the essentials for the new model. number one, no conflict or confrontations. number two, mutual respect. and number three, cooperation the the first, no conflict or confrontation, is the prerequisite for the new model of relations between the countries. according to some studies of history there have been about 15 cases of rise of emerging powers. in 11 cases, confrontations as war broke out between the emerging and the established power. however, we now live in a different world.

china and the united states and in fact all countries in the world are part of a community of shared interests. countries are increasingly interconnected. neither of us will benefit from con frontation. -- confrontation. war will get us nowhere. we we need to address the strategic distrust and build confidence in the future of china-u.s. relations. mutual respect is important for this new model china and the united states, different in social systems, history and culture yet connected by intertwined interests. only by respecting each other's system and path chosen by their people as well as each other's core interests and concerns can

we seek common ground and on that basis expand common ground and resolve differences so that china and the united states will be able to live together in harmony. cooperation is the only way to turn the vision into a reality. there is an enormous need and vast potential for better cooperation in all fields. besides, the world certainly needs china and the united states, two major countries with great influence, to work together on issues ranging from counterterrorism to cyber security, nuclear nonproliferation, and peace in the middle east and development. it's only possible when both countries are committed to growing cooperation.

moreover, such win-win outcomes should not just be beneficial to china and the united states, it should also be beneficial to all countries in the world. let me turn to the second question that it's more important is how can we make the new model of relations a reality. indeed this will be a systemic project that requires ideas and efforts of people from all walks of life in both countries. it also needs sustained political results, persistent commitment and tireless efforts of both sides. i know that many american friends say to me that this new model is great, but it must not be just a slogan, i fully agree with them. it should not stay at a level of a concept only. it should become a reality through concrete action.

american friends are very pragmatic. so are the chinese. this is why the moment i arrived in the united states, in the first meeting with the press, i said publicly that i am here this time to send a clear message, that is, our two countries should work together. let's use concrete action to advance this new model. let's carry out specific cooperation to reflect or to enrich this new model. there are so many areas that we can cooperate. i would like to talk about my

observations on how to build a new model from the following aspects. first we need to enhance strategic trust to put this new model of relationship on a more solid foundation. we have all along emphasized that china's development is peaceful in nature. we have never had the strategic intention to challenge or even to the united states in its position in the world. we work with the united states and all other countries for peace and common development. we are aware of the u.s. statement that it does not see china as a threat or intends to contain china. instead it wishes to see a strong and stable china. this is right. as long as china and the united

states can both stick to this strategic direction in their action, we will certainly build up strategic trust and strengthen the foundation for this new model of relationship. second, we need to promote practical cooperation to put this new model of relationship on more shared interests over more than four decades since the establishment of our diplomatic relations, economic growth and trade have brought huge developments to each country. they have served as a stabilizer that enables china/u.s. relations to forge ahead despite

wins. $500 billion u.s. dollars and mutual investment more than 80 billion. according to the latest report from china/u.s. exchange foundation, in 10 years' time, by 2022, our two countries will become each other's top trading partner. by then u.s. exports to china will exceed $450 billion u.s. which means over 2.5 million jobs created in this country. the number of chinese tourists visiting the united states will grow to 10 million from 1.5 million in 2012. these are conclusions of the joint study by chinese and

american scholars, not from the chinese side only. i believe they will give a strong impetus to the historic process of this new model of relationship. recently china has agreed to carry out substantive negotiations with the united states on the investment treaty on the national treatment and a list. this shows the great insincerity and resolve of the chinese government and deepen china and u.s. economic trade cooperation. this will open up new prospects for bilateral business ties, also need for the two countries to tap cooperation potential in such fields as energy, environmental protection, urbanization, biotech and infrastructure. china takes u.s. concerns on market access and i.p.r.

protection seriously and is prepared to take measures to address them at the same time china hopes the united states will ease its control over high- tech export to china and give fair treatment to chinese companies investing in this country. third, we need to enhance people to people and cultural exchange and put this new model of relationship on stronger public support. state to state relations at the end of the day are about people to people relations. in today's world, public opinion has increasingly become a significant factor shaping or even defining bilateral relationships. friendship between peoples leads to nations and vice versa. the success of our endeavor to build a new model of major country relationships hinges greatly upon the understanding, involvement, and support of the majority of our two peoples.

with this in mind, we need to encourage and expand into actions in various areas and within various groups including families, communities, schools, and n.g.o.s at the grass root level so that our peoples will understand each other better and deepen friendship. we need to strengthen cultural exchange and as the two sides meet and interact, they will gradually achieve mutual tolerance and inclusiveness. we also need to lead public opinion in respective countries so that the voice advocating china/u.s. friendship and cooperation will become the mainstream in public support where our relations will grow stronger. fourth, we need to strengthen cooperation in international and regional hot spots and global issues and put this new model of relationship on greater common

responsibilities. the united states is the biggest developed country while china is the biggest developing country in the world. the two countries share evergrowing converging interests and shoulder increasingly greater common responsibilities on such measured issues as maintaining regional and international stability and promoting sustainable development of mankind. joint contribution to world peace and stability and progress of civilization is what the international community expects of our two countries. it should, therefore, also be inherent future of this new model of relationship. china is prepared to engage in all dimensional cooperation with the united states at regional and global levels. what we seek is not the so- called g-2, but each complementing the other for its respective advantages.

china is ready to shoulder international responsibilities commensurate with its national strengths and reality and together with the united states offer more quality public goods for the international community. china and the united states can cooperate on any issue. we may not always see eye to eye, but that should not prevent us from talking to each other. as long as we truly act in a shared interest of the two countries and for the benefit of regional and global stability and the prosperity, our positions will get closer and our strategic trust will surely get enhanced. on cyber security, a peaceful secure open and cooperative cyberspace is in the interest of all countries in the world

including china and the united states. china firmly opposes any behavior that disrupts order in cyberspace and endangers cyber security. as a matter of fact, china is a victim of hacking and other cyber attacks to safeguard cyber security, we need cooperation instead of finger pointing. the first meeting of china/u.s. cyber working group made a good beginning. we need to keep up constructive dialogue and to promote the formulation of the international cyber rules to help ensure cyber security. on climate change, our two sides have set up a climate change working group within the framework. as china is committed to deeping economic structural readjustment and accelerating the shift of growth model, addressing climate change meets its own needs of

sustainable development in the first place. we are ready to enhance cooperation with the united states on environmental protection, energy conservation and emissions reduction and alternative and renewable energy, take part in relevant climate change negotiations in a responsible matter and jointly contribute to sustainable development. on syria, china is firmly opposed to the use of chemical weapons by any country or individual. we believe that political settlement is the only right way out in diffusing the syrian crisis. with support and early launch of the process to destroy syria's chemical weapons, at the same time a geneva two should be held as soon as possible, thus bringing the syrian issue back to political settlement.

on palestine and israel, china has proposed peace talks in a manner and pushed the two sides to make efforts on the iranian nuclear issue. china and the united states have maintained close communication. there has emerged positive factors in iranian nuclear dialogue. we should seize the opportunities to work for early substantive progress in the dialogue. fifth, we need to prioritize our cooperation on asian pacific affairs and start the building of this new model of relationship from the asian pacific region. the asia pacific is the world's fastest growing and the most promising region. it is also home to most of the hot spot issues. china and the united states have

more converging interesting and interactions in the asian pacific more than anywhere else. it is both possible and imperative that our two countries start the building of this new model of relationship from the asian pacific. just think if china and the united states can avoid conflict and confrontation in the asian pacific, there is no reason we can't co-exist in peace in other parts of the world if china and the united states can respect each other and conduct cooperation on asian pacific affairs, there is no reason we cannot work together on other issues. how to turn the asian pacific into the testing ground for our new model of relationship, i think the following two points are extremely important. first, china and the united states should genuinely respect and accommodate each other's interests and the concerns in the asian pacific. china respects the traditional influence and immediate interests of the united states in the asia pacific.

we have never thought about pushing the u.s. out of the region, rather we hope the united states will play a positive and constructive role in safeguarding peace, stability, and the development in the asia pacific. the vast pacific ocean is broad enough to accommodate our two big countries. the asia pacific has been the home and root of the chinese nation for thousands of years. therefore, we hope that the united states will also respect china's interests and concerns. the taiwan question concerns china's sovereignty and the integrity. it bears on the national sentiments of its 1.3 billion chinese people. right now relations enjoy a momentum of peaceful development. it's the common desire of people on both sides of the straits to have peace rather than war,

cooperation rather than confrontation, and exchanges rather than estrangement. gradual integration of the two sides through two-way interactions and cooperation will lead to ultimate reunification. this is a historical trend that no one can stop. for many years, the taiwan question has been a liability in chinese/u.s. relations that undermines mutual trust and disrupts cooperation. however, if the united states can go along with the prevailing trend of peaceful development, of relations and genuinely appreciate and respect china's efforts to oppose separation and achieve peaceful reunification, the issue was a liability, the negative factors in our relationship will be turned into an asset and a positive factor providing long term steady grove of chinese u.s. relations and opening prospect for all-around

cooperation. second, china and the united states should work together to produce substantive results in our cooperation over hot spot issues in the asia pacific. if we can succeed in doing so, we will be able to accumulate experience and strategic cooperation on a global scale and demonstrate to the rest of the world our ability and resolve to jointly safeguard regional peace and stability. a case in point is the korean nuclear issue. china and the united states have built much consensus on the issue. it is our common responsibility to maintain peace in northeast asia. yesterday was the eighth anniversary of the september 19th joint statement. before yesterday, china hosted an international workshop in

beijing to mark the 10th anniversary of the six-party talks. china believes that dialogue and the negotiation is the right path toward a nuclear weapons- free peninsula and that the six- party talks have turned out to be an effective mechanism for dialogue. the parties concerned should recommit themselves as soon as possible to a joint statement and the work together to create the necessary conditions for the restart of the six-party talks. the u.s. position on this is of vital importance. china is ready to keep in touch with the u.s. side. we were also ready to cooperate with the united states on other regional hot spot issues such as afghanistan. 10 days ago, the second china/u.s. collaborative training course to afghanistan diplomats was launched in washington, d.c.

