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? guest: it has gotten a little

bit easier due to many of these complaints. they make it seem like it is very seamless, but you have to submit all of your medical records, so you can have anything missing. if you're going to make a claim, you have to evidence of that in your medical record. if you never talk about whatever illness or, you have, your claim will get rejected. if that is a fair process on that level, people cannot randomly say something was associated with your service, especially when you get off of active-duty, you're supposed to have an exit physical, and you can still do this if you are on active duty. you can get it done while you are at a veteran v.a. medical center. i followed up at the v.a. medical center. then the paper get submitted and documented. it is a slow process, it should not take more than a year, though, if that is a problem that is dragging on like this. host: the v.a. calls a fully developed claim, what is that? guest: essentially when you submit a claim, just where to

get picked up on average, it is taking 125 days. for to be process, review, looked at, considered, and the disability to be recognized, it will take close to 240 days. the full process of the time that they take it up to the time that they give you your rating, the rating is 20%, 10%, 100%, that is the full from cradle to grave. host: depending on the rating you get depends on the money you will receive? guest: exactly. and if you have been retired out of active-duty and your rating is less than 50%, you will not receive a supplement to your retirement. what you receive this, reasonable, if you have -- i will just use a lose number, you get $1000 a month from your retirement, and the get 20% disability, they will take the

20% out of your taxable income, and it will come to you from the v.a., 20% untaxed. host: ok. guest: so you get the money, but 20% from the v.a. is not taxed because it is medical related. it is essentially to compensate you for what you were and able to do now out in the civilian world. disability does not mean we are now disabled and we have the blue parking spot, ok. i have a disability by the v.a. rating. what they do is a essentially saw the damage within my knees over the 20 years of service, and i capable of walking and going up and down stairs now? yes, but they can say there is damage that was probably more transferable by age would've had based upon the years of service that i had. host: and still hold a job and do those things? guest: absolutely. and it's why my rating was very low because i am still able to do things, however they know i will not be a will to climb the stairs all day long. so you have to sometimes adjust your working goals pay for what you are capable of doing. host: jeff joins us from fort worth, texas, democrat line, hi.

caller: my dealings with the v.a., it has taken me 14 years to get my connected disability. i had to go to my senator here, kay bailey hutchison, to request my files to take it from the department in waco, transfer it to the center, and in three months, i had my 100% disability. i worked in the court system and stuff, i am able to put together my own appeal and have a tell congress what they federal judge in washington, d.c., and might disability was granted. guest: wow, good for you for not giving up. a lot of people do not know the system. i recommend that you do what they did, essentially you can get things moving. i know people that have gone through senator mccain, senator kay bailey hutchison, and various centers, and they have been able to get their ratings results.

you need to have somebody advocate for you at times. this man did. it can go through the court of appeals, they can teleconference the hearing, they don't have to fly in for it. you can go onto several websites and learn what your process is. learn the ropes. you can go on to several web sites and learn what your process is. be inquisitive, educate yourself. if you have to get an attorney, there may be a fee taken out of your reimbursement, but if you're talking 14 years of disability coming to you, that's worth the price to have the attorney handle it. host: when do you know it's time for an attorney? guest: i think once -- the average claims were taking over 370 days. if you're hitting over 600 days, if you're hitting 700 days, i think that's time for an attorney. that's each person's judgment. but don't go under a year because your claim very well may be in the works and it should get resolved. unfortunately it is a waiting game. you have to use common sense with what your instincts are telling you. but 14 years, my god, get an attorney.

host: but attorneys' fees could outweigh what you get in return? guest: there's a lot of attorneys that specifically represented this. if you're waiting 14 years and you're going to get backdated 14 years, i think that that fee the attorneys are going to take is probably going to be well worth hiring them. however, i'm not giving legal advice. i'd say use common sense. you shouldn't have to use an attorney. use your congressional leaders, use your senators. write and you become that squeaky wheel gets the grease. make waves and push and push and push. it's important. this is your future. it's your family's future, because the medical costs that you're paying out of pocket to compensate for these problems is ridiculous. host: geno is up next on our republican line. hello. caller: thank you for your service. i think you've neglected to mention a few things i'd like to ask you to comment on.

it's very interesting that you're talking about people going to their congressman or their senator to help try to adjudicate these claims but you've neglected to mention the fact that most states -- i believe all states and also most veterans groups have certified service officers that will submit claims for veterans and act as an advocate at a very local level. and these people are trained to get the paperwork done right. and to me, the biggest issue is the fact that these -- a lot of these people i believe that are in the backlog -- and maybe you can address this if there are numbers on this -- these people that have submitted the paperwork themselves probably again might have filled the paperwork out incorrectly. and if people would utilize -- these veterans would utilize these service officers, their paperwork would get submitted properly first time.

guest: i agree with you and i did mention disabled american veterans. it's a limited show so i'm probably not going to get all the data out and please forgive me for that. you can also utilize the american legion, the disabled american veterans have counselors and, yes, they are trained. i recommend that highly. when you're waiting on your claim, though, just waiting, d.a.v. can't even give you an update on that. disabled american veterans can't tell you what's going on, why is it taking 700 days when they know it was submitted correctly. that's when you need to get a congressional inquiry done. that's what my point was. but absolutely, veterans, utilize the american legion, utilize the disabled american veterans, go to the local groups that you know, if you're part of the marine corps league, i'm quite confident they can direct you in the right way. any affiliated organizations will have counselors either associated with me or be able to direct you in an area. as far as filling out the claims wrong, yes, and no. it's not what hard and shouldn't be that difficult. and especially people who are elderly, may have disabilities,

a lot of younger veterans, this process is fairly smooth for them to get it submitted correct. but seek out a counselor to help you ensure that it's submitted correct. absolutely. host: concerned veterans for america's web site is concernedveteransforamerica.org. lots of information for you to check out the organization for itself and to submit claims. anthony joining us from south carolina. veterans line. hello. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you, go ahead. caller: i had a claim that i submitted, i had frostbite. they turned me down. one, they said my age. when i was in the military, i didn't complain about it. and then i resubmitted it and they said, say, you hadn't had any treatment. but there isn't any treatment for frostbite. now i'm 55 and i'm feeling the results of of my injury and i'm just kind of curious if you had any advice for me.

guest: i don't know. make sure your complaint is complete. people don't want to complain on active duty. i get that. if you walked around hurt, people looked at you as if you were faking it. i understand. but if there is absolutely no documentation or evidence that you acquired this while you were on active duty, the v.a. cannot be held accountable or the military because they cannot prove that it is associated with your terms of service. that's basically just the reality of it, unfortunately, and i'm sorry about that. host: i was asked by e-mail if the v.a. is fraught with fraudulent claims. and is twisted ankle a disability? guest: a twisted ankle is not a disability because that can heal. i've had multiple twists and sprains and they heal. but i did get what was called a 0% disability for my ankles because i had chronic injuries of spraining my ankles on runs

and hops and things like that. what that means is later on should i have ligament damage or whatever other issues, they recognize that i have a history of damage that could potentially result in problems later on in the future. but if you just -- you know, cut open your finger and it's stitched up, no, that's not going to be considered a disability unless there's an association with deterioration in your health. host: so about the larger question about fraudulent claims? guest: oh, yes, there are fraudulent claims. that's why the v.a. has gotten more difficult with the claims they're predicting. i love veterans and advocate for veterans, but there are veterans out there that are using the system for get money from the government and ensure that they aren't, you know, basically they're laying, which is very, -- lying, which is very,

very sad. but any program's going to have that. you'll see it in the welfare system, you'll see it in the food stamps program. it doesn't mean everybody's lying. but you have to have the documentation. the v.a. cannot just rubber stamp things and say you got it because you said it. they will review their records and ensure that they're not handing out disability payments, because this is taxpayers' money. host: independent line, veteran. caller: hi, i'm just concerned about when i was in the hospital in syracuse in 2012 and i watched a closed-circuit tv, they had the director of the veterans affairs make a statement saying that the budget was cut back 21% and they're a hiring proceed yet there's an increase of 900,000 people from fort drum that are putting in claims for benefits and stuff yet they're understaffed or underfunded. how are they supposed to catch up on all these backlogged cases and everything when they're cutting back on the budget and having a hiring freeze? that doesn't help.

