press club" speaking at a event hosted by the ethics and policy center where he hold as fellowship. again live coverage at 1:30 eastern. the white house says president obama will make personnel announcements. cia director leon panetta will replace defense secretary robert gates who retires at end of june. general david petraeus will take mr. panetta's position as head of the cia. those appointments are subject to senate confirmation. >> you're watching c-span2

with politics and public affairs >> british defense secretary, liam fox is back in london after a visit here to washington, d.c. he told members of the british defense committee this week that the government will not deploy british ground troops in libya. during this 90-minute hearing members asked the secretary by financial costs to libya and british response to the situation in syria.

>> welcome to the defense committee inquiry into operations in libya. and since you were in the united states yesterday we are grateful to you for coming in so soon after what we presumably was a long and grueling flight. before we begin i would like to make a general announcement about jackets. i never make announcement about whether people have to wear jackets but they don't. anybody wants to remove their jacket, please do. and next, secretary will you introduce your team. hard. >> thank you, chairman. gives me great pressure sure to introduce my fellow witnesses my right to your left. assistant chief for operations who the committee knows well. and the director of operational policy peter watkins who you might know even better. for me i say a few words

before we begin questioning, chairman. >> what in mind, exactly? >> if i may say one or two brief points about how we see this session and the shape we're currently in. >> this session being this evidence? >> this evidence session. >> okay. >> to set the scene, chairman, britain is taking an active role in international efforts to protect civilians in libya. we do so under the unambiguous authority of the united nations and as part of a broad coalition which includes arab nations amongst its number. foreign secretary told the house of commons yesterday, 16 nations are contributing aircraft or maritime assets to the region under 1973. nations are providing or offering various kinds of support including military, allowing overplate,

logistical and financial support and humanitarian relief. we work closely across government to the national security council and also internationally to insure military activity is but one of a range of america sure which continue to be taken to continue pressure on colonel gadhafi's regime. we continue to work closely with coalition partners. i visited washington to discuss the issues with u.s. secretary of defense robert gates. in the last few weeks i have visited qatar, u.a.e. twice, italy, cypress and france and u.s. yesterday. should the committee wants to join us in pay be tribute to the professionalism of the members of the u.k. and allied forces making such a significant contribution to the operation in libya. this is -- evolving, chairman, an evolving campaign. >> can i stop, please. do bear in mind that the

foreign secretary had made a statement to the house of commons yesterday and i think we're aware of the background to all of this. and i'm sure that the things that you have there to say will be adequately brought out in the questions that we will wish to ask. >> just one point, chairman. this is an operation in evolving campaign and the messages that come out of this session either this afternoon will resonate with our forces and also with the gadhafi regime. i hope you will understand that there are areas of information which we could probably give more completely but the committee i hope will understand that too much information operationally, public at this time could prejudice our efforts in libya. >> yes. thank you very much. for making that point because i think it is

extremely important. i am sure that the committee will bear that in mind in the questions. >> thank you, chairman. >> the questions that we ask and the tone we adopt in what we ask. i'd like to begin by asking about the issue of taking sides. it seems to me that we are taking sides. do you agree that is the impression that is being given, or would you suggest that we are not taking sides? >> oh absolutely, on the contrary we are taking sides. we are taking sides of the civilians. that is what the u.n. resolution is asking us to do. and the civilians are being attacked by their own government, it is incumbent

upon us under the u.n. resolution to protect them. of course to that extent we have to take a side. are we investing in a policy that has a predetermined view what the government of libya ought to be? no. >> and if we are taking that side, what are we doing to insure that that side wins? >> it is not a question of if you mean by side either the regime or the opposition forces what is incumbent upon us under the u.n. resolution 1972 to insure that the population is protected. everything that we have done in recent weeks to achieve that by degrading the military capabilities of the regime, by directly targeting their assets where they threaten the civilian population, by pushing them

back as we did from benghazi and what would have been a humanitarian catastrophe, by damaging their ammunition dumps. by degrading their fuel supplys. by making their logistics much more difficult, by degrading the command-and-control, all of these things are means by which we intend to diminish the ability of that regime to harm the civilian population. >> the worry that i think was expressed by bob ainsworth in the house of commons yesterday that we were doing enough to make sure that the fighting goes on but not enough to make sure that it comes to an end. >> there have been some talk as the committee is aware of this concept that we are in a stalemate. i dealt with this issue yesterday in the united states. over the last few days we have seen opposition forces make significant gains in ms. roughta. it is not yet clear whether

they control the city -- misurata. the situation remains confused there. we see italians contribute aircraft for the first time. kuwaities donating money to the opposition forces. we've seen ourselves and others with mentoring groups in benghazi. i think there's a danger, extrapolating the events of any one short period of time into the wider issue of the campaign. i think if we look back to where we were before the intervention when it was entirely possible that the regime would have launched a humanitarian catastrophe on the people of benghazi and where we are today and the military capability of that regime, we're a long way away from that starting point. so i do not recognize that there is a stalemate and i think we have made some considerable progress. if we look, for example, at the speed at which nato was able to put together its command-and-control, i think it's been considerably faster than in previous conflicts. and i think the fact that