i sent a message to the program. afghanistan is in the phase of crucial transition. what other country can proceed smoothly with the reconciliation and reconstruction including china, the united states, and other countries in the nation. china/u.s. cooperation on afghanistan has just started. there is great potential and room for enhanced cooperation if our two countries can work with each other and to bring out our respective strengths, we can turn the issue into a new highlight and cooperation. ladies and gentlemen, not long ago, president xi and president obama met again on the margins of the g-20 summit in st. petersburg. the two leaders reiterated their commitment to this new model of major country relationship. the building of such a relationship requires not only political guidance from our leaders, but also and more

importantly, the involvement and support of people across the society in both countries including the continuous intellectual input from action demonstratea. the brookings institution is one of the most influential think tanks. what to do next is to look at what the brookings institute is working on. the brookings institution has always had a keen interest in u.s. relations with china, but its purpose, the china center bringing together many renowned experts on china u.s. relations and doing a great deal of work in promoting bilateral ties. i hope and i'm confident that as china and the united states build this new model, the brookings institution will continue to put a positive role and make major contributions. thank you. [applause]

>> now it seems i need to answer your questions. >> i would like to thank minister wong for an address that was full of insight and full of ideas about how to build a new model of major power relationships. as the minister said, there was a concern at the outset that this might be just a slogan.

i think what we have heard from the minister tonight are some excellent ideas about how to make this much more than a [translator speaking] it's also important that this name of the relationship not simply be an umbrella for all of the old issues and all of the old disputes. we need to infuse this new model with some new determination to solve problems rather than merely repeat old positions and old talking points. [translator speaking]

i think minister wang has blazed the path and shown us how to do that.[translator speaking] so i would like to take advantage of my position as moderator and ask the first question, if i could, mr. minister. and we thank you for being willing to take some questions that will doubtless be difficult and probably unpleasant. [laughter] my question is as it was indicated, you are almost certainly the leading expert in the chinese government on the subject of japan.

do you want me to complete the question?[laughter] although i must say that the gentleman who followed you as ambassador to japan also did a terrific job.[laughter] this way. for many of us it has been very upsetting to see the world's second and third largest economies have their relationships, relationship become tense and deteriorate over what to many on the outside appear to be four uninhabited and habited rocks. i know it looks different in china and japan, but that is the truth. as foreign minister and as china's leading japan expert, do you have ideas about how to

renormalize relations between china and japan in the coming months? will it require some sort of agreement about the islands, these four uninhabited rocks or will the two countries take a broader, higher view and look at the many important common interests that they have and find a way to rebuild the relationship? [translator speaking]

>> he asked a very sensitive question from the beginning.

to answer this question, i want to first be very clear that it is china's consistent and clear position that the islands are an integral part of the chinese territory and this position of ours has not changed and nor should it change. china has a firm determination to uphold it's sovereignty and territorial integrity. [speaking japanese] at the same time, we are aware

that the japanese side has its own thoughts and views and what should we do, it is china's consistent position that when it comes to territorial disputes, we are ready to resolve the disputes through a dialogue and negotiation. [speaking japanese] but 41 years ago when china and japan broke their years of

estrangement and achieved the normalization of diplomatic relations, leaders of the two countries reached a very important agreement or you can call it an understanding, that is, we have different positions on this issue and we can set aside our difference and take care of it or resolve it at some later date. [speaking japanese] this understanding has been incorporated into many diplomatic documents and the memory of reaching such understanding is still fresh on the minds of both japanese and chinese diplomats who are personally involved in that part of history.

[speaking japanese] that has enabled the continuance of peace and stability on the islands and in their adjacent borders including in the east china sea for so many years. [speaking japanese]

however, to our regret, last year the japanese side decided to press its claim and control over the chinese territory, the islands, by nationalizing these islands and that move broke what existed over these islands in the past 40 years and under such circumstances, one can easily imagine that the chinese side must and surely need to make a response to it. [speaking japanese] so, the situation may seem complicated, but the whole story is actually a very clear one. [speaking japanese]

and circumstances continue to move and in undesirable direction. i want to tell you it is because the japanese side denied the existence of such an agreement or understanding, which was reached 40 years ago, and certainly this is an acceptable to the chinese side, because, as i said before, this is a historical fact. [speaking japanese]

in spite of this, we are still ready to sit down and have dialogues with the japanese side to find jointly away to control, manage the current situation. but the japanese said to us there is no such dispute the between china and japan, and that has made it impossible for dialogues to happen. [speaking japanese]

china and japan are perpetual neighbors. the two countries have very close business ties. we are still ready to sit down

and have dialogue with the japanese side, but first the japanese side needs to recognize there is such a dispute. the whole world knows there is a dispute here. i believe there will be a day when the japanese come back to this table and dialogue. [speaking japanese] so, how things will go next is not just up to the chinese side, but also up to the japanese side, too. i believe there will be a time when the two sides come together to have serious dialogue and discussion to work out a solution. >> thank you for that comprehensive answer.

i would like to take two questions now, and we will see after those questions whether we have more time. we have a tight schedule in new york. if we can get a couple of questions -- secretary cohen? please. >> thank you very much for very comprehensive statements about foreign policy of china. i attended a conference recently in singapore. during the course of the conference, i met with a number of your counterparts. the issue was raised during that time -- let me stop here. an issue was raised during that

time about the so-called 9 dash line drawn in the south china sea. and you mentioned earlier of course we need to respect each other and common interest in the asia-pacific region. the issue that was raised was whether the so-called 9 dash line, which appeared in many maps prior to last year and, now the new maps show a solid line. i wonder, is there any significance between the 9 dash line, which indicates some question about sovereignty, or a solid line, which would seem to indicate something different? [translator speaking]

>> continue? >> please. >> minister wang, thank you for your candid remarks. i would like to raise the issue of the korean peninsula again, if i could. this has been an issue for many years. north korea insists it is a nuclear state. it continues to expand its

nuclear weapons potential and states unequivocally that it has no intention of giving up its weapons. what reason should we have for optimism in this case? you have mentioned, of course, six-party talks on the anniversary of the september 2005 agreement, in which of course china played a vital role. what reasons would we have for optimism for what could result from any presumed talks, and how do you see the united states and china cooperating as a test case of major power relations? thank you. [translator speaking]

>> both questions are important ones.

[speaking japanese] for the question raised by secretary cohen, for me, it is the first time to hear it, that is the line has been changed into a solid one. [speaking japanese]

what i can say to you is there has been no change in china's position with respect to the 9 dash line. i do not think this line should become a solid one, but if you did see such a map showing this, i would maybe have to look into it and check it. this line, the 9 dash line, was drawn by the r.o.c. government back in 1948 and this has been upheld by successive chinese governments and i do not think there has been any change in our position on the issue. [speaking japanese]

second, about the korean issue there has been much discussion about this. it is true, i was personally involved in six-party talks, framing the talks. to our deep regret, the six- party talks have been at a standstill for quite some time, which is something none of us want to see. [speaking japanese] we are also aware of these

statements that you referred to made by the dprk side. [speaking japanese] but i would also like to tell you there has been new developments recently, some things that the dprk says it does not object to the joint statement and is ready to come back to the statement and to the

february 29 deal it had with the united states. [speaking japanese] the first article set out in the september 19 joint statement is that dprk gives up all nuclear weapons and nuclear programs. [speaking japanese] at the same time, the joint statement also sets out the respective responsibilities and obligations for china, the united states, and other parties concerned. [speaking japanese]

another change on the part of the dprk recently is they have said they are willing to commit to the denuclearization because they say that this ithcy of taderhe p [speaking japanese] to achieve the denuclearization of the peninsula is our common goal. now that the dprk has reiterated it will commit to be denuclearization goal, and now is the time for the parties to sit down and think how they will

achieve the goal. [speaking japanese] one of the important items on my agenda of my visit to the united states is to discuss with the u.s. side that we can resume this process to affect reasonable, resumption of all the talks, that is acceptable to all the parties. [speaking japanese]

our position is a clear one. we are firm and our commitment to the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. we believe this is in china's on interest and the dprk's interest and the interest of all other parties, including the united states. [speaking japanese] meanwhile, we believe this issue needs to be peaceably resolved through dialogue and negotiation. [speaking japanese] the purpose of such dialogue and negotiation is to address the

concerns of all the parties involved, including the legitimate concerns of the dprk. [speaking japanese] i believe our countries, china and the united states, are in agreement with respect to denuclearization and resolving this issue through dialogue. [speaking japanese] i am confident that as long as we all get ready and be serious and moving forward our dialogue, we will be able to achieve our common goal of denuclearization of the korean peninsula. it is also our common

responsibility. [speaking japanese] i will be open to more questions. >> ok. we will take one last question. ken, fire away. >> thank you, mr. minister, for your very informative formal comments and responses to questions. i was really struck in your speech that you characterized future u.s. for cooperation on afghanistan as becoming a new highlight of u.s.-china relations. the chinese involvement has been very limited and incipient. i wonder if you will share with us your thinking what future cooperation would consist of

that would warrant calling it a new highlight of the relationship? thank you. [translator speaking] [speaking japanese]

>> on afghanistan, china and the united states have a common interest. we want to see a stable area after the united states troop withdrawal from the country and we want to assist afghanistan in the reconstruction process and neither of our two countries was to see a resurgence of terrorist activity in the country. [speaking japanese]

now parties are not so optimistic about the prospects of the country post-2014, and i believe that has made all the more important the china, united states, and other countries with close links to that country to advance cooperation. [speaking japanese] concrete cooperation can involve a wide range of areas. just one example, the collaborative training program of our two countries. it is not a very big program, but it is a very positive one.