guest: keep in mind, the jury is still out on whether the v.a. has enough money. they are trying to remove some of the waste. they have to look at where this money is going. is it going to have increased upgrades to facilities that can be a sponsor a few years? that the not think v.a. has gotten a lot of money. and it hast of money not been utilized effectively. it does not mean hire more people and get more money in the system. if you do not go in and see that -- there are a lot of people on the staff. what is the problem?

they're not having the claims run through properly. there's a training and process problem. the problem before you begin adding money. i hear you. the jury is still out on whether the v.a. has enough money. host: you were asked on top of that will a government shutdown affect claims and processes? guest: it shouldn't affect it but it could. i'm not an expert on what's going to happen with this budget coming up. i would indicate that it could shut it down but i don't expect we're going to have it shut down for long. i was on active duty with the last government shutdown. it was pretty quick. active duty wasn't affected. they still did get their paychecks. but it will impact the country and it's not going to stop the claims from being recognized, it's just going to probably halt some people from going to work everyday. so, yes, we'll see an additional slowdown. host: here's matthew, riverdale, florida. caller: how are you today, sir?

host: fine. go ahead. caller: i'm a disabled vet and i'm rated at 100% and i just went through a reevaluation process and i just got dropped down to 30%. and i have got more medical issues now and seeing the doctors more now than i have in many years. i was wondering how i even try to go about and try to maintaining my 100%. guest: you'll have to resubmit your claim. for example, like i indicated with my ankles, i'm at 0% for my ankles and 0% for my flat feet. what that means is should i start having increased problems as the future goes on, then i have to resubmit my claim. there's a difference between looking for backpay and just having the disability recognized. now, they do expect disabilities to increase as we get older. so, for example, i may have potential ankle problems based upon all the multiple sprains i had or the flat feet i have. so these are things that can change with time. you just go see a counselor over at the d.a.v. or american legion or any of the v.a. or veterans- associated groups and they should have counselors who can help you with your claim and get another submission and then you should be able to get this resolved.

it's not going to happen overnight. it won't. but be patient and you should be able to resolve it. host: how common of an occurrence is it that you would get rated to 100% and then get pulled back to 30%? guest: i've never heard of that. once your rating is granted, it's already gone through. i'm not sure of his specific case. i've never heard of that. host: matthew, are you still there? caller: yeah. they gave me a 100% in 2006 and they said they made a grave and unmistakable error with it. when i went through, they just did a reevaluation in 2011 and came back and said, oh, now you're at 30%. and i've gone back to d.a.v., they've tried to help me, i've contacted my congressmen and they said they can't do anything unless i become homeless. host: did they explain clearly what this error was in any way? caller: they said basically because i've had 13 doctors that at the v.a. say that i have this issue, part of my ptsd and stuff like that, my sleeping, but then i had one c.n.p. evaluator that said that i don't have anything

but he only met with me for five minutes and had me take an mmpi examination test. guest: then you need to go to appeals. you have to submit an appeal. caller: i had a personal hearing appeal and they pretty much said no. they said that they're coinciding with the c.n.p. evaluator because of the fact that he holds more weight and bearing than everybody else. host: and what's that evaluator? caller: compensation and evaluation for your claim. guest: so you went through the v.a. courts of appeals for v.a. claims? caller: i did a personal hearing at day pines in florida. guest: there may be another level you can still take it. i don't -- i'm not an expert on diagnosis or giving people their benefits. i will say with ptsd -- and i'm not trying to undermine anything that happened to you at all -- it will not necessarily qualify somebody for 100%. it is a very tough process to get. i mean, 100% is tough. you really have to be incapable of working.

it is an intense disability problem that has occurred over maybe the years of accumulation or what-not. so i wouldn't discourage you but i would encourage you to find out what the next level of an appeal is and you would be able to establish a hearing with the u.s. courts of appeal for the veterans administration. host: matthew, thanks. we go to clarence, last call. independent line. veteran. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all i would like to thank jessica -- jesse for her service. guest: thank you. caller: my concern is i was pretty much healthy when i was on active duty but the biggest problem with me was injuries. you know, i didn't get sick but i just got injured a lot. i had two of my fingers amputated. i tore my a.c.l. during the gulf war. they make you feel as if you're going to war.

i look as it as they put me in the battlefield and then eight hours in the gulf war but it's taken years. i filed my claim in 2009 for my a.c.l., for my fingers amputated and the other injuries that i received. so when i processed my claim, i did have counselors process my claim for me. everything was good. but it was denied because they could not find my medical records. guest: oh, god. caller: you know? so the biggest problem for me, they tell me that they cannot find my medical records so now i have to do the -- the background and trying to determine where my medical records are. i went through the process of going back to the last duty station where i was stationed out in aberdeen proving ground. they tell me my medical record was sent to -- guest: they won't have it. caller: i called st. louis and they tell me my medical record was sent to d.c. i call d.c. and they tell me my medical records went to

baltimore regional. host: we'll let our guests respond to you. guest: it will be at the regional office that was handling your claim. that's where it would be at and you're not going to find it. i hate to sound so dismal but i've seen the photographs of these medical records. they're stacked to the ceiling in large warehouses. i don't know what happened when you got off of active duty but i was told, photocopy that medical record. do not submit the only evidence you have. that is -- that's like suicide. you know, it's -- it's not giving you the opportunity to resubmit. if you did not -- did you get a photocopy of your medical record? did you do that after you got off active duty? host: he's no longer with us. guest: oh, dear. i have a copy of mine. i'm not quite sure where i put it but i do have a copy buried among my many things. if there's no evidence of that medical record, the only thing i can say is you submit -- go to the congressional representatives so they'll do a

congressional inquiry as to where your medical record is. it is not destroyed. it's just probably next to impossible to find and they need to dig it up. and it would be at the regional office that was handling your claim. host: jesse james, formerly of the marine corps, formerly with concerned veterans of america, we thank you for your time. guest: thank you so much for having me. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> at the next "washington journal" john feehery and jim manley. attkisson on the main cause the consulate attacks. and it outside consul to the ounsel and advises on international and u.s. legal and foreign policy. live "washington journal" on sunday at 7 a.m. eastern.

this subject of whistleblowers is a very sensitive subject. information. it is important that they feel comfortable coming forward and saying i have information that you need to have. identity, we need to protect my identity. we understand that post of the statute requires us to extend reduction. do isctice, what we advise will sold lowers early protection to say to the extent that you can give us specific information, that is much more helpful to us than general information. sometimes the courts or by specific information in details. that an educated and informed person might be able to

guess as to the identity of the whistleblower. we need to be aware of that. >> more with either cultural fong on c-ig phyllis span's "q&a." next a discussion on race- based admission policy. annual meeting in san francisco. it is a little more than an hour. >> good morning. thank you for being here. thank you for your time. the council on race in the

pipeline is sponsoring this panel. our chair could not be here was so i'm going to be moderating. i also wanted to take a minute to acknowledge robin who just stepped out of the room. she is the executive director of the council and has been for a number of years and as those of you who work in volunteer organizations know that the work is done and the committees are all run by the executive directors and the staff. and she has been such a contributor to our work over the years that i have known her that i just wanted to thank her. she's back in the room. to thank robin for all of her diligence and dedication because she's really had an impact over the years. thank you robin. i wanted to just lay the ground work a little bit for today's panel and go ahead and introduce our speakers.