we've been able to with a such a broad coalition and high level of firepower including arab countries in the location is a major achievement. diplomatically, militarily we're moving forward so i don't accept that nothing is being done. >> you don't accept it was a stalemate when you were in the united states yesterday. did you tell admiral mullen that he was wrong? >> when i was interviewed it was, quite sure within earshot of admiral mullen. i've made my view quite clear. a moment ago that admiral mullen talked about it he was talking in context of last week. since then, especially over the last 72 hours we have seen all in irof factors. -- coalition as i said at the very outset, mr. chairman. this is fluid situation. we must always be careful not to look at the situation in any one time and extrapolate sew far and assume that is what the

future is. i -- >> come back to some of these issues anyway during the course of the afternoon. that is helpful. we know you have to go at 4:00 for a vote in the house of commons anyway so this is time limited. so, general, would you mind, unless you have something essential to add? jeffrey --? >> commits all necessary measures to be taken to protect civilian life but it also excludes a foreign occupation force in any form and what do you see as the limitations ever the u.n. resolution? >> well, we are quite clear that all necessary measures subject to the test of being reasonable and proportionate to protect the civilian population and i think what we have done has always fallen within that.

there are of course limitations to what can be achieved by air alone. we have always accepted that. it was accepted with the u.n. resolution was passed and the no-fly zone was created. but our aim was not to impose upon the people of libya a particular form of government. our aim was to protect the civilian population. i go back to the whole aim of what it is we're trying to achieve in libya which is to insure that men, women and children can sleep safely in their beds knowing that they will not be attacked by gadhafi's forces. so everything we have done is with that in mind. we've been extraordinarily -- on two fronts. one is to accept that in achieving the aims we must at all times minimize the civilian casualties. there are those who have said, said to me as i visited other countries, could we not have done more,

more quickly by air and the answer is yes. but to do so would only be possible if we were willing to accept greater collateral damage and higher risk of civilian casualties. and apart from the item of high moral ground and higher respect more than gadhafi does, internationally, not at least with the arab countries with respect to minimizing civilian casualties. so we've been very clear there is limitation on what we can do there. likewise when it comes to our mentoring groups we have been very clear, these groups are there to give greater organizational capability, to help with logistics and to help with communication. we at all times have been very cheerful to -- given to us by the attorney general what is lawful and what is

not under the u.n. resolution. >> of course there are civilians who have no bed to sleep in at the moment because in the country they are moving towards the tunisia ann border. under the possibility of having to create some for those civilians and in your view, would the deployment of droops troops help -- protect safe havens for civilians and fighting in the west intensifies the prospect of this happening it increases. would the deployment of troops for humanitarian purposes to see if civilians on the board with tunisia be within the terms of the resolution or would you have to seek a new mandate? >> that is something we would have to seek advice on a case-by-case basis from the attorney general s. the basis on which we operate if there is any new development we believe is

different from that which has gone before we would seek advice from the attorney general as to whether -- [inaudible] that is not a question we asked the attorney general but something we have to consider. have we got troops to deploy if we need to? there is no intention to deploy any british troops. >> even for humanitarian -- >> we have no intention to deploy troops in libya. >> does the u.n. resolution permit under the current mandate the coalition forces to target colonel gadhafi? >> the, we, first of all, of course did not talk about specific targeting, but we made it very clear that we believe that the resolution and all mandatory measures to protect the civilian population was very clearly legal justification to target command-and-control assets where there are members of the regime who may be involved with those command-and-control assets

would take risks in doing some but our aim is to reduce the capability of the regime to make war on its people. we do not either discuss individual targets but made it very clear what the general cases and those involved are capable of understanding that. >> my question is, would the u.n. resolution permit it if it were to be considered? >> well again that is a question really for the attorney general. not a question that has come up because we have not discussed that particular question. now we have made very clear we are dealing with command-and-control assets. to make that a little clearer, when people talk about, for example, colonel gadhafi's compound in tripoli, it seems to have the aura in the media of some sort of holiday villa. what we're talking about here are reinforced areas that are being used for command-and-control military assets.

whether they happen to be combination facility incorporated within it. we are clear that our job is to degrade the reg emgoo's ability to make war on the people of libya and we will continue to do so. and the resolve on this is undiminished. >> you talked about the legal advice. >> [inaudible]. previous occasions government made those available to parliament. did you undertake to make the subsequent advice available to parliament? it seems to be quite crucial to the decisions you will be making? >> i will certainly discuss that with my cabinet colleagues. we have to get a collective decision. we couldn't give legal advice. we gave a summary of advice. may sound like semantics but the committee understands complexity of this issue. but it has been the government's intent throughout to make very clear the basis on which we with are operating if there were to be, issues that are different from those which

we set out in the summary before. i will certainly give an undertaking in consultation with my colleagues whether the government feels it necessary to make such information available. >> what exactly does the mission in libya aim to achieve? has that been -- [inaudible] what is clearly defind as your aim? >> well the, the if i may begin with that aims are protection of civilians. for gadhafi to comply with u.n. resolution 1973 and for the libyan people to have the opportunity to choose their own future. these are truly in line with nato's objectives which are to protect civilians and civilian population areas under threat of attack by the regime, to implement a no-fly zone to protect civilians and to implement the arms embargo.