[speaking japanese] next year, china will play host to the issue of afghanistan international conference, the istanbul process international conference. we certainly hope the united states will participate in it where we can have a more detailed discussion. [speaking japanese] with regard to the instruction process post-2014, on the economic front, i believe both china and the united states can make contributions and china can make its own contribution to reconstruction. [speaking japanese]

on the domestic political reconciliation process, it is a tough one. i believe on this, china and the united states can play a role, too, and we can work together with pakistan and other neighbors with afghanistan in this regard. [speaking japanese]

now all people are talking about syria, but probably in the latter half of next year the most important topic we will talk about is afghanistan. i think it is important to see into the future. the brookings institution is a very forward-looking economic institution. i believe it is very important to consider what afghanistan will be like post-2014 and how china, the united states, and other countries can work together on this. thank you. >> thank you, mr. minister, for providing us a very productive and enjoyable evening. those of us who have worked with mr. wang throughout the years know him as a gentleman who is pragmatic, who is fair-minded, experienced, and i have had the

pleasure of meeting with a chinese gentleman who was not in the government the other day who said what he really appreciates about mr. wang in his appointment is he is tough. i believe we heard all of those traits displayed tonight, although the toughness is described by a velvet glove he wears. i would like everyone to show our appreciation for mr. wang's address and his willingness to deal with difficult questions tonight. show your appreciation by giving him a round of applause. >> would look at the strategy of both parties in

congress as they debate the future of the health care law, federal spending, and the debt limit. cbs news will talk about the ongoing investigation into last year's consulate attack and benghazi. after that, the latest on the situation in syria. all of that plus your reaction by phone, e-mail, and twitter. live at seven. america to be better. we wanted america to live up to the declaration of independence, live up to our creed. make real our democracy. make it real. when i got arrested the first time, i felt free. i felt liberated. and today more than ever before,

i feel free and deliberate. >> that is civil rights leader john lewis from last year's national book festival. he will be our next guest. he will take your calls and comments for three hours. also scheduled for november 3, kitty kelly. feminist critic. j working on radio host. -- january 5, radio host. read the book and leave your comments on our facebook page and on twitter. .> the weekly addresses president obama talks about the debt limit and the bill passed to defund health care. the republican address delivered by nevada governor brian sandoval. he talks about the economy, his efforts to create jobs and federal spending.

>> hi, everybody. it was five years ago this week that a financial crisis on wall street spread to main street, and very nearly turned a recession into a depression. in a matter of months, millions of americans were robbed of their jobs, their homes, their savings - after a decade in which they'd already been working harder and harder to just get by. it was a crisis from which we're still trying to recover, but thanks to the grit and determination of the american people, we are steadily recovering. over the past three and a half years, our businesses have created seven and a half million new jobs. our housing market is healing. we've become less dependent on foreign oil. health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years. and in just over a week, and in just over a week, millions of americans without health care will be able to get covered for less than $100 a month. so our economy is gaining traction. and we're finally tackling threats to middle-class prosperity that washington

neglected for far too long. but as any middle-class family listening right now knows, we've got a long way to go to get to where we need to be. and after five years spent digging out of crisis, the last thing we need is for washington to manufacture another. but that's what will happen in the next few weeks if congress doesn't meet two deadlines. first, the most basic constitutional duty congress has is passing a budget. but if it doesn't pass one before september 30, a week from monday, the government will shut down. and so will many services the american people expect. military personnel, including those deployed overseas, won't get their paychecks on time. federal loans for rural communities, small business owners, and new home buyers will be frozen. critical research into life- saving discoveries and renewable energy will be immediately halted. all of this will be prevented if congress just passes a budget.

second, congress must authorize the treasury to pay america's bills. this is done with a simple, usually routine vote to raise what's called the debt ceiling. since the 1950's, congress has always passed it, and every president has signed it, democrats and republicans, including president reagan. and if this congress doesn't do it within the next few weeks, the united states will default on its obligations and put our entire economy at risk. this is important. raising the debt ceiling is not the same as approving more spending. it lets us pay for what congress already spent. it doesn't cost a dime, or add a penny to our deficit. in fact, right now, our deficits are already falling at the fastest rate since the end of world war ii. and by the end of this year, we'll have cut our deficits by more than half since i took office. but reducing our deficits and

debt isn't even what the current standoff in congress is about. now, democrats and some reasonable republicans are willing to raise the debt ceiling and pass a sensible budget, one that cuts spending on what we don't need so we can invest in what we do. and i want to work with those democrats and republicans on a better bargain for the middle class. but there's also a faction on the far right of the republican party who've convinced their leadership to threaten a government shutdown if they can't shut off the affordable care act. some are actually willing to plunge america into default if they can't defund the affordable care act. think about that. they'd actually plunge this country back into recession, all to deny the basic security of health care to millions of americans. well, that's not happening and they know it's not happening. the united states of america is not a deadbeat nation. we are a compassionate nation. we are the world's bedrock

investment. and doing anything to threaten that is the height of irresponsibility. that's why i will not negotiate over the full faith and credit of the united states. i will not allow anyone to harm this country's reputation, or threaten to inflict economic pain on millions of our own people, just to make an ideological point. so, we are running out of time to fix this, but we could fix it tomorrow. both houses of congress can take a simple vote to pay our bills on time, then work together to pass a budget on time. then we can declare an end to governing by crisis and govern responsibly, by putting our focus back where it should always be - on creating new jobs, growing our economy, and expanding opportunity not just for ourselves, but for future generations. thank you. >> hello, my name is brian sandoval. i have the honor of serving as the governor of nevada.

when i came to office, we were in the depths of a great dissent a great recession. no state had been hit harder than nevada. our unemployment rate was 15% it would lead the country in foreclosures and bankruptcy. jobs disappeared almost overnight leaving behind skeletons of half built buildings. the economy froze. despite those dark days, i knew that a brighter future was just around the corner. nevadans and all americans are resilient. overcoming adversity is a part of our national heritage. survival is not enough. we need a decisive action and a significant course of action to meet the challenges that lay ahead. upon taking office, i ordered an immediate freeze to all state regulations until they could be reviewed.

because our state budget situation was so dire, we reduced spending by more than $500 million and eliminated approximately 600 positions across government and eliminated more than a dozen state agencies. unlike washington, we had to balance our state budget because nevada cannot borrow its way out problems. while working, we began putting in motion our plan to help create jobs and get nevadans working again. economic opportunity has been and continues to be a foundation of this country and is the source of the american dream. and i sense that the future of the american dream is at risk. like governor ronald reagan stated in 1964, i believe we face a time for choosing. we chose a simple approach of state government. it should be a protector of rights and a partner and

prosperity. to that end, i filed against tax increases -- fought against tax increases and tax abatements to encourage businesses to grow. when it comes to growing jobs it is my responsibility to leave no stone unturned when it comes to get nevada working again. can you just imagine what our economy would look like today if washington would just take that approach? like washington, nevada has a politically divided government. that does not stop our efforts to grow the economy. good executives like all good leaders must expect opposition when making decisions or enforcing the law. executives must engage in those who disagree with them. they must listen to all ideas, persuade one possible on and respectively and firmly disagree

when necessary. despite having a politically divided government, in the last two years, nevada has been able to accomplish much. webster did employment -- we have strengthened employment in our state. in large part because we sit down, put partisanship aside, talk to our disagreed, and find common ground. i will be the first to say there is work to be done. nevada had experienced 31 straight months of economic growth. we have had the second strongest decline in unemployment in the country. we continue to add much-needed jobs. a list of companies wishing to relocate once could fit on an index card. now it is long and diverse. when it came to our schools, we eliminated teacher tenure and are focusing on ensuring that our kids read and write a great

level which benefits everyone. fortunately, good policy, risible of an effective leadership work whenever they are tried -- principle, and effective leadership work whenever they are applied. when the tough times force tough choices, we acted decisively and move forward. the fastest-growing states with the best economies are all led by republican governors. these states differ geographically, economically, and even politically but our ideas continue to work. our founding fathers got it right. free enterprise and limited government have made and will continue to make this country great. despite all we have endured, i cannot be more proud and optimistic about the greatest

nation on earth. i am confident that our core convictions provide the surest path were economic opportunity still abounds, hard work, and dreams are still realized. we need washington to reflect and see what is possible in our great nation. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. god bless the great state of nevada and the united states of america.