they are each going to speak for a few minutes and then we'll take questions among ourselves and questions from the audience. the idea for today's panel is a discussion of fisher versus texas. not from the litigation perspective but to ask a more fundamental question which is given fisher's holding and given the decision that is have been issued by the supreme court and various courts of appeals. how should educational institutions respond and react in a way that fosters diversity in the education pipeline? so with that said, let me introduce today's panel. immediately to my right is our first speaker. [phone rings] i tell everyone to turn things off and then don't do it

myself. immediate to to my right is professor garcia. the professor is a professor of law. he was professor of law and director of labor employment law program in san diego where he taught for eight years. he's also held academic appointments at the davis school of law. before beginning his teaching he worked as an attorney for public and private sector labor unions in the los angeles area. perhaps as relevant to today he's incoming president of society of american law teachers. and has been a participant in the fisher litigation through various filings. >> carla pratt who is to his right is the associate dean for academic affairs at the penn state law school.

professor pratt teaches and writes in the area race and the law. she served as the new jersey deputy attorney general and engaged in private practice in philadelphia. she teaches or has taught constitutional law, federal indian law, race and american law and professional responsibility. and was recently confirmed as an associate justice of the standing rock sue supreme court. >> professor cantor has an appointment in the education and law school at the university of texas. i think that gives her particular insight into fisher obviously coming from u.t. for eight years she served as the assistant secretary for education -- assistant secretary of education for the civil rights division of the u.s. department of education. and the clinton administration

where she oversaw a staff of 850 and was in charge of implemented policy for civil rights in the education arena. prior to service as the enforcer, professor cantor worked as for 14 years at the educational director at the mexican defense and educational fund. in that capacity she participated in countless cases and litigation strategy on any number of civil rights matters particularly those that involve educational funding. english language learners and student policies as well as racially hostile environments. with that said i will introduce professor garcia. >> thank you and thank you for being here.

thank you to my co-panelist who i'm sure i will learn a lot from especially in the state of texas. i'm from texas originally so it's interesting to be on this panel. i have to emphasize we're not talking about litigation strategies here but rather appropriate to this panel how we talk about the dialogue that fisher versus texas and the debate around affirmative action has created and how we might try to shape that dialogue. i'm here on behalf of salt, the society of american law teachers. we now almost 40 years old. we are the largest independent organization of law teachers in the country. and we have been involved in race conscious remedies and affirmative action issues for

that time. we were amicus council in the baucus case and in the fisher and now in a case i'll be talking about in a moment, a case next term. so what i am here to talk about then is a little be about where we are post fisher, what fisher versus texas is, what it means. what i think the next frontiers might be in this particular debate. then a little bit about the role that i think salt, the aba and the rest of the civil rights community might plail. -- might play. and then just close briefly with some ideas about where the

dialogue and the debate about affirmative action and of course how that might impact the educational pipeline which is the reason why we're here, we're concerned about the race and eth -- about race and diversity in the educational pipeline. so what is fisher versus the university of texas? i'm not going into a great detail about the case itself but suffice to say it was the most recent statement by the supreme court on the issue of affirmative action in higher education and it concerned the application of abigail fisher to the university of texas which at the time in 2008 as fisher was applying for admission to the university, texas was using a hybrid admissions program, a top 10% program that took from the top 10% of school districts in

texas and also used holistic review of the kind that the supreme court approved in university of michigan versus gruder. and so when the supreme court took this case as you can imagine, there was a lot of concern about the sturdiness and the longevity of gruder. and to the relief of many, the gruder president was unchanged -- precedent was unchanged, at least not overruled. and we'll talk about in this panel what exactly the fisher case means for affirmative action in higher education going forward, but the doctrine al outcome of the case was that the diversity in higher education remains a compelling interest.

but as the supreme court said, the fifth circuit had given too much deference to how the university of texas was going to apply that standard. so they sent the case back to the lower courts to try to make sure that the remedy that the university of texas had chosen was narrowly taylored for the particular interest, the compelling interest in racial diversity and higher education. so again, in terms of where the doctrine stands, it seems to me, and again i would like to hear from my co-panelists and the rest of the audience in terms of the doctrine, it seems like we are still at least where we were before. there is still no major change in terms of the use of affirmative action in higher education.

so that really i guess leads to the question of what is the public debate or what is the public perception of this case and what is the importance of the public perception in terms of the pipeline into the higher education? and again, i think it's important to remember that each time there is an affirmative action case before the court, there is a dialogue and a counter dialogue about what that actually means. i think it's important to remember that after gruder,

those who opposed affirmative action never really acknowledged that it was really a reaffirmation of the policy. so again, i think for the last nine years or so, they had made it seem like ruder was on shaky foundation. we kept hearing that affirmative action is time limited. it seemed like a good policy for another 25 years and then it would have to sunset. and then as i said, you had a lot of people arguing that the sun was setting. and i think, again, it's important to even given the

difficulties that we might face in terms of the next case and fisher when it does return to the court that the supreme court had the possibility of over ruling gruder and saying diversity was not a compelling interest in higher education and it did not. so the decision, again, seems to reaffirm gruder for now. now again, in terms of information and not just to institutions of higher education but also students who are interested in applying into universities or law schools, it's very important to get the message out that there are no major changes in the way that universities should be addressing what they have been doing -- in other words applying gruder as it existed before. the civil rights community i think also has a role to play in this record. i know that there was a lot of concern about gruder as well as the shelby county case.

and so the dialogue on that will also -- is also a role that the civil rights community plays in terms of the dialogue. for our own part, the society of american law teachers, we have even before fisher came out, we had been holding a ba to jd pipeline programs to try and make sure that applicants to law schools and institutions knew the lay of the land in terms of what was possible, in terms of diversity and affirmative action. salt is also very active in accreditation issues and is also very cognizant of changes in accreditation standard that might impact the diversity of the law school student body. and as i said, we've been involved in amicus with the help of pro bono law firms. later this year salt will be introducing a consumer guide to law schools.

so again, trying to get information to students who are choosing law school and hopefully getting information about what currently exists in terms of the possibilities for diversity and affirmative action in law schools. so i'll close just by trying to reaffirm a few things. salt will try to press after fisher and obviously into the next supreme court term. we at salt continue to want to stress that educational institutions have a compelling interest and need in racial and eth nick diversity. and we through our affirmative action and equal opportunity --mmittee continue to try to

racial and ethnic diversity. and we through our affirmative action and equal opportunity committee continue to try to provide resources to institutions mostly law schools, but as i said, going into prelaw programs, until we get more guidance from the supreme court that gruder remains the law of the land. and then as i said at the beginning, we have another case coming up on affirmative action. and salt will be filing a brief in that case as well. but that case is not, as i said, not a referendum on affirmative action but more on the political system and it heartens back to some old cases about the political structure of the state and how it might negatively impact minorities in terms of getting their legislation through.

so that is the next case that will be heard in the supreme court and again i'm sure it's going to be a little bit different than fisher but we also want to mike that you are people know that it's not necessarily going to be another referendum on affirmative action. and then finally our role at salt is just to continue to try to advocate for diversity justice and academic excellence. and again, i think we do that through continuing to remind people about the importance of diversity both in the law schools and also in the pipeline into law schools, universities like the university of texas. so thank you. >> thank you professor garcia. dean pratt. >> thank you for inviting me to

speak today and i think professor garcia is the optimist on the panel and i'm a bit of a pessimist on the panel. i agree with him wholeheartedly that fisher does not overrule gruder but i have serious concerns as an academic administrator about fisher's view of gruder as precedent. fisher makes it clear that we can still consider race as long as our consideration of race in the admissions process meets strict scrutiny. and fisher gives us a lot of guidance with respect to what that means. fisher for the first time articulates that diversity for diversity's own sake is not compelling interest. that would be unconstitutional balancing. so the only permissible goal is

to achieve the educational benefits that are derived from a diverse student body. so as an administrator i have to art late to the court what those benefits are that are derived from having a diverse student body. which means i have to also work with my faculty to discern what benefits are derived from racial diversity that couldn't be derived from non-racial diversity. so if we considered a race neutral approach to diversity economic status, geography, gender and other factors outside of race, perhaps we could achieve those educational benefits that flow from diversity without considering race. and so we have to give consideration as educational institutions i think to what exactly is it that racial diversity adds to our educational process.