these are the aims set out clearly under the u.n. resolutions. >> you said that the people of libya to choose their own regime. so is regime change an actual goal? is that something that you're actively working toward? >> regime change is not part of the u.n. resolution. >> neither is choosing their own future, is it? >> but i would have thought that it was a very clear aim for, for all of us that the free decision of people who determine their own future would want to see. did not think that would require incooperation into the resolution. i thought it was self-evident. it was clear that not region -- not signed up in the resolution. >> all these mixed messages i look at the letter, the

letter from sarkozy which it is, if i can find it where it suggests that in fact libya would be, magical and beautiful libya with gadhafi in charge. is that ultimately saying what we're looking for is regime change? >> well the sentence before makes it very clear. it says that our duty and our mandate under u.n. security council resolution 1973 is to protect civilians and we're doing that it is not to remove gadhafi by force but it is impossible to imagine a future for libya with gadhafi in power. that very much echoes the views that have been put forward by the opposition forces themselves. and when they have already witnessed two cease-fires, two unilateral sears fires put forward by gadhafi at which time the population was still being slaughtered i can understand exactly how you feel about having little faith in word after man that broken it so frequently in

the past. >> i can understand that too but what i can't understand is for all this -- one minute we are saying that regime change and targeting of individuals is part our mission and then we're saying it isn't. now, which is it? >> it is also very important to apply psychological pressure to the regime. one of the ways which we could hasten the end of this conflict for the regime itself to recognize that there is no long-term future. as long as colonel gadhafi believes there is a future he is likely to want to continue the conflict. it is essential that we send messages that he is despised by many of his own people. he is isolated internationally and the there is no future for his regime. he continues to believe there is such a possibility, likely that the conflict will continue. >> but equally, if he believes that if he loses power he will be taken

before the international criminal court. that gives him no reason forever thinking of leaving libya and finding a safe haven elsewhere? >> well that argument is regularlyly put but i would put the converse. do you really want the situation where we give some of those who commit the most heinous crimes against humanity to get out and say, if you only stop fighting we'll let you go and you will not be subjected to international law? i think it is essential that in the longer term the international criminal court has not only a long reach but a long memory. >> so can i be clear, the allies are in agreement with the mission. are the arab league in agreement with those key aims? >> the arab partners who are with us are very clearly operating under the nato -- under the nato rules including the nato mission and nato command and nato targeting.

and the aim of our contract is to insure as many of the countries in the region as possible come within the broader political umbrella of support. and that is, one of the ways in which we show that there is not the rest, if you like, trying it impose a solution on libya but this is a broader coalition of nations that sees that there is a people who want to be free being brutally suppressed and the international community responding accordingly. and i think it is one of the great achievements in libya that we have kept so many of the arab countries with us. and so many willing to come part and and -- [inaudible] >> are we at risk after stalemate between the libyan government and the opposition forces and what more would you think nato can do within the current mandate to make sure that we don't end up with constant stalemate no one actually

achieving a major power? >> as i already said i don't think we're in the position of stalemate. i think we've seen substantial progress being made in some areas in recent days. it may not be as fast as people might like or have hoped for but when we see more countries still being able to willing to commit themselves to -- for example, and decision i italy should be welcomed. when we see the progress that has been made in misurata and we've all seen the pictures of the dreadful humanitarian misery there, when we're getting countries like kuwait being willing to come forward, as part, one of the countries in the region to commit funding, then we are seeing some movement. when we are seeing the u.s. drones, for example, the armed are predator coming in to use. when we're targeting in tripoli of command-and-control close to the center of the regime's power pace, i think all

these are reasons to assume this is not a stalemate. >> as part of all of this, how will you judge and when will you know that you have achiefed what it is you're supposed to achieve? i'm not looking for a date but can you give us some, it is impossible, ridiculous question but what do you see the process being by which you make that evaluation, you make that judgement? what discussions are you having with your international collaborators in the nato plus coalition to actually decide what the process and method is for deciding the exit strategy about and particularly the military component of the exit strategy and how will you decide it? >> i'm sure it is actually possible to give a date but only person capable of doing so is colonel gadhafi in terms of what he would stop waging war on his own

population and our strategy is clear. militarily to continue the u.n. enforcement and so the threat to civilians is lifted and politically to support the libyan people to choose their own future. and these criteria and therefore the date really needs to be measured by the regime's actions, not gadhafi's words. we have already have gadhafi say that he is having a cease-fire. we've not seen that. and even when a couple of days ago he was talking about pulling out of misurata so that the tribes could get involved, we saw the continued shelling of the city. so we will judge him and the subsequent actions we have to take. now there are those who say, does the coalition have the nerve, does it have the guts, does it have the commitment to see through this campaign and the message that i want anyone who is sympathetic or involved in the regime to hear very clearly today is that the international community understands what