>> c-span student cam video nominations are underway. we are doubling the number one errors and prize money. entries should show varying points of view and be entered by january 20, 2014. >> the discussion of the future of race in america. this is one hour. [applause] >> good afternoon. i wanted to offer a definition of race, but we could spend the entire hour or month debating that. whatever race means -- it is essentially a social construct,

not a scientific construct, and therefore changes over time. it is sensitive to cultural and social changes, changes such as the increasing interaction among people of different ethnicities, increased interaction, changes in immigration policy, the digital revolution, the changing role of racial and ethnic subculture in popular culture, for example, hip-hop taking over the world and white males in the suburbs singing snoop-dogg. there are all these changes in culture that change the meaning and significance of race. at the same time, the meaning and significance of race is constrained to the racial

understandings of the past, and that is because our own psyches are shaped by understandings of the past and past understandings of what race means and what it does. these have been embedded into our institutions. we have all these changes that have the effect of altering our understanding of what race is, and at the same time past misunderstandings are deeply embedded. i ask you to predict the future. [laughter] where are we headed? what will race look like 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now, racial consciousness, racial identity, racial as a determinant of power in society? let's start with you. >> that is what i get for not looking at my shoes. my name is tisa wenger.

this past year on native americans and christianity, i have done a good amount of research on the topics of native americans and religious freedom. in american history, that is who i am and where i am coming from. this has been said so often it is a clich? to my really, that i am a historian. historians do not do the future. we're not very good at -- so that is my opening disclaimer. i will do my best to reflect on this question, and i think there you started there about race as a social construct, was also where i was going to start. you got me started in a good

direction. it is very clear in american history that how people understand race and divide up racial groupings has changed so drastically over time, so i think it is safe to say that it will continue to change. one of the things that historians talk about great deal in thinking about race in american history is the black- white defined area as being a way that racial difference has been structured, and that has always been looked somewhat different depending on what region of the country you are in. i have spent a good bit of time living in california arizona, where the presence of native people, the presence of latino and hispanic people, and asians as well has always been much

more visible than perhaps it has been historically in the north east and in the south, especially. but i think one way that race is changing is that it will no longer be possible for any of us, anywhere in the country, to think about race exclusively in terms of that black-white binary, because demographics are changing so that other racial minority groups are much more visible around the country. having said that, i think it is important not to pretend as if that binary does not continue to exist, or to allow the present invisibility of racial minority groups lead us to believe that

we have entered a happy state of multi-culturalism which is in fact not the case. racialized systems of power and privilege continue to structure our lives in this country in many ways. i could keep on talking for quite a bit. i have a feeling you want me to turn this over to somebody else. >> you're looking at me? [laughter] >> my name is khyati yogeshkumar, and i teach at dickinson university. i am delighted to be here. thank you for inviting me to be a part of this panel. you asked a question -- to look ahead, i think about the year 2050 and i think there is also these discussions that year

2050, that white folks would be a minority then. abracadabra, we will erase 274 years of white privilege that has been embedded in our legal system. i think that is important to keep in mind. one of the things that will affect what race looks like in 2050 is how much we are able to deal with bringing some of the invisible to the visible. so how much in the public consciousness can we get more conversations about white normal activity and white privilege and understanding that there are inherent advantages that are embedded in everyday life. that will affect how we see race in 2050. >> i want to ask about the opposite.

you talk about turning the invisible to the visible. one of the ways that raise works in defining the value, of assigning privilege, power, is that people can determine visually what race a person is, or at least we think we can, and we get very puzzled. it seems to me increasingly that will not ease so easy. at yale, the largest undergraduate racial group is biracial. increasingly, with intermarriage or at least for the production of children of different races, whether parents are married or not, i once had suggested a thought experiment of a country called "beigia," where everybody

is a variation of beige color. let's imagine that 50 years from now that is a physical -- suppose that is what america looks like, and there are not such variations in physiognomy. i used to be black man and i thought it was a legacy -- what i am asking is, as the visual changes, does anything else change? >> i think other factors will come out, for example, religion. i think that is the first and that comes to mind for me, then what are some other factors that will surface? also, when we look at biracial, multiracial people even today, in their minds, their life

experience is the legacy of their family in terms of hearing what happened to parents and grandparents and siblings and not siblings who do not even look alike. i think what was the place he called -- "beigia" -- you can have "beigia," but that does not mean colorism is not real. religion, the way religion is live, is also affected by race, and we have the racialism of religion, which is why if you are brown in america today the attachment is made you are muslim. i go to the airport. one day i was walking through, i was leaving my house, and i was going to read this book by

bayoumi, and the cover has arabic on it. and somebody said, you want to walk through the airport with that? [laughter] that is the other thing. >> my name arecelis vazquez. i am a child of the americas. i am multiracial. my parents are from puerto rico, and i am also part of the latino community. and i think of race, i think of how in my community how we internalize that. though we are the fastest- growing population in america, there is a lot of racism that occurs within that community. i think for example my church where i hear my young girls

talking about "i have that hair." what does that mean? there may be a man who is a black latino, and comments made, or the fact that someone -- "oh, he is a white man. let's welcome him into our community." thinking about 2050, it is important for someone like me, how do we begin to educate and challenge and confront the issues that occur within our community? because we could grow, but if we are not united or appreciate or welcome difference, then it is going to be the same cycle because we have learned from those who are privileged. >> so you are talking within race? >> within the culture that exists in that community, because that is one of the biggest issues with the latino community, and a lot of

difference and a lot of folks who fear as though i do not want to interact because they are from central or south america and we are caribbean or vice versa. as we know, in the americas, there's a huge difference in the race, just in how it has been divided in terms of race within this country. >> what makes the latino community given its increasingly different religion -- >> that is something that has been structured here in america because we speak spanish. spanish is what unites us. yes, there may be some difference in terms of example if you are comparing the caribbean, the spanish-speaking countries, island such as the dominican republic, cuba, puerto rico, yes, there are similarities in terms of the multiracial culture that exists.

but it is very different. i'm sure we would look at the latinos in the northeast versus the ones in the southwest, a very different experience. >> spanish itself becomes -- >> very different dialects, also. >> just when you are not able to tell what your parents are talking about. ask the second and third generation numbers have increasingly -- so they may speak the language of their grandmothers or grandfathers, they still speak english. >> [laughter] >> it is interesting -- >> say who you are. >> my name is jerry streets.

i work at a church in new haven. i was also a chaplain of yale university for 15 years and have been a member of divinity school since 1987. i have lived in "beigia" for 63 years. my father was from a prominent african-american family and part of my family was polish catholic. one remembers that kind of experience is, how home at "beigia" -- but in the neighborhood, i was considered just black.

we think about our local experiences and our history of race. for me, i think one of the greatest challenges for us, to have a different kind of language and critique for the world of culture and racism, not culture and race. this distinction -- i tried to draw from that, all the good things, one of the ways culture functions is that it can be a conduit for ideology, for perspectives. and racism for me is the ways by which we take any aspect of any ethnic community and privilege it or disqualify it over others. so it is not just a matter of looks. it is a language, it is the

distinctions we make of language, gender, sexual orientation. racism as an ideology, that also relates privileges and sometimes is used to -- [indiscernible] people who use those characteristics. i am aware in some situations, when i walk into a room, my gender and race as perceived by those people -- and when there is a negotiation and how they are going to fit together what they -- [indiscernible] in an actual presentation. and sometimes as a pastor and a clinical social worker, both eras of professional practice i am engaged in, i see so many

signs of hope as you indicated. if you take -- [indiscernible] from families were multiethnic, to where the world -- [indiscernible] and to some extent that is true. but i think we have to allow for the fact that it is not either/or, but both/and. that is, you have this multiplicity of blending cultures and community, but at the same time you can have -- [indiscernible] that's still privilege or take a certain aspect of people and use that as a means of discrimination. let me say, just recently there has been in the call for education, an article about the makeup of leadership of all the ivy league schools, i was actually disappointed and

concerned about a comment made by a senior administrator who indicated -- and i'm paraphrasing -- that for minority people, african- american people, opportunity -- does the person accommodate the dominant culture to make people feel comfortable? my thought was, if they do, then what does that mean, and what happens when you do make everyone feel comfortable, but the ones that you're making feel comfortable are still looking at you through the lens of those particular folk and how does that get negotiated? and in spite of how comfortable

you can make people feel, there still is -- because you are not invited, you assume conversations because there is the ambiguity, and the same people you're making feel comfortable still identify with your language, looks, gender, out of their prism of history. >> let's pick up on that last point. everybody on the stage knows how to be a white man. [indiscernible] [laughter] we all know how to make other people comfortable. >> yeah. >> the question i want to put to

you, in the future, how much additional room will there be for us to have all-america edges, all of our expressions, all particularity understood without feeling -- [indiscernible] >> we can always hope. i want us to go back first to this issue of interracialism, because there is increasing visibility of interracialism and intermarriage, but we all know it is nothing new, as jerry pointed out already, and i cannot help but wonder if some of the sort of celebration of interracialism at the celebrity level might also function sometimes to obscure the ongoing

racialized systems of oppression that we call racism, and i do not want to go any further in the conversation here. no, no -- i want to mention because it is a book that has had immense impact in my thinking, "the new jim crow," because we had this as a common read this past year. and she talks about how a colorblind society in fact masks a new jim crow, which she diagnoses as the system of mass incarceration and the drug war that keeps communities of color, particularly african-american

men, but not exclusively -- the same could be said for hispanic man and immigrants -- and illegal immigration is being tackled through mass incarceration, and native americans are also disproportionately incarcerated and at every level of the criminal justice system, we know there is racial discrimination, and that goes on under the rhetoric of a colorblind society that then makes us believe that it is not because of race that in fact so many people of color are kept in a kind of permanent underclass, both in prison and through the felony laws that keep them away from full participation in the society after their release.