fisher in my opinion deviates from gruder. i think most scholars understood it to permit deference on both the first and second prong of the scrutiny test. fisher makes it clear that while it's appropriate to dive some deference, it's not on the second prong of the test. so fisher says some but not complete deafer answer is allowed. diversity is essential to its mission. because the court is only going to give us some, we need to be ready to justify why we're using race and how the consideration of race in our admissions process is essential to our mission. and because there is not going to be any with respect to the narrow tailoring prong it's whether they could achieve sufficient diversity without using race. a school rejecting certain add misprocesses is relevant.

that tells me i need to give serious thought to whether we need to try a race neutral alternative before we can justify the consideration of race in admissions. i would argue that because i am in central pennsylvania where we have a very difficult time getting a critical mass of any racial minority group that i probable don't need to try a racial neutral alternative because i haven't achieved it under a race conscious plan. but in texas where arguably you can achieve some racial diversity in a race neutral fashion, there is going to be an inquiry by the courts in terms -- ha is the justification for of what is the justification for considering race given you can achieve it through the texas 10% plan or some other race neutral means.

i think it's interesting to note too that the schools according to fisher bear the burden of proof. we bear the burden of proof and those benefits cannot be achieved at a satisfactory level without the consideration of race. in order for compliance i think administrators are going to have to show they gave serious good faith consideration of workable race neutral alternatives and they decided they were insufficient for x reason. and the court made it clear that consideration of race neutral alternatives alone was insufficient. that you have to show that no workable race neutral alternative would produce the benefits of diversity. connecting it to that first prong of the strict scrutiny test. the court made it clear in fisher that color blindness is the preferred approach. if a non-racial approach could

promote diversity about as well and at tolerable expense then the university may not consider race. so i think we do have to ascertain also even if we could utilize race neutral measures what is the cost of doing so. so i don't think the court is going to hold us to the standard of having to conduct many empirical tests or studies on each aspect of our 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 of the academic institution. i think the bar is a little bit

higher now than it was in gruder. 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 students in engineering, and so, it will be a very fact heavy inquiry. we will have to define critical mass, i think, based on institution specific data. one might 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? in texas, for 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. it is very 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. i also think not only do 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 diversity 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 diversity, but does not really defined that.

it could include requiring rigorous academic support programs that all law schools that are aba approved and help increase the number of students who are entering the pipeline through the legal profession. currently, the standards are -- thank you for your time. >> thank you, ms. pratt. >> so much 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 applied to michigan, harvard, a couple of other places. i got accepted. when i arrived at harvard, 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. this was back in 1979. harvard did not have a tenured woman on its faculty. there were few from the south or the southwest. that could have been the reason they admitted me to harvard. i ran into classmates who

thought because i went to panam that i was a pilot. 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 were in college at the same time. it could be that i was attending college with my mother. there were so many reasons that i stood out. i was an amazing speller. i was a regional speller four times. maybe it was my spelling. it was my spelling that took me 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. on hearing these three brilliant 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 numbers 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 more an art than a science. thank god for that. if it was science, you would have to measure it and you have quotas. if 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 switch or have your ipaq 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. at ut austin, we are to provide 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 directly to ut.

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, gender. it is hard to do admissions. we are 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 of my presentation to what this 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. in 1978, narrowly tailored -- that has to be a conversation on why the admissions 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. when i was in charge, if you lasted 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 what criteria and means you will do to identify those students. your 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. you can keep data on both of them and find out which one works better for you whether it is a combination. that is why texas is a hybrid scheme. using both geography, we are taking the top 10% of the high school graduates across the whole state. every part of 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. if race neutral does not work -- by the way, we did a thorough search and the department of justice did 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. you are not required to spend 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. let me tell you why race neutral works in texas. in texas, we have racially segregated, racially located 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 diversity in gender, diverse in so many different ways. there will be african- americans not fully representative.

even top percent plan does not give us the 12% of african- americans that exist in the state. it will not. fewer african-americans applied. there is still something wrong in our system where in the top 10% in the year 2012, 1 never -- one out of every two percent applied. asiant of every four applied. only one out of every 17 top 10% hispanics and african american applied. even the top 10% plan has something that needs to be evaluated, studied, considered, and incorporated into our admissions process for undergraduate. i will close by telling you race is a factor among many types of admission will end.

when you arrive at the goal, you hit the goal and have a celebration party. some campuses around the country are doing that. they have recruited so well. they have made all but -- races welcome. they are throwing themselves that kind of celebration. for those falling behind, for this discussion going on and the difficult work will continue.

>> thank you. let me i guess throw out the first question. i want to read a paragraph from 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 out that in the system when race was not considered, but admissions were based on the top 10% plan where they were automatically admitted to ut austin, the class was a small percentage of african-american and another percentage of hispanic. they go on to point out that in the subsequent plan when race ors explicitly considered, the diversity in the incoming class actually declined.coming in on actually declined. a it declined by 0.4% for african- americans and by 2.9% foror hispanics.and by 2.9% to there is a point that in texas, her that you are you going to the top 10% seems to besecretary can't wait capturing diversity.to check the whether that is fact -- i do not

the you are know.in the cap ring i'm reading from the court'sthe weather that decision.you are i do a reading of the word i assume that is based on the andi assume that is based on the facts on record.the back of the wreck you i had -- whether that is fact -- i do not 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 that is unique to states where this type of diversity can be achieved? that brings me to the question that i had. the secretary who is in charge of the office of civil rights department of education in the clinton administration, the way you define narrow tailoring, it has to be consistent with the mission of the school and has to be reviewable every five years. 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. it strikes me as -- i don't know if concern is the right word. there were some comments about what fisher is doing to change the law and require faculties to engage in defining their mission and 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

law as universities have already been classifying it. ut narrowly tailors. 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. enforcing civil rights in the office, we were very fact specific. what we wanted to hear is 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. we saw complex, critical thinking skills. if you have one asian-american in 150, -- >> i think fisher does slightly change the game, the landscape. before fisher when i taught law 2, there was deference on both prongs of the strict scrutiny test. that clearly is no longer accurate. it is very clear now that there is going to be some measuring difference on the compelling government interest from. i have been at penn state most

of my academic career. we have taken it as a given, 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. law school, there are very robust discussions around social issues that require you to have various viewpoints in the

classroom to discuss them in a robust and educational sound manner. the court and 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 you can face an 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? you are not practicing what you 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. there are great ideas of what administrators could do to justify their plans. the other thing that a lot of 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. i am fully on board with all of those suggestions. again, i go back to my noted relief, i guess that it was not worse. i think we should send that message loud and clear to

administrators and to students. >> there is a tone in the supreme court decision of fisher. the tone is one of chastising judges in general and not the university. the tone is that the courts themselves must accept 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. the admonishment to the judge was, be sure you understand all of your facts. there wasn't anything that the 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. i'm from ut austin. i'm confident all the information is on the record. we have invested so much time studying and reevaluating and doing that aligning of our action to our mission.

i 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. if this was a bench trial -- i'm sorry, if this was done in judgment, does the record explained why diversity decreased when a race conscious as opposed to race neutral 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. diversity, gender, leadership, work experience, disability. there are 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. i wrote an article years ago proving discrimination in a minority contexts. the issue was of race neutral is 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 alternative in terms of residential segregation? what types of alternative ways are proxies could one look at or explore and not face the question of what would be another ruse for race? >> thank you. >> race is the question. the top 10% plan could not exist without segregation. they cannot work to achieve diversity. that was ginsburg in that dissent for some time. the question goes back to -- we 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. the question is -- 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? >> i think the court intimates that proxy for race is ok. it is pretty clear that the 10% plan is intended to do just that. i'm not worried if schools use 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. sociology tends 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- generation college goers and law 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. you do not have the one single 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 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 expects try those that offer some opportunity to be effective. if there is a wild idea that the 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? but we are talking about is looking at race neutral mechanisms that show reasonable promise to be effective to create a more diverse student body. >> it is important for administrators to show that their weight was considered and dismissed because that wouldn't really get --

>> in the 1960s, they would hire 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 you -- >> other questions? let me ask one. as i was reading justice ginsburg decision, she cited another decision as well for the descent. 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 extent our schools entirely 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 proxies that are intended to use race and concealing?