it has been asked to do. it understands what its duty is and its resolve will not faller until we have achieved militarily and politically what i just set out. >> the question is i suppose the answer to the question i'm asking you is, you will know it when you see it but how are you going to decide that? because you have a very varied coalition of people involved. some might wish to make that judgement earlier than others. so what is the discussion either within the contact group or within the nato targeting forces or whatever, about a common agreed process to make such a decision? >> well, of course, one side of that is relatively simple. when the civilian population are safe and they're not being shelled, nor is their ability to do so quickly. for example, i don't regard it as being a cease-fire. if there is a tank at the end of the street pointing at me and just not firing during this hour. that is not safety for the civilian population. so we will have to insure

that the forces do not threaten them and are not capable of inflicting, as you say, that is to an extent self-evident. and the allies are very clear about that and, our focus is on the implementation of u.n. resolution 1973 which lays out the very clear conditions that need to be met including an immediate cease-fire. a halt to all attacks on civilian and full humanitarian access to all those in need. those are the criteria we believe will fulfill u.n. resolution 1973. but in that respect, and it won't be just the actual coalition of actors who are prosecuting the mandate that would be part of our forces but presumably would be the u.n. itself in some fashion in evaluating when they say your business is done. we now move to phase two,

whatever. >> nothing would please us more than for the kinetic elements to be over and be able to focus on u.n. assistance to the humanitarian effort and to the rebuilding politically and otherwise of libya. as to when that can happen, i go back to the point, ask colonel gadhafi i'm afraid rather than -- [inaudible] >> will you won't. >> already provided libyan opposition with body armor communications equipment and now providing a small number of -- presumably your that this falls within the provisions of resolution 1973. my question is, is this the first step towards directly arming the opposition and will that fall within the u.n. resolution?

>> no, it's not a first step. we've been very careful this is mentoring, not training. as i made the point, this comes inside the legal advice we get. make sure we're always very safely inside resolution 1973. our mentoring role is to insure that the opposition forces are able to organize themselves with better logistics, communications are better and we believe this is vital to their stated role and their ability to help protect the civilian population better so it is not the first step, nor is it intended to be. >> well, you made a decision now which, some people would say a distinction without difference. but rather than argue that, do you think that the libyan opposition is actually sufficiently organized and trained to be able to make proper use of the equipment it has gotten and the

equipment we give to it, relative to the equipment we're giving it? >> well, we know that there was on opposition side a very disparate grouping. they're not trained military. as we've seen from tv pictures. i saw yesterday a doctor and a others discussing how they had taken up arms to protect their families and their communities without any training. so clearly they are at a disadvantage in that sense. but i go back to the point i made at the outset that we are not there to be involved in choosing a side that will govern libya ultimately. we're there to protect the civilian population. we judge that as part of that protection of the civilian population to give those opposition forces greater capabilities in terms of organization, in

terms of logistics, in terms of communications. is well within what we believe we are able to do. in terms of training and supplying weapons, there are clearly arms embargo that applies to two sides. >> the logic is unasailable. the question is whether it is something that will result in the -- [inaudible] we regard the national transitional council i think the legitimate political organization, but if they sufficiently unify and represent the realistic government for the country, i mean something that has been pulled together with the current military struggle, future for the economy and rest of it? >> if i may ask, want to say something, about that. but, i know, let's be frank about this conflict. if we want to see our

objectives achieved then one would be seeing a military force capable of taking over the regime. we have made very clear we are not in the business for that. that's not what the resolution allows to us do. it is not within the aims of the united nations or nato. if we want to change the equalibrium nonetheless, we have to change in the regime vis-a-vis the civilian population. that is the option open to us by continued use of air power and degradation of assets of the the gadhafi regime. it is clearly the side or the path we have chosen to take within the legality set out by the u.n. resolution. i think to give an answer to the question of the transition council. >> -- [inaudible]

to say that it has huge challenges. we have diplomatic mission alongside of them for about three weeks. and we've been getting to know them through that process. we think potentially they could be become an organization as you say, represents all of libya. they are quite careful to make sure they have reppen representatives from not only eastern part but misurata and western areas and so on. there are experienced people there and for example, the justice minister. and there are others with a range of skills. and their program is one that is, of think we would find admirable and they seek to establish over sometime representative government, to move in time towards elections and so on. we think they have the right aspirations and potentially the capability but i

wouldn't say that they don't face huge challenges as well. >> in relation to the body armor that was supplied, it was supplied to the opposition forces. with any restrictions whether it was used by civilians or not? >> no restrictions for distribution by the --. >> chairman the provision of body armor is permitted under the nonlethal military equipment exception arms embargo, paragraph 9-a of resolution 1970. but doesn't require prior approval from the sanctions committee. it falls under that resolution. given the pressing nature of the requirement and the provisions that the committee has already referred to, under an op-4 of resolution 1973, it was determined that an immediate dispatch of the equipment