so i think -- it is important in any conversation about race i find to make that point, kind of like a reality check, if we are talking about increasing diversity, again, and it is not just a happy picture. let's not allow that conversation to obscure what in fact is still structured in our society. there is huge racial disparity that we need to tackle. i think there are signs of hope in the increasing awareness of the issue that we see in, for example, at the divinity school reading this book, and there is immense attention to this book around the country, in various churches and faith communities. but i do not see that going away. i do not see racism and white privilege disappearing as a result of --

>> you make a double point, because you also suggested the reason for continued disparities is incarceration, and that is structurally similar to what was being said earlier, that even if judgments about race are based on color, yes, but you are removed from it, some other factor that is tied to race or his survey was very much connected. so the point i am getting, even as race itself on the face of things becomes less visible, or just way more complex, thanks to kim kardashian -- [laughter]

it does not mean that disparities and life prospects and possibilities are thrown away. [indiscernible] i want to distinguish between culture and racism, but i want to make the same point between the internal experience of identity and what is described by the society. i suspect both of you spent a lot of time -- or i suspect you having read your essays, and i know you have experiences with magazines -- a plug -- the experience of trying to sort out your own identity in the world, but finding it differently how you see your own life, and it is becoming more difficult for people over the next 40 years,

where there own internal sense of who they are in racial, ethnic, whatever-else terms does not necessarily map on to what they being told about themselves. >> i will combine that with the question you asked previous, where we are always negotiating, learning how to be white guys. absolutely. sometimes i identify as it indian-american hindu, raised in the south. i am a proud southerner. i am very proud to be from atlanta. i am hindu, also. these days, it is fine when i am teaching and i want to wear my the long outfits, the top comes

down to here, but to a formal function or something among even a formal function on campus, i will wear a sari, and that is good because it makes the university looks good. i will be out there. that is one thing. it is another thing then to be able to actually have access to the president and the board of advisors, which is the various vice presidents, and do they really want to hear what i have to say there, right? so there is acceptance of diversity, but in certain locations. who defined those locations depends on who has the power, and that is very real for me. simply because i can get indian food whenever i want, and i can

dress however i want, and it is seen as cool and fashionable does not mean that i still don't have to fight my way to have my voice heard in ways that really impact. for example, my students or the larger population in general. and it takes so much energy, for those of you who have to do it, but as a strategy, we have to strategize as to how we are going to play it. that is never-ending. i do not know how to do that every day where there are a lot of double negatives there. [laughter] >> absolutely. i was teaching my first asian- american studies class and at the end of that class, and a second of expected an ax and out of view, does not a southern

one. [laughter] >> i share the same experience in this sense that i have a very ethnic name. i was born and raised in new england, and i always have teachers or faculty members, even at work, folks will assume that i do not speak english, or they will assume that i just came from such and such country. it was very hard for me growing up with an ethnic name. it has been hard for me with the things that i'm doing. this year, after share the invocation during commencement. i had a couple of trusty members

looking at me like, what is she doing here? and when i was introduced as the chaplain it was like, of -- oh, you're the chaplain? what is that supposed to mean? you look younger. i thought you were one of the students. well, thank you very much. that idea has not been the first. walking into classrooms, i could remember my friend and i at the divinities school, we were at the graduate school campus and we would say, this building was so beautiful, but it was not created for people like us.

there were white men at one point sitting here, and now you have folks of color looking around and you look at the pictures and it is like, whoa, i don't see anyone who looks like me. what does that mean? it has definitely been an experience to be the first, or even to walk and carry the torch of someone who passed it to me. >> i remember my experiences as a law professor and looking some on the wall, and i saw men and women of different shades, but every picture looked exactly like every other picture. there was a stronghold, and a few were willing to fit into that picture, you could be there.

and increasingly, that is the kind of bind that we find ourselves in. everyone on this panel has something to do with religion. [indiscernible] [laughter] let's talk about religion and race. religion has played a significant role in maintaining, or justifying racial and other hierarchies. it is often the case that religions can play a role in prodding societies to dismantle racial and other hierarchies.

i want to give you guys to think about the future. looking forward, what do you think would be the role of the future? >> within the larger christian world, the more difficult questions and what it means to live out a christian life has a deep ethical and spiritual implications. it is hard to have a conversation about -- because we tend to talk a lot about religion from an ideological, political, values conflict, which is important also. but the deeper question about our common humanity and how we are called into community with one another and how that sense of community can undergird and

make sure our core values as a democratic society become a conduit for religion. in the late 1700's, a very insightful slave was converted to christianity. he made the assumption based on his conversion that he was now equal to his master. and he said so, and the master said, no, i don't think so. and they called a conference to discuss this question. it's a slave converts to christianity, is he or she now equal to his master? and the conclusion was, yes, but only in heaven. [laughter] the further status of the slave remains slave.

not free, but slave. the spiritual status was equal, but that was something he the only experience in heaven. the role of religion then, becomes one of those wheels of ideology that continues to oppress people. religion, like any ideology, can be used for good or for evil. >> [indiscernible] i want to share a couple of things that he said. one, he's been careful about it. there is an understanding of the self and why we are here on planet earth, can that be mined to break down?

he also said -- is often said that in these two situations that you're describing, i'm a christian now and i'm free, i guess, in heaven. there is the separation of church in state. the state was still free to shackle him. >> i actually wrote about this in my essay in reflections magazine if anyone wants to

follow on that topic. i think that this 17th century moment, or 18th-century moment that you're talking about, can slaves convert to christianity and then become equal, it was not only a moment of christianity facilitating oppression, but also a moment in which racial and religious identities are clearly separated. prior to the time, there had been an assumption, and continue to be in some ways that it was he dance that could be enslaved -- heathens that could leak -- could be enslaved. and categories of race and

religion were not clear the distinguished in that. biden is kind of moment, now there's a separation between, ok, a slate can be christian, but that does not change their status as black, and therefore inflatable. -- enslavable. and want to get back to the question that you asked. i do not always do that. what role will religion play? this may be a cop out answer, and i will elaborate a little bit, but i think that inevitably our religious communities will continue to be both. continuing to support the status quo of racism in many ways, but

at the same time, we will also be at times and in certain ways, prophetic voices for change. there are signs for hobe on the latter end -- hope on the latter end. there is new attention in many communities on the question of racial justice and an effort to make christian churches -- as speaking specifically with the lakers in context as well, more multiracial. -- and i am speaking specifically within a christian context as well, more multiracial. we have been some of the most segregated races in general in america.

and that has not changed. but there is an increasing awareness of that as a problem and a challenge. and the reason it is a problem- you know, segregated, safe communities have sometimes been a positive resource for racial minorities. within the context of a racist society, sometimes segregated, save communities have been a kind of necessary and good thing as a means to gain support and spiritual sustenance. >> while these communities might save cultural experiences, it is

predominantly churches, be they black or white, that reinforces a justification that an affront to them is an affront to the gods that all of them serve. and no one should be satisfied of america indiscernible] >> thank you. >> but rethinking what everyone has to do, it is not just rethinking what we think about blacks, but also about whites. as hard as this work is, it has

the potential for [indiscernible] >> there is a sociologist at rice named michael emerson, who has done a good deal of work on multiracial churches, or the challenge of how the churches can become more multiracial. he argues that -- he also has an essay in the reflections

magazine. he argues that if the united states is to successfully tackle the problems of racism, it has to be done at the level of churches. and he is talking specifically about churches, but we could clearly broaden that out to other faiths -- faith based groups more broadly. segregated communities within faith based communities play a role in setting up boundaries. with the in group and the how group and what connection is that you have and how you can benefit in terms of getting a job and all of the other -- you know. he says it is an ethical

obligation and the only way that the united states can tackle racial justice is to get at it through religious communities. >> for about one minute and 26 seconds. >> i will stop. >> for a long time, their work on race and religion continues to be done in a christian context. we're looking a black-and-white in a crushing context. i think about what we need to do as race and religion 2.0, is to consider the christian context, but then again, this situation. for an hispanic protestant with an indian background, with an arab muslim, all of these things are like juggling balls.

at one sense, looking at black and white in the christian context, you have a control, if you will. it is much more difficult when we are considering all of these balls up in the air. one, and overlaid its christian norm activity. because christianity affects all of the religions in terms of what they are when they come here. i'm talking about some 300 years ago and i'm talking about someone who landed at newark airport yesterday. if you come with me to travel on a monday night, you will see my mom and dad put themselves before the deities and prostrate themselves.