>> i do not believe the university could find a safe harbor and say they are completely invulnerable and use 100% proxy for race. i think the courts would look behind that decision. there are 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 tomorrow on an asian or move to the lovely city of san francisco. 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 yields 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. i think you have to strike pretty hard to find something that is a 100% proxy for race. >> pretty sure that some are ok with the proxies.

for some members of the court that are very against any kind of race consciousness. in any 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. as universities go forward in a post-fischer realm, are there any piece of advice you would have for admissions offices and university administrators? anything to keep in mind in 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. as universities go forward in a post-fischer realm, are there any piece of advice you would have for admissions offices and university administrators? anything to keep in mind in designing how to process and foster diversity and education pipeline? >> i would end by saying a 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 k-12 pipeline, the creditors, engaging faculty and engaging a lot of stakeholders. there are education leaders, the k-12 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 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 admissions 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. it is a much more difficult and wide-ranging discussion. really, i think it highlights the 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 garcia, dean pratt, and thank 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 in the house to 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. so many of the 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? whatever comes back, there are a lot of legislative things we have available. the c.r. is one. the debt ceiling is coming up.

we will make sure the punching -- the country pays its debt. we will put things like the 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? it shows we are doing our job and will keep government funded. >> "newsmakers" tomorrow on c- us and him.a.m.

she brings the white house garden in q2 this garden. the prospect house. she says to the white house gardener, let's let's re-create the rose section of this garden at the white house. this becomes the famous rose garden at the white house. ellen tragically does not live to see the rose garden completed, however. she is dying in the summer of 1914 and has wheeled out to the space in her wheelchair and does not live to see the completion of the visions she had of roses blooming at the white house. >> meet the first and second wife of woodrow wilson. >> next, remarks from chinese foreign affairs minister wang yi.

syrian civilut the war and cyber security concerns. from the brookings institution, this is a little more than an hour. thanks for theg. help. 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. i'm grateful to all of you for making the effort to be here this evening. we also have quite a number of representatives. i want to say thank you for the

help and cooperation and extended hospitality and putting 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 he spent over visiting scholars at georgetown university, as a specialist on asia and a specialist on japan. as vice minister 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. as china's ambassador to japan,

he was there at a sensitive time in the bilateral relationship. by the end of his tenure, it can be said that the relationship is on a steadier course. he also served as director of the taiwan affairs office in the state council.

he has graced us at brookings with his presence before. we are 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. it is in that spirit that we 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 next 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 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. number one, no conflict or 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 confrontation. war will get us nowhere. 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 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 conversing 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.

testing testing

i think that that is a common feature we are going to have to look at why we are still thinking about all of these juggling balls. its connection with race in the future. --? >> well, i am hindu and i belong to a hindu community. things that is going to continue to affect hindu communities and other religious communities is migration. in immigranto live communities have trans national lives.

call georgia home and i call india home. i'm still working on calling new jersey home. [laughter] family members travel back and forth and how does that impact hinduism? -- in my casegrew it impacted a tremendously. i am very thankful that they did because i am very affluent and outrati, but three months of the year i would see how hinduism is lived in india which is very different to how hinduism is lived in the united states. there the holiday falls on thursday we have thursday off. is that christian norm.

i am trying to make my way within that. my students understand, but how many students want to come to exam week for an extra class? communities have done -- >> absolutely. it is this constant negotiation. i think trans-nationalism is really going to continue to affect our religious communities form. theme is thattion thential to keep feeding >> right now, -- for example, we have since 1970, hindu temples all across the united states. withmajestic temples

beautiful architectural styles. all these blood and tears were brought over by immigrants before 1965. now, the second generation are not going to the temples. what is populating them is a constant migration. we have to see how that is going to last and what kind of impact there is going to be. lots of second-generation hindus and sikhs are not going to houses of worship. they're trying to figure out how hinduism or sikhism or islam lives in their lives. they are struggling. but that is probably a different panel. >> three years ago i had the privilege of sitting down with a couple to be married and we worked on the ceremony for one whole year. the reason for that intensity is because the groom was first

hispanic andslim -- i walked away from that experience more hopeful than exhausted. negotiating kind of -- thewere educating bride and groom were educating their families and why they made the choices they made. and how they're going to accommodate the religious values that were core to both families. it was a learning and growing experience for everyone. they are happily married and they had their first child a year ago. it is going to have a positive

effect along with the pushback that all of us have to deal with. i think it is going on and why communities, two. why communities are not just sitting back to agency with the verdict is going to be. they are struggling with trying to figure out what it means to be a part of this larger mix of what we try to profile as a future. i think it is just important that we even consider listening to the children and listening to the young generation, specifically in our faith communities. they have so much to give. familia ismmunity, something to be embraced. what is it mean to be multiethnic and multi-cultural? for the older and those who may

want the experience of tradition. i know they can be difficult. in my experience it is the language. the younger generation wants to worship in english. -- i know it is going to take time. it is going to take a lot of work, but i am hopeful and i believe that we just need to continue to listen, liston and the open to change -- listen and be open to change. >> we can't ignore, we should be mindful of the impact of trying to -- of china and other parts of asia on america, on south america and on africa. have as in which -- i number of african-american friends with this international, living in the united states, work in china, back and forth and there is now this developing

relationship between american people, african-americans and chinese. that is another part of the mix along with immigration. >> sitting in the front row with withlou a less key -- galeski, this conversation can continue. you have all been very kind to listen in on us talk. we would love to hear your thoughts on any of the subjects and more. so to participate in an online discussion, i think you all have the same cheat sheet that i do. there is a link here that you can enter into your web browser or did you don't know what that is, ask somebody younger than you. this is the comment page for this event. i would tell you how

to do it in maybe we can be part of that same ongoing conversation as well. thank you so much. this has been as light in the conversation as i can imagine. [applause] >> today, we will be showing an event from earlier this week with treasury secretary jack lew . he spoke about the economy and other related issues. theuding the debt limit and debate in congress over federal spending. here's a brief look at some of what he had to say. >> right now, are there any negotiations going on on the debt limits between the administration and congress. are there any negotiations going on secret negotiations that you can tell us? >> there are none and there will be no negotiations over the debt limits.

the president has been very clear on the debt limit. i am discussing the debt limit with everyone. i have talked to the committees in congress on a regular basis. i'm going to do again this week trade and do so -- i'm doing so here today. clears a need for a understanding. everyone has to have accurate information about what the schedule and consequences are and what is noble and not noble. the president has made clear that we can't be negotiating with the threat of default. on the spending bills, i think there are normal conversations , unfortunately they tend to not come together until the very last minute. i will leave it to my friend and successor at the office of management and budget, sylvia burwell to handle that. story that is circulating is a discussion that the house might propose a debt limit extension but attached to it a defunding of obamacare and send that to the senate and let

the senate decide what it wants to do. have you had any comment on that? >> the president has been clear and i have been clear. efforts to defund or delay the affordable care act is not a path toward something that can be signed into law. , iterms of the procedures 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 houseguest 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 conscience work. what they had to keep in mind is that ultimately something has to pass the house, the senate and the signed by the president. you cannot have a minority in in house dictate to others the senate and the white house

the only path that is acceptable. i think the reality is that is not going to happen. the sooner they understand that, the better. i have heard comments in the last few days, i have read even in the editorial in "the wall street journal" today. that is inopinion some ways obvious. you cannot control both houses of congress and the white house 1130 eastern -- 11:30 eastern here on c-span. >> since 1998, c-span twos book tv has shown over 40,000 hours of programming with top-notch fictional authors. we were going to do the book after he died, but he preempted that.