were the most appropriate course of action t was to enable those forces to protect themselves as they defended their communities against those forces threatening civilians. we believe there was an overwhelming case for doing so. >> so the provision of body armor for the protection of civilians was to enable forces to protect themselves? that is the word you just used. >> it is provision to the opposition and to any civilian police was to enable them to protect themselves as they defended the civilian population. >> so can i, this is to be used for those who are in defensive position to try to stop an attack into an town to defend civilians or in terms of forward infantry trying to charge up the road and destroy -- >> primarily, the primary

provision was to be able to protect themselves as they defended their communities. we saw an over well bhing need for those who were protecting the communities and if you look at places like people trying to protect their own community, that they themselves could be as adequately as protected as possible. not i think an unreasonable thing. >> so you would expect this body armor to be used essentially by the soldiers of the opposition in protecting the civilians? is that a fair summary of what you said? >> first of all, it is difficult to determine who is a soldier and who is not. >> that's a very good point. >> i think anybody involved in the protection of civilians feels the criteria and they may well be themselves civilians protecting themselves. so where these items of body armor go in many ways moot

because they're all involved in this. >> how much is this body armor worth? >> that may seem a very small question in the overall cost of all of this. i'm just wondering who provided it to -- >> it came from contingent stocks. which weren't for current u.k. operations. as for a price tag, chairman, i'm unable to give you that. but i'm not sure if sir watkins is able to do that. >> mr. watkins. >> i don't have a precise figure, mr. chairman. this is basically stock, armor we had in stock against our potential needs. we are in the process of replacing that armor as part of our routine replacement program. so it was available to be given to the opposition like

we said. i can't give you a precise value on it at the moment. i think it would be quite difficult to value it anyway because it is not something you can put on ebay and seek bids on. >> you can buy harriers on ebay. >> there is a huge strategic leap in all senses from an air war to a ground war. and not a grand war. a -- ground war, a team of observers on the ground, boots on the ground and i think this is quite a worrying development because of course it will be argued that security council resolution 1973 but what happens when the military team we put on the ground comes back to you, sir, and says, we believe that it is

an absolute requirement to help these people that they have, say, forward air controllers, trainers, liaison officers with the forces? because they are observers but i'm slightly concerned by what, if they're observers, are they actually helping the military of the opposition or are they just watching? or are they not watching, that is my question? like you to comment on that, sir. >> we have very clearly defined to the team in terms of mentoring the to opposition in terms of to improve the transitional national council's ability to protect civilians in civilian-populated areas. we've been very clear from the advice, the legal advice that we have and it should be limited to enabling them to organize their internal

structures, to prioritize their resources and communicate more effectively. we have not at any point sought any advice on going further in that role. we're very clear that this is about the protecting the civilian population. of course there is a difference between ground forces and air war. we all understand the limitations but in passing the resolution for the no-fly zone, international community took it out of that. we recognized that there are, there are limitations. but, it was also very clear that it would be completely unacceptable to have foreign forces on libyan soil for political reasons which i'm sure i do not need to go into. >> has the security council been consulted on the deployment of this team of observers? are they, presumably they're aware that, have they

tacitly approved it or do they, the russians and the germ nance and the chinese, content with this deployment? >> we're very clear. that from the advice that the government gets we're acting entirely within resolution 1973 and we've been careful at all times to do so and it is a view shared by a number of other countries in terms of this mentoring process. and i think as we have at all times made very clear that our basis for acting is that we believe it is justified in terms of protecting the civil yags -- civilian population and assisting groups themselves protecting the civilian population. >> i think that was an answer to a different question. asked you whether the security council had been consulted about this. >> i'm not sure that the legal basis is a need to do

that. >> [inaudible]. they are certainly aware that --, announced by the foreign secretary and i'm sure by our ambassador in new york will have brought it to the attention of the appropriate authorities there. >> my final question is, if one of these military officers was captured, are we sure that they will be treated properly under the geneva conventions and not treated by gadhafi as a spy? >> general. >> i think that is hard to tell. certainly gadhafi is not rational. we have made every attempt to make sure they are not captured by defining very carefully the limits of their activity and making sure that we have plans to recover them if they believe the risk is increasing, just as we have with the rest of

the -- >> get them out, great. thank you. >> also, mr. chairman, even if colonel gadhafi has scant respect for international law or human life, that those who are members of his forces might have those values. >> can i come back to one issue about the united nations, the issue of the possibility of seeking a new manned diet or a new resolution. i mentioned earlier that there was no mention in 1973 of the issue of lablian peoples choosing their own government. -- libyan people choosing their own government. would that not be preferable if a resolution could be taken through the united nations expressing that as being the end goal? >> as i said, chairman, my best view it would be