but that can be seen as kind of crazy or really overzealous. because the normal way of praying is to sit in a pew with your hands folded. >> depending on your tradition. >> the way i envision it is a dna double helix. i think that is a common feature that we will have to look at while still juggling these balls. >> religion and its connection with race in the future, what can you? >> i am hindu and i grew up in a hindu community. one of the things that will continue to affect hindu communities and other immigrant religious communities is migration. many folks in live in immigrant communities live transnational lives.

in my case, there's more than one place a call home. i call atlanta, ga. home, and i call india home. i'm still working on calling new jersey home. but i will get there. [laughter] how does travel back and forth, family members travel back and forth impact how hinduism--in my case, i went to india every summer. i'm thankful that they did, because i'm flynt in the language and everything. but only three months a year with what i see how hinduism is lived in india, which is very different from the united states. because there, it's on thursday and everyone has thursday off. and here, cancelling class and

tried to explain my students why they have thursday off. i can see why hostility could grow. for me, it is this constant negotiation. but i think transnational as some is going to continue to affect how religious communities form in the united states. >> the immigration peace -- piece has the potential to continue affecting the american scene. >> since the 1970's, we have had the hindu temples at all across the netted states. very much done in the end -- the indian architectural style.

all of this blood, sweat, tears was put in by these immigrants who came over pos 1965. and now, the second generation, they're not going. what is populating them as the concert migration. we have to see how that is going to last and what kind of impact there will be. they're not necessarily going to houses of worship. they're trying to figure out how hinduism relates to their lives. they want it, but they are struggling. and that is probably different panel. >> a few years ago i had the

we worked on the ceremony for the whole year and the reason was the groom was the first generation lived in pakistan. and the bride was a born again christian. and beside meeting with them we had to meet with family. and mkated their parents family about how they were going to accommodate the values that were core to both families. and it became a learning and growing experience for everyone.

happily married and just had their first child. they are trying to figure out the mix we are trying to profile as the future. >> you get to go last. >> i think it's just important that we even consider listening to the children and listening to the young generation specifically in our faith communities. to give. so much

and allow there to be the traditional way for the older and those who may want that experience. but at times that can be difficult. i know again, in my experience, it's the language, the younger generation wants to wur ship in english so that's different. i think it's -- i know that it's going to take time. it's going to take a lot of work. but i am hopeful and i believe that we just need to continue to listen. listen and be open the change. >> i did want to say that we can't ignore, we should be mindful of the impact of china d other parts of asia on america, on south america and on africa. and the ways in which -- i have a number of african-american

friends living in united states work in china back and forth and there is now this developing relationship between american people, african-american and chinese. and so that's another part of the mix along with immigration. sitting in the front row is is the grand poo ba of arts and idea. are you listening? the n idea for china and intergalactic power on america and relations. >> this conversation can continue. you all have been very kind to listen in on us talk. but there is -- we'd love to hear your thoughts on any of these subjects and more and so to participate in an online discussion, there is a link here that you can enter into

and visit the comment page for this event. and i'll tell our panelists how to do it and we can be part of that ongoing conversation as well. thank you so much. this has been a delight. are there any negotiations going on between

the administration and congress , anything going on secret negotiations that you can now tell us? >> there are none and there will be none over the debt limit. >> the president has been very clear on the debt limit. i am discussing the debt limit with efrpbl. i talk to the committees in congress on a regular basis. i'm doing so here today. that's very different from negotiating. there is a need for clear understanding. everyone has to have accurate information about what the schedule and consequences are and what the noble and what is not noble. but the president made clear we can't be negotiating with the threat of default. on the spending bills, there are the normal kind of conversations going on. unfortunately they tend to not come together until the very last minute. and i will leave it to my friend and successor at the office of management budget to handle that. >> one story that is

circulating in washington is that there is discussion that the house might propose a debt limit extension but attached to it a defunding of obama care and send that to the senate and let the senate decide what it wants to do. do you have any comment on that? >> the president has been clear and aye been clear effort to defund or delay the affordable care act is unacceptable. that is not a path toward something that can be signed into law. in terms of the procedures, i think that what happened last week was a bit of a revolt in the house where there was a way to send it over to the senate where the house gets to vote one way and the senate gets to vote another way. i leave it to the congress to manage how those kinds of opportunities for everyone to vote their conscious work. what they have to keep in mind is that ultimately something has to pass the house, the senate and be signed by the

president. and you cannot have a minority in one house dictate to others in the senate and the white house the only path that is acceptable. and i think the reality is that's not going to happen. and the sooner they understand that the better. i've heard comments in the last w days and read in the "washington journal" this morning there is growing awareness you cannot control both houses of congress and the white house with 50 to 200 votes in the house. >> you can watch that event with secretary jack lew tomorrow at 11:30 eastern here on c-span or you can watch anytime in our video library at cspan.org. >> coming up next on c-span president obama speaking at this year's black caucus award

dinner. after that a look at how the veteran affairs department is hand tling backlog of claims. then a bar association hosting a discussion on the effect race has on the college admissions process. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry, we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. and now you can watch us in hd. >> president obama spoke at this year's congressional black caucus awards dinner in washington, d.c. it was just one event that was part of the four-day conference. he talks about college affordability and ongoing efforts in congress to defund

the healthcare law. the president's remarks are bout 20 minutes. >> hello. thank you so much. verybody please have a seat. michelle and i are happy to be here with such a good looking crowd. everybody is cleaning up nice. thank you for not just a great introduction but more .mportantly your leadership

i want to thank you everybody at the foundation for doing so much to help all our young eople achieve their potential. i see so many friend here tonight and obviously these last several weeks have been mom us the in a lot of ways. -- it was rainy that day. we didn't have a nice roof over our heads. that wasn't enough to keep all of you away. it wasn't enough to keep me

away. it wasn't enough to keep folks from all across the country from coming out the pay tribute. not only dr. king or john lewis, not only the well known heroes of the civil rights movement but all the ordinary americans that made it possible for us to stand here today. [applause] , d as i look out in the crowd it was impossible not to ppreciate just [inaudible] ll laws that have been changed. all the quiet heroes that refused to give up or give n. as i said on that day to

dismiss the magnitude of that progress [inaudible] i think there wasn't a speaker here that day or on saturday in the other co-mem relation of the march who didn't make this point, we would also the dishonor those heroes to suggest that the work of this nation is somehow complete. and that is something that the c.b.c. has always understood. it wasn't until 1969, six years after the march on washington that [inaudible] after the civil rights acts ve been passed but the men

and women who founded this caucus [inaudible] we have to go hand in hand with each other. that in order to [inaudible] we've got to make it easier for every american to earn their piece of the american dream. [applause] so fast forward to 50 years later. we all understand we have to be vigilant against any attempt to roll back our hard earned civil rights whether that means tearing down [inaudible] or making sure our criminal justice system works well for everybody, not just some.

ut [inaudible] working americans of all races have seen their incomes and wages stagnate even as income at the top are soaring. we have to have economic justice. we have to make this a country where anybody who works hard can earn their way into the middle class. until we do, we will not let up and we will not rest no matter how much resistence we get. we will keep on pressing forward. it's the right thing to do. we can't rest until every american knows the security of .uality affordable healthcare ust over a week, thanks to the

affordable care act and the leadership shown by the c.b.c., six in o your efforts i ten uninsured americans will finally be able to get cofrpbl for less than $100 a month. snix ten will be able to get coverage for less than $100 a month. and by the way, the only reason it's six in ten is because we who haven't nors seen the light yet. if every governor chose to join this project rather than to fight it just to score some political points, that number would be nearly eight in ten. so just think about that. knowing you can offer your family the security of

healthcare, that's priceless and now you can do it for less than your cell phone bill. that's what change looks like. we won't rest until every american has access to a good education. and we've got to make sure every child gets the best start in life. we want to give every four-year-old in america access to quality preschool. there is no better investment. we should be making it right now. we can afford it. it's the right thing at the right time. we should make college more affordable for every family. there is no better ticket to the middle class in this country. and we've already made college more affordable for millions of students and their families through tax credits and grants and student loans that are

going further than ever before. but we got more to do. i've been talking to colleges telling them they need to do their part by bringing cost down because in a 21st century economy a higher education is not a luxury it is an economic imperative and everybody should be able to afford it, not just a few. we can't rest until we offer new ladders of opportunity for anyone willing to climb them. when you think about america, when you think about the ideals big part of y, a it is the idea of upward mobility. the idea that if you work hard you can get ahead. over the last 30 years upward mobility in this country has slipped out of reach for too many people. that is especially true in

communities with large african-american populations. so we've got to do more to rebuild neighbors, help some of the hardest hit towns in america get back on their feet. we've got to raise the minimum wage. nobody who works full time in the wealthiest nation on earth should have to raise their children in poverty. those are fights we need to win. finally we can't rest until all of our children can go to school or walk down the street free from the fear they will be struck down by a stray bullet. just two days ago in my hometown chicago 13 people were shot during a pickup basketball game including a three-year-old

girl. tomorrow night i'll be meeting and mourning with families in this city who know the same unspeakable grief as families in newtown and chicago and new orleans and all across the country people whose loved ones were torn from them without headlines sometimes or public out cry but it's happening every single day. we fought a good fight earlier this year but we came up short. and that means we've got to get back up and go back at it because as long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on guns then we've got to work for the sake of our children. we've got to be willing to do more work to make it harder. these are the tasks before us.