i was horrified, quite honestly. >> i've delighted always found that people are more alike than different. if i can create something that is so moving and permits a kind of distance that you sometimes need from what is painful, then people will understand. understanding is basically what is fundamental. no -- isint is that given. this is regarded as one of the justdozen cases where a war theory entails that the use of military force was legitimate. the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books. marking throughout the fall. on c-span two. >> next, the weekly addresses.

president obama talks about the debt limit and the bill passed in the house on friday to fund the government and defund the healthcare law. the republican address is congressman.nevada >> high everybody. it was five years ago this week that a financial crisis on wall street spread to main street. it very nearly turned a recession into a depression. months, millions of americans were robbed of their jobs, their homes, their savings. after a decade in which they had already been working harder and harder just to get by. it was a crisis from which we are still trying to recover. thanks to the grit and determination of the american people we are steadily recovering. and halfpast three years.

we have become less dependent on foreign oil. healthcare costs are growing at the slowest rates in 50 years. over one week, millions of americans without health care will be able to get covered for less than $100 a month. our economy is gaining traction. we're finally tackling threats to middle-class prosperity that washington neglected for far too long. as any middle-class family listing right now knows, we have a long way to go to get to where we need to be. to spende years digging out of the crisis, the last thing we need is for washington to manufacture another one. that is what will happen in the next few weeks if congress does not meet to deadlines. the most basic constitutional duty congress has is passing a budget. if it does not pass one before september 30, a week from monday, the government will shut down. so will many services the american people expect.

personnel, including those deployed overseas, won't get their paychecks on time. federal loans for rural communities, small business owners at new home buyers will be frozen. critical research in the life- saving discoveries of renewable energy will be halted. all of this can be prevented if congress just passes a budget. second, congress must authorize the treasury to pay america's bills. with a simple, usually routine vote, to raise what is called the debt ceiling. since the 1950s, congress has always passed it and every president has signed it trade democrats and republicans, including president reagan. if this congress does not do it within the next few weeks, the united states will default on its obligations and put our entire economy at risk. .his is important raising the debt ceiling is not the same as approving more spending.

it lets us pay for what congress already spent. it does not cost a dime or at a penny to our deficit. in fact, right now our deficits are already following since -- falling at the facet rate since the end of world war ii. deficit bye cut our more than half since i took office. kratz and somema 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. with thoseork democrats and republicans on a better bargain for the middle class. but there is also a faction on the far right of the republican party who have convinced of their leadership to threaten a government shutdown if they can't shut off the affordable care act. are actually willing to plunge america into default if they can't defund the affordable

care act. think about that. they would actually plunge this country back in a recession all to deny the basic security of health care to millions of americans. that is not happening. they know it is not happening. the united states of america is are adeadbeat nation, we compassionate nation, we are the world's best in investment. that is 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 what threatened to inflict economic a non-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. an end ton declare

governing by crisis and govern responsibly. by putting 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. thanks. >> my name is brian sandoval and i have the honor of serving as governor of the great state of nevada. when i first came to office our country was in the depths of the great recession and no state had been hit harder than nevada at our peak, nevada's unemployment rate was almost 15%. we led the nation in foreclosures and bankruptcies. jobs disappeared on most overnight, leaving behind steel skeletons of half built the .inks to memorialize the day economy froze and the work stopped. despite those dark days, i knew that a brighter future was just around the corner nevadans and all americans are resilient.

overcoming adversity is part of our national heritage. mere survival was not enough. and aded decisive action significant course correction to meet the challenges that lay ahead. upon taking office, i ordered an immediate freeze to all state regulations until he could be reviewed. because our state's budget situation was so dire, we reduced spending by more than $500 million. the eliminated approximately 600 positions across state unlike washington, we had to balance our state budget. nevada could not borrow its way out of problems. while working to balance the budget, we began to put into motion our plan to help create jobs and get nevadans working again. economic opportunity has been

and continues to be the foundation of this country and the source of the american dream. i sensed that the future of the american dream was at risk. like the then governor ron reagan stated, i believe we have faced eight time for choosing. we have chosen a simple approach to state government. it should be a protector of inhts and a partner prosperity. to that and i have fought against excessive tax increases and instead was able to expand tax exemptions for businesses and extend tax abatements to encourage businesses to grow. jobs,t comes to growing it is my responsibility to leave no stone unturned when it comes to getting 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 there it that hasn't stopped our efforts to grow nevada's

economy. good executives, like all good leaders, asked expect opposition when making decisions, or when making or enforcing the law. executives must engage those who disagree with them you must listen to all ideas, persuade when possible and respectfully and firmly disagree when having a. despite politically divided government in the last two years, nevada has been able to accomplish much. .e have strengthened employment our economy and education in our state in large part because we sit down, put sparse and -- but aside. visitors i will be the first to say there will be work to be done. experience 31 straight months of economic growth. the second strongest

decline in unemployment in the country and we continue to add much-needed jobs. list of companies wishing to relocate to a nevada once fit on an index card. now it is long and diverse. when it came to our schools, we eliminated teacher tenure to improve education for our children and are now focusing on ensuring that our kids read and write at grade level, which benefits everyone. policy, trueood principles and effective -- when wework when tried. and keepuce government taxes as low as possible, residents will appreciate us. we have to be decisive and move forward. it is no accident that the fastest-growing states of the best economies are all led a republican governors. the states different geographically, economically and

even politically. our ideas have and 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 could not be more proud and optimistic about the greatest nation on earth. i am confident that our core convictions provide the surest path to an america where economic opportunity still a balance hard work still rewards and dreams are still realized. we just need washington to pause, 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 god bless united states of america.

>> president obama will be speaking at a memorial service for the victims of a navy yard sitting in washington dc that left 12 able dead. we will have live coverage of that service beginning at 5 p.m. eastern here on c-span. coming up on c-span, a conversation with arizona senator, john mccain, about the situation in syria and the u.s. response. then her marks from president time, at 7 a.m. eastern it is washington journal. life with your calls and camages. >>, c-span video opposition is underway. >> we're doubling the number of winners and prize money. create a five to seven minute documentary about the most important issue you think congress should consider in

2014. entries should include c-span video, show varying points of view, and are due by january 20, 2014. >> next, a conversation on syria with the public -- with state --c secretary of with republican senator john mccain. taking place at the council on foreign relations, this is an hour. >> thank you. [laughter] [applause] you, margaret, for that long and glowing introduction. >> i can take we enjoyed many hours on the bus together. let's margaret and i spent many hours together on the straight talk express.

i have often mentioned margaret after i lost i slept like a baby . sleep two hours, wake up and cry, sleep two hours -- i want to thank -- it is nice to see old friends and enemies here in the audience. i appreciate the fact that the council on foreign relations would allow me this invitation to speak. it is always good for me to be back in what i believe is one of the premier institutions on the discussion and debate in america on our national security and foreign policy. it is an honor always to be back. i have ouraret and conversations, i would like to say a few words about syria. talk tome again if i seriously with you. it is an issue of great seriousness. i would like to begin by saying i wish i could see the recent

agreement between russia and the united states to rid the aside .egime of its chemical weapons it is a major breakthrough, unfortunately i cannot. i derive no pleasure in saying this, nor am i seeking to score political points. have socks to work with president obama on every turn. i have met with them several that recently for exactly purpose and i'm grateful for that opportunity. i supported the president's call to use force against a side -- against the assad regime for the attack on civilians with chemical weapons. to pass on a bipartisan basis the authority to use force at the president's thought. i admit to not being an expert on syria or chemical weapons.