self-evident we would want the people of libya to be able to determine their own future. why else would be as an international community intervening to protect them? i'm not aware of any suggestion that there has been that, this would require us to go back to the united nations but i'm perfectly happy to discuss it with our colleagues in the foreign office. if there have been any such notions at all of such a necessity i'm not aware of any myself. >> [inaudible]. we're not yet to the point where the resolution, 1973, has been completely fulfilled. so it seems to us a little bit premature to be talking already in terms of another resolution. >> can i ask you about nato command-and-control processes and structure? one question might be, if you're comfortable with getting answers that is probably yes but i would

like to explore that a little bit more if i could about its efficiency and this question of legality within it. we got a new element now. you mentioned it yourself. we've got predators. we've got drones. general cartwright from america says the difference is that, what did he say? he said when you're struggling to pick friend from foe, a vehicle like a predator can get down lower and get i.d.'s better that helps us. this is the business about picking out all the rest of the things that is in the american press. how is the targeting process being run that includes nato-plus nations, be it nato-driven process in terms of targeting and making decisions based upon the assets that are now sable? -- available? disappears in a garden shed that's what you can do if you need to, that's an easy

target. the question of drones might be more difficult. how the target something working and are you satisfied the legality and -- [inaudible] >> thank you. there are two forms of targeting. first of all the deliberate targeting which is boarded at every level in nato and indeed boarded in the u.k. by the secretary of state where we address very carefully the issues of necessity, proportionality and legality. so that is done comprehensively throughout the nato system and fundamentally culminates in the joint task force commanders headquarters in naples. so that's deliberate targeting. it is fixed sites and installations. the point you make about predator is because that is a dynamic targeting. it is moving or certainly not visible for a long period of time and the rules for those engagements are even more demanding in that

you have to absolutely identify that it is hostile and that it also fills this question of proportionality and necessity and those conditions are set in the rules of engagement which are very clearly mandated throughout nato and then in the cockpit of the jet so the pilot has to also be convinced that target is legitimate. >> and the legal advice within the process? >> delivered at all levels by legal advice and fundamentally back to the attorney general. >> [inaudible]. at the point that the operation was launched under nato command we went, ministry of defense, the legal advice source, went through the nato rules of engagement line by line. compared them with our u.k. rules of engagement and made satisfy ourselves they were legal in every respect. >> can i just -- add to

that. to maybe, give a sense of what it meant we were looking how we would go about generically about targeting. as i said at the outset we are very, very careful in any selection of targets we would do so only when we were absolutely convinced there was minimal risk to civilians. when we transferred that targeting process on to nato we made very clear that the rules under which we had been operating up to that point were the rules that our own forces would be expected to live up to under the nato process and to that extent we have, as well as other countries have, effectively a red card says our forces will live up to certain ethical values in carrying out this mission. it has not been an issue.

as mr. watkins says, they have followed very much what we followed. >> yes. it is important for us to be sure that our people, british people are also protected but they are subject to the acc as you say. there you are. that is interesting take we can later about the -- [inaudible] >> can i get assurance, very personal assurance of that? because when, when it comes to conflict and a secretary of state is actually asked to look at specific judgements, i took, the government took from the outset that we would set our assessment of acceptable civilian casualties as close to zero as was possible to be. i can give, this government could give and this country could give an absolute assurance to the people of libya and the people of the region that at all times we have sought as far as is

humanly possible to minimize civilian casualties because it makes a difference to our moral position in conflict and it makes a difference to our ability to maintain a wide political ally oons. >> i think that is a very important and helpful statement and i'm grateful to you for making it. >> absolutely are. and that's what we're trying to insures. can i just pursue this question about the targeting a little bit further though and the length of the process. seems as though we have norway and sweden saying they will be in six months. there is talk about us being three months or us being in for six months. turkey has a slightly different position than spain and so on. and under the command-and-control structures i mean what that tell us about how that process can run over time? should it need to run for a

period longer than three months? >> would thought in this committee more than others would well be aware of this sort of debate in isaf about who would be there for what length of time and there are clearly very strong parallels here. would exactly how it operates on the ground. >> i think nato structure that circumscribes all this targeting business, to use your phrase is, is designed for resilience and persistence. that the structure can exist as long as nato requires it to exist. as nations come in and out of the structure, making sure that the legal requirements are consistent with their requirements is part of that process. >> thank you. >> it's designed to endure and recognizing what the secretary of state has said, we're in this for as long as it takes. >> implications for british

national security, assessment of, the fact that we're in north africa doing things the way we do it, positive or negative, what's the assessment about the impact for british national security about our actions currently in libya? >> what you're doing now as opposed what somebody else is doing. >> office of terrorism within the security council within the home office is monitoring the i amlycations or possible implications very carefully indeed. i can't go into detail obviously but it has been monitored day by day. >> thank you. >> you just said we're in it for as long as it takes. have you any idea how long it will take? >> as i said, it is a question would be well-put were we to do so to colonel gadhafi who is the person who is most able to determine how long this