these are the challenges we face. it's a tall order, all of it. i know the odds sometimes seem long. i was taking photos with the c.b.c. folks, every one of them came up and said you hang in there. ou hang in there, man. nd i said don't worry about me . i am still fired up. because i still see the work that needs to be done. the work didn't go away. and part of the reason that i don't get tired is because i've seen people who are in this audience and what you've done and the odds you've overcome.

i know sometimes the climb seems steep at any moment. sometimes it's seems the pettyness of our politics is making things worse and worse. the other day the house of republicans voted to cut $40 billion in nutritional aid for struggling families. at the same time as some of the same folks who took that vote are receiving subsidies . emselves so farm subsidies for folks at the top are okay. help feed your child is somehow not. know the c.b.c. led by outstanding chairwoman marsha fought hard to prtect those programs that keep so many . ildren from going hungry

and now we're seeing an extreme faction of these folks convincing their leader ship to threat on the shut down the government if we don't shut down the affordable care act. some of them were actually willing to see the united states default on its obligation and plunge this country back into a painful recession if they can't deny the basic security of healthcare to millions of americans. i think this is an interesting thoing ponder, that your top agenda is making sure 20 million people don't have health insurance. and you'd be willing to shut down the government and potentially default for the first time in united states history because it bothers you so much that we're actually going to make sure that everybody has affordable healthcare.

let me say as clearly as i can, it is not going to happen. we have come too far. we've overcome far darker threats than those. we will not negotiate over whether or not america should keep its word and meet its obligations. we're not going to allow anyone to inflict economic pain on millions of people just to make an ideological point and those folks are going to get healthcare in this country we've been waiting 50 years for. it's time for these folks to . op governing by crisis start focusing on what really matters, create new jobs, grow our economy, expand opportunity for ourself, looking after our children, doing something about

the violence out there. as we've got all these battles we have to face, we've got to remember what brought us here in the first place. as i was preparing my speech for the anniversary last month, i was doing some research, reading some stories about people who had come to the march 50 years ago and i came across a story of a young man named robert avery. and robert was 15 years old in 1963. he and two friends decided to hitchhike from gad decen, alabama to the march on washington. and together they traveled through some of the most seggre gaited counties in america, sleeping in bus terminals, eating from vending machines, sometimes not eating, sometimes they walked. sometimes passer by black and

white offered them rides worried they might not make it on their own. 700 miles later the boys from d decen reached their -- gsdsden reached their destination and marched with king. after wards robert back home to alabama and he's spent the last three decades on the city council. and robert avery is here tonight. and in some ways robert's story is duplicated all across this room. dr. king talked about how we're linked. robert kennedy talked about how pond toss a pebble in a the ripples emanate from that

center and the same is true in our own lives those ripples of hope, we don't know how they will impact folks later but all those tiny ripples build up and end up changing the world. so when i think about robert avery in the city council and i'm sure he has struggles and frustrations just like a president of the united states has frustrations and struggles sometimes but he's still coming to work every day. he's still working to bring about change every single day just like our attorney general comes to work every single day. just like john lewis every single day gets up, did you want matter whether he's in the majority or minority, he's going to speak the truth and tell everybody what he

believes. those stories should remind us . at brought us here why did we seek a life of public service? why did we get involved? it wasn't just to come to a gala. i mean it's nice. everybody looks nice but it asn't to cash in after service . we may not have hitchhiked across the country but everybody at some point felt that same tug, that voice in our heads telling us stand up, speak out, try to make a difference, remember what you know to be true, what you know to be just, what you know to be fair and be willing to fight for it and don't be timid about it. and maybe sometimes it's not going to work out right away

but if you stay at it again and again and again and you do not waiver eventually we make a difference. that's important. while all our challenges are different from the ones faced by previous generations, we're going to need the same courage those ert avery, all marchers from 50 years ago, the same desire to get involved, the same courage to make our voices heard, to stand up whether it's for quality healthcare or good education or children safety or equal opportunity. we're going to have to keep marching. at i'm proud that i'll be least for the next three and a half years here in washington and a whole lot of years after that i'm going to be marching with you. god bless you everybody.

thank you. god bless america.

♪ ♪ captioning by the national captioning institute ♪ ww.ncicap.org-- ♪

♪ ♪

? tomorrow president obama will speak at a memorial service for the victims of the navy yard shooting in washington, d.c. last week. that left 12 people dead. we'll have live coverage of that service beginning at 5:00 astern here on c-span. >> i think it's inaccurate to suggest had we had public opinion polls back then with the possible exceptions of only a teddy roosevelt or george washington, andrew jackson might have been the most popular politician ever. he was beloved by the people. ndrew jackson.

. had another side to him with an unpopular marriage andrew jackson was not the most liked perp. learn more at 7:30 eastern on c-span 3 american history. >> we are joippedhost: we are joined by jessie jane duff of concerned citizens of america, former marine corps gunnery sergeant. guest: thank you for having me. host: we were talking about this week's shooting at the navy yard. your thoughts regarding the person in question.

guest: how did he have a clearance, how did he get on base? the reality is they apparently found out that the investigation company that had probably been contacted by the office of personnel management had some investigations apparently with snowden. we are waiting to see what happens with the ig report, which is the inspector general report. there are some question behaviors in his past, and how did he get this clearance? host: there is a story in this year's "washington post," here is a quote from it -- guest: absolutely. it is very hard for us as veterans. ptsd does not necessarily mean you are going to be psychotic and go shoot people. i think it is clear that this man had some sort of psychiatric disorder. he was hearing voices. that is not a ptsd issue. it is sad when veterans get a statement like that, but people need to understand, ptsd has a wide range of things that influence and affect a

person. it does not mean they are not capable of having a job, it is ot mean they are not capable of becoming a productive member of society. host: in light of that, how does the veterans administration, how does the government in general help people like that, people with those types of problems, especially after they leave the service? guest: apparently when you submit your claim after you get off of active duty, while you are on active duty, these things are being recorded. and when you submit your claim to the veterans administration, if you have an apparent problem or either medical or illness related, and then they can address that so that they are able to receive compensation for that problem. host: part of the issue we brought you on to talk about though is the backlog of laims, other type of claims,

at the veterans administration. give us a snapshot of what is going on. guest: people need to understand what these claims mean. the benefit backlog, these are people pending claims within the v.a. either for medical, sometimes education, or various other claims that are pending, but most are medical. we are looking at close to 500,000 that are and what is called the backlog. the backlog of any claim that has taken over 125 days. with that, it has taken an average 340 days for many of these claims to get resolved, and there is evidence that there are claims that have gone on to 600 days. then we have appealed, which is a whole other category, where there are 250,000 that are waiting on their appeals to be addressed, and does can go up to 1000 days. host: what is taking so long? guest: well, the veterans administration had decided in 2009, secretary said when he was sworn in that he would resolve the backlog. that increased 3000% under

obama's administration. the reason was secretary shinseki had opened the doors for ptsd, agent orange complains, and desert storm syndromes. in a variety of other clinton had not been recognized. what happens if you have a flood of people that come in and they were not prepared for it. it accelerated and almost hit one million veteran backlogs. we had 900,000 pending claims in february of this year alone. host: what did shinseki do as far as accommodating that? guest: he basically put in a plan that all of the backlog claims will be resolved by 2015. what is upsetting to us is that it happened in the first place. 97% of these claims were being handled manually. not even automated. so what are we doing when we open up the doors for more opportunity for claims, and then not having a plan in place to handle that efficiency? that is like saying i sell

online and have no shipping process an order. you have to have this set up correctly. now we have a plan by 2015. what about the veterans that are dying in the meantime? last year in 2012, there were almost 20,000 veterans that died before they even receive their benefits claim. that is 53 today. done. primarily a lot of agent orange men that suffer from being on. it is really disturbing that i got this way at all. the plan that is in place, we're keeping the gas on them to resolve this, but what they're doing is allowing a lot of workers to work overtime, 20 hours overtime, and it is a funding issue. people have to understand the second largest budget next to dod, and they were given $25

billion by congress in the last four years. so they have just had poor mismanagement. host: jessie jane duff from concerned veterans for america. she is going to take your calls about related issues at the veterans and administration beard if you want to answer questions, the lines are divided by party. (202) 585-3880 for democrats, (202) 585-3881 for republicans, and (202) 585-3882 for independent. we had a separate line, if you want to give us your thoughts this morning, (202) 585-3883. i want to play a bit of a peech the president get to disabled veterans talking about the v.a., talking about it affecting sequestration at the time. we will let you listen to what he had to say and get your response. > some of you may be aware right now we have the reckless across the board budget cuts

called the sequester that is hitting a lot of folks hard on the that is affecting your benefits, slashing funding for education, science, medical research. i made it clear that your veterans benefits are exempt from this year's sequester. have made that clear. but i want to tell you going forward, the best way to perfect the v.a. care you have earned is to get rid of the sequester altogether. congress needs to come together and agree on a responsible plan that reduces our deficit and keeps our promises to our veterans and keeps our promises to future generations. that is what i am fighting for, that is what you deserve. host: jessie jane duff? guest: i was appalled when i saw that speech. i am a member of disabled veteran american. i sat back and gasped. how could he tell veterans that i protected your benefits this year, but i can't guarantee anything later for the benefits you earned? i thought that was a veiled threat.