but i do understand power and the use of power there it i also understand war and the conduct of war. the one benefit of my advanced age is the perspective that it offers. this is the basis for my deep concern with the administration's mishandling of the conflict in syria. that this russian initiative first arose as both houses of congress appeared ready to reject the president's proposal for military strikes in syria which called into question how credible that use of force force reallyt of was. it is hard to maintain that the administration entered into this agreement from a position of strength. trusts assad's sincerity. putin himself still insists that the syrian opposition was responsible for the august 21 attack. that is why enforcement is so critical.

unfortunately, the administration's claim that the threat of force remains on the table rings somewhat hollow in light of the events of the past few weeks. what is more, the administration seems to have given up on codifying the terms of this agreement immediately in a un -- let alonecil one that would explicitly threaten the use of force for assad's noncompliance. russia has said it won't agree to either of those things, second it may only be able to authorize a less severe penalty after assad violates the terms of the agreement. obviously that is a major climb down for an administration that was ready to launch airstrikes three weeks ago. as a blow torse our stalwart u.s. allies who were prepared to act with us. under the circumstances, what leverage do we have to force

assad's compliance when he starts to lie and cheat and delay, using every trick in saddam hussein's playbook. not to insistppears otherwise, and this is the basic , it is of this agreement not a product of this administration's strength but of its weakness, of its inability or unwillingness to take the military action it deems necessary against assad. russia sensed this weakness and led the administration, in my view, into a diplomatic blind alley. the fact is, the aside regime will likely avoid any meaningful punishment for its use. not just possession, but use of weapons of mass destruction. that is why many of us are concerned that both our friends and enemies will see this agreement as an act of provocative weakness, a blow to it wills credibility,

question our ability to enforce our commitments even after the greatest transgressions. i cannot imagine a worse message to send to the rulers of iran or every other bad actor that is looking for an excuse to test the limits of american resolve there is reason also be troubled by this disagreement. the bigger problem is what it leaves out. it says nothing about the underlying conflict in syria and will do nothing to resolve it. that is the greatest threat to america's national security interest. butchemical weapons per se the conflict itself. it is this conflict that has claimed nearly 110,000 lives and counting jurgen millions from their homes, destabilize some of our closest friends and allies in the process, embolden iran many are alpha

-- it has now become a regional sectarian conflict that threatens to engulf the entire middle east. the larger problem with the russian chemical weapons initiative. to bringn no way help the conflict in syria to the negotiating and that we seek. it will not stop assad and his forces from fighting it will not stop iran from sending in -- it will not stop hezbollah's 5000 -- in to have a choice fact, the more destructive assad in his war against the syrian people, the more he creates conditions of insecurity in syria, that make the removal of his chemical weapons impossible. assad could render this

agreement ineffective without ever violating the letter of it. not surprisingly, assad and his forces are now increasing their attacks on opposition forces and civilian populations using every tool in their arsenal short of chemical weapons. just yesterday, we read in "the washington post" that assad's fighter jets are back on the attack for the first time in weeks. his artillery is showing a double the normal rate. the very same damascus neighborhood that was cast on august 21. indeed, the post reports that more than 1000 people were killed in syria last week while the chemical weapons agreement was negotiated. meanwhile, we also read yesterday in the wall street that iran's revolutionary guard are stepping up their training of shiite recruits from across the region to go to syria and fight for assad.

this, too, should surprise no one. we cannot afford to look at syria as a chemical weapons arsenal attached to a country. as awful says chemical weapons -- as awful as chemical weapons are, they are just one symptom of a deteriorating conflict in syria. we need a strategy to end this war as soon as possible because the longer it goes home at the worse it gets. the strategy must degrade the military camp capabilities of the aside regime, up the capabilities of the moderate -- the removal of power of assad and his henchmen. that is why russia proposed it in the first place.

is assad a war criminal we seek to remove from power by supporting and arming and training his opponents or business assad and negotiating partner for the next nine months. it is unclear heard that is why our own partners on the ground in syria are so dispirited. is what the commander of a free syrian army said about the recent chemical weapons initiative, quote we feel that down by thefeel let international community. we don't have any hope." the comes on top of administration's failure for the better part of three years to provide meaningful legal assistance to moderate opposition forces. the first u.s. weapons only reached the opposition earlier this month and they reportedly only reached a very small number of people. it is long past time to launch a significant training and for moderate syrian forces and a defense department is best suited to lead this

expanded mission. syria led debates on some to conclude that americans have turned isolationist. that is why the administration has not done more on syria. to the contrary, the reluctance ns is due in large part to the administration's failure. americans hear how awful the conflict in syria is and how eager they are not to be involved in it. as the president said again in his speech to the nation last week, look where we are now everything the administration has said would happen. we have not gotten more involved. -- arming the opposition

to targeted airstrikes has now become u.s. policy. is it any wonder that the american people and members of congress are deeply confused and reluctant to be involved in syria? be involved in syria, but the reality is we are involved. thane more involved today one in two years ago. we were more involved two years than three years ago. we most certainly will be more involved next year than we are now. only then the conflict will be than and we will have less a thousand options to address it. not because he wanted, but because our interest requires it. otherwise, it is not some greater form of realism. profound denial of reality. people need to be told what is

at stake in syria. with all respect to the administration, it is far more than an international norm about chemical weapons, which sounds like political science. americans need to care about the conflict in syria because it is becoming a failed state in the heart of the middle east. it is a growth hormone for al qaeda and its terrorist allies because it is now the regional catastrophe that threatens the very existence of some of our closest friends and allies who are indispensable to the safety of every american and because it is the central front of the iranian regime's battle to dominate the middle east. these are the national security interests that we have at stake in syria. it is one thing for americans to hear this from an old member of congress like me, it is quite another for them to hear it from there president. the american people are never eager to engage in foreign- policy, let alone to engage

themselves in foreign conflicts. that is a healthy attitude of a democratic people, but there are events that demand our attention and from which we cannot isolate ourselves. that thethose times american people rely on our elected leaders, most of all our president, to lead them. to explain to them where our interests and values are at greatest risk. why we cannot afford to remain disengaged, why further delay will only allow resin dangers to turn into more dire future threats and what we as a nation are called on to do. campaigns to get america involved in foreign conflicts. no president prefers to prioritize his time in this way? what sets our greatest presidents apart from all the rest is that they recognize this duty when it calls to them. they took it up. this kind of leadership we need now more than ever.

thank you very much. [applause] strong letter to follow. >> let's start right out with -- you're saying it is primarily president obama's mishandling of the issue. as you came -- as he became clear, should he have struck anyway without a vote and survive politically? i think the mistake in the unprecedented move was to announce the strikes and then announced that he was going to go to congress. if he had announced the strikes and said i'm going to congress to get the support of congress that is one thing. if he had struck as some of us in this room remember one morning we woke up and ronald reagan had invaded grenada.

unprecedented for residents -- we know bill well we know -- every president has acted one time or another without the endorsement of congress. . think that was the mistake i think it was a -- from what i have read and heard -- to make a decision and then announced it to the national security team rather than oppose it to the national security team and have them have a discussion also was a technical error. if the president was going to sayke, if you're going to the american public didn't want to step up to this challenge a new did most members of congress or certainly he did

not have a majority that they needed. is he too far down the path of saying he would seek approval. >> is a very tough decision now for the united states. i can't sayture exactly what he should do i would have a tendency if this whole chemical weapons thing fails and it turns into a fiasco. act, buthat he should he is going to have much greater he was because he said going to get the endorsement of congress and did not. people would be angry, we get the usual blowback.

this -- if orf when this thing comes to part, that he isnk it is, not in compliance and that there is kind of a rope and took going on. does it give us confidence when lavrov sayswhen , we think the rebels attacked. >> really? lavrov made it very clear when he and john kerry made the announcement, he said we will not authorize the use of force or sanctions.