conflict will continue. if come gadhafi were to stop attacking his people tomorrow, if he were to move to a safe distance and was very clear it was not a continued threat and we were able to get humanitarian assistance to the people of libya unhindered in the way that u.n. resolution 1973 demands of us, we would all be very happy. it is essential that the international community give a very clear signal to the gadhafi regime that our resolve is not time limited. we understand what is being asked of us. we understand what our duty is and our resolve will not be time-limited, will not be short, will not be finite. >> will it take considerably longer for the americans to pull back? i note that pentagon acknowledged that the u.s. continues to provide essential air refueling, 75% aerial surveillance and 100% of all electronic

communications. will it take longer for the americans to pull back their forces? >> well, if we are able to carry out the mission to degrade the regime's capabilities, more quickly, if we have the targeting and we have the range of assets available to maximize the pace. are we grateful that the americans have, for example, made the predator available? yes, we are. do we want all nato partners to be be maximizing what they do in terms of the activities within nato and within the assets available? yes. i have no indication yesterday during my visit to the pentagon that there was anything other than resolution in washington about insuring that resolution 1973 is carried out. >> i'm very concerned about the supply and availability

of missiles both the u.k. and -- where we have sufficient current pace of airstrikes. again i note from the -- they have said 600 mine anythings have been expended. 455 from the u.s. 147 from the coalition. they also go on to say that gadhafi -- diminished ability to command and sustain forces on the ground. therefore warships are staying in port. ammunitions stores are being destroyed. communications is being -- and command focus is being rendered useless. but they still have tactile mobile air-to-air missiles which are still a threat. do we have the capability to

still have number of missiles we will need to tackle those mobil missiles? >> first i may say that is a wonderful description of a nonstalemate. and the speed and the scheme of degradation of his military capabilities. that is about as far from a stalemate as i could describe. excellent description. we believe that we have sufficient munitions and sufficient capabilities to carry out the tasks asset out as far as in the nato mission. but the we will not comment on any specific stocks or any specific armaments held by the united kingdom. >> are the stocks being replaced under contingency reserve? >> in terms -- >> the stocks. >> the cost? being met by the contingency reserve. the chancellor's made it very clear, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> if you permit a smile.

>> again, i would like to raise the issue about communication to the public. are you happy that there's been sufficient communication with the british public about this operation and are you sure and confident that, assure the british public about mission creep and about the risk of further engagement in a long-term mission is being addressed in relation to the public and on what is happening? >> we will take every opportunity we can to get those reassurances which is why, and i'm very grateful we've had the chance to make some very specific points this afternoon and the government has made a number of statements. i don't think anyone could accuse the government of not being forward-leaning in

terms of the willingness to communicate. for example with parliament, although i do accept the attitude if you want to keep a secret and united kingdom know the best place to give it house of commons and least likely place to be reported. but the government is very, very keen that we do at all points make clear that we're acting under the u.n. auspice. that this is the international community that's come together along with arab countries and not just the usual coalition. that we are acting at all times to minimize minimize civilian casualty and we understand the fear about mission creep and we're putting those fears to rest as best we can and as clear as we possibly can and we're being very clear we're setting out to degrade the war-making stability of -- ability of a regime which we

as a country not intervened would have probably unleashed hell of the people of benghazi. it is very hard sometimes to stand up and be very proud about something that you have helped to observe happening but i think in terms of humanitarian catastrophes, what we as an international community stopped from happening in benghazi is something that i think history will be rather kind to us for . . something that i think history will be rather kind to us for if we have been insufficiently clear about blowing our international trumpet about what we have achieved there. that is perhaps a chrissism we can take to heart. having achieved the effect is of extreme importance. >> yes, and i would just like to turn now to the wider region. if we accept that the motivation

is not about regime change, but it's about protecting civilians, we've seen in the >> we've seen this particularly in syria. can i ask in terms of the resolution taking the way for similar resolutions in syria? at what point should that happen, and if it shouldn't happen, why is libya treated differently? the fact that the general public probably don't see the distinction between what's happening in terms of wholesale slaughter in syria as is what's happening in libya. >> you make a good point on which to begin. there's diplomatic activity and again we have to remember how we got this here. in egypt, there was a clear uprising of the people. the armed forces in the countries took a side and would not take the side of the

government in the populations who themselves wanted to control their own destiny. in libya, it's different. in libya, the regime did use its military power to suppress that void in the most brutal way. international community passed a resolution, ultimately two resolutions which gave an ultimatum and they continued to ignore the wishes of the international community and the international community acted. this was after we've been through sanctions, diplomatic pressure, all the means available to us short to persuade him to take the course of action. would we hope that other regimes would learn that they shouldn't o proses other people? of course.