this is a no-brainer. i think it was offensive. he created -- his administration, his white house created sequester, and now he is telling people it is a bad thing. please remove it, and you veterans, if you want your benefits, you need to help me. i thought him putting his political agenda in there, dealing with our deficit, economy, and all the other issues, don't intimidate or threaten your disabled veterans. host: with that in mind, calls for you, for jessie jane duff, concerned veterans for america, memphis, tennessee, good morning on our democrat line. caller: i am a vietnam-era veteran. 1971, when i came back from the military, they denied me my rolling rights. i love the job i had, so i stayed. 25 years later, i was put into anagement. they fired me for nothing, i

sued them for determination. i am disabled now from the railroads. a friend of mine went to iraq and came back and they denied him his rolling rights. guest: his what rights? caller: his rolling rights, to make sure you had a job when you get back. they had people after he was one. when you go away in the military, and they come back and hire people, they got me the same way, they got him the same way. they told him the same thing hey told me. it is too late. guest: i'm not in that area, but they are not required by law to give you the same job back, i do realize that, any injustice may be ethical for

you to handle, but the only thing i can suggest is you write your congressman and say politically active if you feel you were discriminated against. host: someone asked the question of you, whose idea whether to buy incompatible data systems for the v.a. and the dod, and if you have some explanation, please do. guest: this is an overwhelming problem for many years. i do know they have a process that was supposed to automate all of the data, and i would ay 97% were still being done manually, so now they are process you can go online and looking your benefits data, but it was a very difficult, and it should never have gotten this far. host: so they do not treat it with each other, is that what you're saying? guest: all of the manual records were still paper. so if you look at the press, one building in north carolina actually became structurally incapable of holding the backlog anymore because it was o full and overwhelming.

these things should have been digitalized. even when i got off of active duty, i had a record this bacon it was not electronic. host: we have got when it comes to the actual pending claim, 36% silk of them from the vietnam era. guest: yes, that is from the agent orange that they opened up from approximately 2009. whenever you offer a benefit or some type of service, you're going to expect a large number of people who want to apply for a good many of these vietnam veterans had already deceased and their families are making the claims, which they are allowed to do. many of the claims being paid out are two deceased veterans. host: 21% from iraq and afghanistan, 24% from the gulf war, and 11% for peacetime as well. dylan from south dakota, republican line, veteran, good morning.

caller: good morning, sir. back in 1994 -- my first point was put in an august 28, 1970 when i was 20 years old. i'm 62 now. i'm still fighting them. i have been up to the court of veterans appeals for times. i've been back and forth, my files have been shredded and tampered with, i've got letters from the v.a., i have been through agent orange cancer, i've got upper respiratory problems, i have been fighting the v.a., and i have got ptsd to the max. i have been through a lot of treatment -- host: caller did you have just been your own money as far as the appeals process? caller: yes, i've been spinning y own money.

i was awarded 100% back in 1996, and like i say, my first claim was august 28, 1970, sir, i am still fighting it. guest: yes, there are many claims that have taken over 10 years that have not been addressed. i'm going to bring to people's attention this man's story that is called and that is very similar to matthew goldberg, a 47-year-old retired arms special forces. e had three tours in iraq, three bronze stars. he had to submit his claim in 2008, and it is still pending. he was basically given 30% disability, but they are failing to recognize his shoulder and back problems basically saying it is not happen in his two decades of service. the big thing that happens -- that frustrates him as he filled like he was treated as a

second-class citizen. so what that caller pointed out is what we frequently hear. that they are dragging it out, and the appeals are taking thousands of a spared when they go to the u.s. court of appeals, the v.a. claims are taking another several hundred days. i am but that's what this man for having to get his own attorney, and i recommend to people to be aggressive. many veterans get so frustrated with it and they feel as if it is futile, but it is better to get your claim resolved whether it be 10 years later and get that back pay than to sit there and feel like you were never vindicated. host: what goes into determining if you get disability and how much disability you will get? guest: essentially, you have to have a very good document agent, so i always tell people copy, copy your records. there have also been fires, many people that follow me on twitter has said they have gotten calls from the v.a. saying -- or e-mails -- oh, we did not receive the paperwork

basement, and later, we did not receive the paper and literally two days later, we do not receive the paper. even the v.a. workers are frustrated because they cannot find a lot of the paperwork. it is literally paper. it is electronic data. so the system should have been involved many years ago, 10 years ago, so that all the medical history was on electronic data and it was not. host: it is a question of efficiency within the v.a.? guest: horrible inefficiency. the v.a. care is separate from its peer and we are talking about the benefits process. they review your claim to save a disservice-related disability. and i'm not going to lie, some veterans have been smoking for years and say that the cancer is because of the fighting in vietnam. we have to be reasonable when there are people that are trying to abuse the system. and there is that percentage. so they're going to scrutinize

the claims. the documentation must be clear. i would recommend people utilize d.a.v, the disabled american veterans. they have counselors throughout the nation who can help get your paperwork submitted and do it effectively, so you don't have to reinstall and resubmit. host: donna that next for jessie jane duff. caller: good morning. my father died in a veterans hospital in 1972, and i have realize that they have made a lot of leaps and bounds in medicine since 1972, but i still have a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to veterans hospitals. i ran into a lot of veterans over the years. i was in the national guard when i was in high school, and i met a lot of the vietnam veterans on their way to the wall. in d.c. back when i was in the guard. i have a lot of respect for veterans. i think the way they are treating them is abhorrent.

they should've known that these veterans were going to come into the system with all of the wars that we have been in for the last 10 years. i really wish they had actually stepped up and actually took the money and the time into it before all of this started happening. guest: absolutely. his statement has hit it right on the head. the way it has happened in how for it to get to this point for to get to the attention of your having a backlog of 100,000 clams was appalling, but it did not receive national attention until the veterans administration made it clear earlier this year that we may hit a one million person backlog. when all of the media started following us, it became very apparent, then the v.a. put an implant to have it resolved by 015. host: the 2015 deadline, and that the more people that they

have included or other elements as well? guest: all of the backlog is supposed to be resolved by 2015. all of the claims over a year older getting priorities first right now. but what has happened is that the appeals side is being neglected, for example, the army veteran i just spoke about, he already went through the benefit side and got 30%. he has that massive disability, he is having to appeal it, and he has been waiting since 2008. we are concerned, we are seeing an increase in a slow tick any appeal site. here's what our concern is, they're going to shut some of the claims through. they may have a higher amount, but they don't want to spend the time on it, give them 10%. and shove it on now. you are going to rob peter to pay paul, take these numbers and put them into another column. then many of the people that normally addressed the appeals side are now being pushed over to the benefits aside, the backlog side because that is the side getting national attention. there are over 1500 workers

over at the v.a., claims adjusters. they have approximately 1500 people that work on claims, so there is a lot of resources that have been pumped into this. however, because it is so behind now they're trying to get rid of the ones that are looking the most bad, giving them a bad eye. host: our guest served as a marine corps gunnery sergeant. she belongs to the concerned veterans for america. what you do for your day job? guest: i'm very active in the national security arena right now. i'm highly proficient in the dod topics and veterans ssues. host: (202) 585-3883 is our line for veterans, john, joins us from goose creek. caller: thank you for the show. i think there is a shift in resources to the backlog. i've been on the post-9/11 g.i. bill since it was passed in

2009 when it went into effect. i'm enjoying a good school, good education, i came in under the veterans education assistance, which was a pretty weak program when the military was being the the. after the two iraq and afghanistan wars, we started seeing benefits for veterans. in the last three or four months, it has been slow down quite a bit. right now, i am about 2.5 months behind. i'm thinking they are probably putting the resources so heavily on backlog that they may be neglecting other demands. what do you think? guest: that is interesting to me because i thought once you are on the g.i. bill, they start making the payments to you on a regular basis, more or less like a paycheck and that you could count on it. i had no idea that some of this money was not showing up in people's bank account.

that is your benefit. that is separate from this. they cannot take -- sequestration is not touching any of this. i'm not sure what is happening. there has be somebody you can connect with to find out -- why are my payments not coming out on time? host: we will take another all. caller: good morning. my question is for ms. duff, i am a retired vietnam veteran. i was in service for eight years. i put in a claim for my back in 979. the thing that they do is not right, where they examine you nd they tell you ain't nothing wrong with your back.

they did not do no x-rays, mri. i was an active-duty when i had problems with my back. i am 100% a veteran. this is connected. but i know that many others have disconnected ability, you have a lot of people that work for -- yeah, i know i am at 00%, but if i have other things connected, i'm supposed be compensated, am i right or wrong? guest: once you are at one under present, there is no more money that they can give you. it seems like a five 100% for one identified area, then another area would be additional onto it. but the process is not work like that.

100% means that you are essentially going to receive 100% composition for whatever range you were while you are on active duty, and to get beyond that i think would basically be -- what they're doing and saying ok, let's say you were e3 or e5, and you get the comment they should based upon that pay grade, they cannot give you that conversation if you were a gunnery sergeant like myself at e7 who invested more time. would say be grateful because the most veterans i talk to have a very bad disabilities and are still at 30%, 40%, and to be blessed that you have access to the military base to get to the exchange to be able to get your medication. you should be able to get 100% care from the v.a. if you are you should be able to get 100% care from the v.a. if you are 100% disabled. host: how much paperwork is involved for an initial claim?