he said i want to make a very clear. where is the leverage here? >> is part of the leverage, though, that russia is on the hook now to deliver its plan. all, i don't see how russia is on the hook. mr. putin has now injected himself in a way that has not been russian influence in the region since 1970. from his comments rival attack.ng a what constraints into honesty? presidentputin will say most anything. what he has done is reinsert himself in the olsson are in the middle east in a way since the has not beenr

helpful for the russians. i don't accept the premise that he is in any danger at all. he has made it very clear that he would veto a resolution that authorizes the use of force through the u n. he is made it clear that even sanctions would be something they would oppose. >> they would have to come back from from a second revolution to >> is interesting, the apologists for putin say he is so mad about libya. he is mad that we got rid of more market duffie? expect.did he co. maybe he made his mistake. somehow they could say that was a reason not to take action against this witchery that

continues unabated. they say they feel they signed up for one thing which was protecting the humanitarian one and then it ended up being regime change. -- >> let me to say something for a minute about regime change. if there is going to be a shift in syria, it is if boettcher assad thinks that he cannot hold onto power. that means a robust free syrian army that reverses the momentum on the battlefield. it is a negotiated departure. in a a geneva, he is negotiated partner and at that time you could have negotiations about chemical weapons. part of his departure is a turnover of all the chemical weapons. the thousand tons or whatever it is. >> amigo back to another point that you made about the president. you said you are not an expert

on serial or chemical weapons. said -- >>bama sunday, he said on george stephanopoulos's program, his quote was my position has been consistent throughout. is, heition as he stated basically thinks there is a distinction that the wider use of chemical weapons are preventing it in the world is of real u.s. national interest. getting involved in the civil war, however dreadful it is, is not. ,s that where you part company you think the civil war isn't as great a threat to you as the prospect that these chemical weapons would get loose? first of all, the chemical

weapons killed 1400 people. it is terrible, it is horrible, crossed lines, violated treaties that have come from 90 different countries. there are 110,000 that have been slaughtered using bullets and knives and clubs. somehow to ignore the reality of that, of these atrocities, it is staggering to the imagination. now he stepped up the air attacks. russia toking with remove these chemical weapons from syria. ,eanwhile, at the same airport there is russian aircraft full of weapons to kill people landing at the same airport. how do you rationalize that in morally.ally, but also as long as you remove your chemical weapons, and obviously there has been not insignificant

u.s. engagement, then it is ok to continue the slaughter. by the way. the majority of the free syrian army officers are the factors, from the syrian army. i met with them and they are -- and theirthey indoctrination is to rape, murder, torture. so that they can intimidate the population. that is their training. "-- and saw onnd correspondent. is unacceptable and it is a stain and a blot on the honor of united states military forever. these things do happen. there's a difference between these acts of violence and

cruelty and barbaric behavior .hat are sparked by this anger there's something else, to have a doctrine and and indoctrination of your troops. huge difference that i just wanted to point out. another reason why we should be helping the free citizen army a lot more. you have spoken with the president and other members of the administration quite a lot lately, i gather. the u.s. is about to step up overtly and not just covertly, provide legal aid. dod, not theto the cia. what is the advantage of that? i am not exactly sure. they have told me for two years that they are making sure that they have gotten to the syrian army. that has not happened. if you excuse my skepticism, it

is exactly what they're doing. that thething tangible free syrian army has gotten from the united states is a whole toch of mrd's, neil is ready eight. his expiration date was a month later. i am not making that up. have been able to get weapons with our vetting to the free syrian army and they haven't fallen into the hands of al qaeda or on this route. it has to be some proof to me, one that they're getting weapons in and to the right kinds of weapons. do they need anti-armor? they've got to have anti-armor. boschs a big part of capability. they have got to have anti-air weapons as well. that's what they tell you when you're on the ground. is that a danger to provide even

the free syrian army, even if you were to accept it is a disciplined, cohesive force, not the bad guys, isn't that a danger to start? is no danger.re i point out that the critical area is not only for air attacks, but moving equipment and so on. the planeloads full of weapons fly from iran and from russia into a mask is every single day. tons of military equipment that are being flown in. meanwhile we trying to in very devious ways get some of this equipment to them. when you look at the disparity the totaltlefield, superiority of weapons at pasha

has. it is surprising that the syrian army has done as well as they are. it, there isissed no conflict between the free syrian army. if this thing and did the right way, we would have to give weapons and assistance to the free syrian army. >> this free syrian army, and i have met with some about it as applies that is this cohesive force. i am told i could not find it today myself. general flynn in the cia said just a week ago that there is something like 1200 malicious, rebel militias. is it one of the huge problems that they have not become a cohesive force? . don't have weapons. they don't have respective command and control. >> part of it is obviously that

there lines of communication are not ones we want to have. >> second of all, this is the same intelligence agency that has given dubious information in the past. if you don't want to be involved , you can always find lots of reasons not to be. yes, there are different units around, but they have good communication amongst them. they have a chain of command that they adhere to. cohesive army marching in the battle? not.urse there are a lot of keen vacation problems and a lot of other problems associated with it. they still are the majority of those who are fighting. from of them coming in iraq.

there are many other questions i would like to ask you. now the u.s. is where it is. it is at the u.n., they were having a meeting this afternoon to hammer out some resolution. what should the resident and his team do now? in terms of how to make this resolution enforceable? >> when lindsey graham and i had a visit with the president, he said i want you to remember three things. support with the strength and the free syrian when the president talked to the country there is no mention of the other two. president has got to come in my view, say we need to reverse the situation on the battlefield,

which would then lead to a negotiated departure of bashar assad. it isore than anything -- not very convincing to say you are going to enter a conflict in order to force a nation to adhere to international norms of chemical weapons treaties. there has got to be a more -- >> you areson saying a stake? >> yes. population, he cannot last. lebanon is teetering on the secular conflict. the rack has now had more killing then since 2008. when you go to a refugee camp, which i wish every one of us could? it breakshese people your heart. will never forget

when a woman was showing me around refugee camp in jordan. she said senator, you see these chilen runng around here? there are refugee children all over now. >> i said yes. they are going to take revenge on those who they .elieve helped we are in danger of creating a million young people who will grow up hating the united states of america. we ought to think about the long-term implications. about ways toink stop this butcher for massacring his own people. you all know the drill, but please wait for the microphone. we said for circulating here. speech rec into it. this the cure name and keep going.and

that gentleman in the back with the red tie. >> thank you, senator. i am a retired diplomat. american military and civilian personnel have a lot of experience with on site inspection for the former soviet union and other places and if a media says there are 45 sites with chemical weapons around syria in the middle of a civil war, would you support sending american military and civilian personnel there as part of a national on-site inspection team? >> i don't think i could unless there was some guarantee of their safety that i think would be enforceable. i just don't see how you could do that without some kind of arrangement that would be so ironclad that since i don't trust assad that it would be something that i think would be credible. the one thing americans don't

want, maybe you disagree, but i think americans don't want any american boots on the ground. now, there is one other scenario very quickly. suppose that there was a negotiated departure for bashar al-assad. as i said before, we negotiated a plan for an international, not just american but an international group to go in and secure the cache of chemical weapons. i would think the american people might he agreeable for that sole purpose but you do not have to do a selling job there. what was reported on the front page of "the wall street journal," he is moving his chemical weapons all around syria. >> right here, sir. >> senator, just so i'm clear

about your position, are you advocating that president obama should have attacked when he promised to attack? secondly, if he had, given international opinion against the u.s. and given congress was against him, given the american people did not support, do you think we would be in a far weaker position today than some think we are? >> when you are the leader of the most powerful nation in the most influential in the world that this country is going to take certain action, particularly where it has to do with an issue such as this you lose credibility when you don't. it is just a fact. i hear from friends around europe and the middle east who are really very skeptical about american leadership and i think they have a right to be.