what we've seen in syria is terrible and they come down on their people in the most violence and brutal way, and every one of us condemn that. if there's still the chance it might go the other way, i would hope there's at least a flicker of hope there, and i feel this for the following reason. i was in the gulf at the time of the first on set speech where everybody hoped that it was going to be a reforming moment, and seeing a politician within the region believed -- because i believed they had been briefed to expect this was going on an important moment as when syria would turn the corner -- political reform allowing the voice of the people. in the event there was disappointment and anger that that speech con stained --

contained something very different, but we know the reform was at least being considered and we must rebuttal international pressure now in any way we can saying there's an alternative road for syria, you are on a cross road to the extempt you've gone -- extent you've gone down the wrong road and go back and look at the reform again. we must hope that is possible to happen. >> surely what we've seen in the last 48 hours, there hasn't been a tendency to follow that path. if it's not followed into the 11th hour, particularly those means through another resolution, the logical thing for the government to pursue that with international allies -- >> the foreign secretary made very clear that with our international partners, we will work to not increase the pressure on syria to -- then to

the rule of the international community to ensure that the people of syria are free, safe, and secure. i want to clarify how this happens. >> the point i have to make is in all of these cases, they are different and the political processes are different in every country and what opportunities are available to us differ too. as the secretary of state has said, there's actually very obviously and blatantly opposedfully of the political process. in other countries, that is not the case, and as the foreign secretary said yesterday, the political process in bahrain is not as adverse as we'd like, but it is there, and we are seeking means to engage with them, specifically in yemen where there's been violence and firing on protesters and so on. there's a political process there that we are engaged in so

i think we have to adjust our methods according to the particular circumstance. >> every opportunity given to them by the international community to choose a nonviolent path for its country and people, and they choose not to do that -- >> we agreed before this hearing began that we'd spend the final path, and we've got 20 minutes left to spend on the effect of what's happening in libya on the strategic and security reveal. >> [inaudible] i suggested you find the billion savings for the end of the month, and you somehow went to hunger, but if i look at what it costs us to be in libya, you

know, missiles, each one of them seems to be enormous amount and it's not cheap. it is coming out of -- it is nevertheless still a cost. can you just say in terms whether you think the reprieve which you clearly got in march and the billion you were asked to find, what do you say that might be linked in some way or another with the operations in libya that was clearly not foreseen? >> i was just told that was leading the witness. [laughter] >> this is cross-examination. [laughter] >> we were expecting to obtain an operation in the places we've seen within the parameters that we set.

hunger, the adopted posture in the sdsr, so it has come within our expectations, perhaps the level and speed and intensity has come in an area that we might have hope have fallen into the realms that we are able to do it. >> what are the resources we have which would allow us to -- for how much longer we have the means to be a meaningful partner in that international operation? >> well, we have agreements that the initial costs will be met from the se -- reserve. but to go back to the minor little point that it is very important that these issues are discussed, but it's more

important that we send a clear message in the current mission that we are not going to be limited by pace, and -- >> [inaudible] >> but we have the results to speak through the mission. it is very important we don't signal an end point and we may waiver in our commitment to what we're trying to achieve in libya. >> will you forgive me? >> yeah. >> there's one question i didn't hear an answer. was the reprieve on the billion pounds funding gap caused by the libyan operations? >> that's also if i may say leading the witness. [laughter] the question was correct. what has happened in terms of the way we look at it is i think it would be wrong to -- of course what is happening in

libya is within what we expect our abilities to be on what we set out in the process. we knew that we might be called upon to carry out a mission of this nature, not this specific one, and as i said before, within sdsr and the assumptions we made. other resources require military assets were taken. >> when do you intend to admit to the reprieve on the one billion pounds? >> i think to make statements about pr11 once we passed the elections, chairman. >> fair enough. >> one of my colleagues questioned some of the specific examples, but i wondered if the operations in libya and financials have any impactful planning? >> no, as i said, what happens

in libya in terms of the assets that we have delivered to come within our assumptions we made in the sdsr, and we have a long commitment with an enduring operation, but be able to carry out the operation such as libya and we can carry out the small concurrent mission at the same time. within what we expect that we might at some point be asked to do alongside the circumstances. >> you still see this as sustainable criteria even if this is a medium term? >> we believe it's sustainable, and we believe that we will have not only the military, but political will to carry this through to ensure that the u.n. resolution is offered.

>> with open message? >> well, being frank, there are those who talk about reopening the sdsr. we mean reopening the csr. people mean that there should be more defense spending, and they should say so. if we have a delivering of the sdsr within the same financial envelope with the same policy assumptions and in the same real world given the parties, we're likely to come to the same conclusions. if people believe we should be spending more, that's an argument to make, but let them say what taxes to raise or what budgets to cut or not to continue the habit of borrowing money as was the case before. it's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but the two should not be completed to say that we should reopen the sdsr without change to the financial expenditure would flight the

suggestion of the committee and might be a futile exercise. >> you're saying we will stay there for as long as it takes, we have the money, we can meet it. is that what you say? >> we are sending a clear signal today from the committee to the regime in libya that we intend to fulfill our obligation under the u.n. resolution, and our resolve will not waiver and do what it takes along with our allies to complete the mission. >> can i just be clear? i understood what was being said that the cost is current, the current contribution that we're making to the particular activity should it sustain itself over a six month period at the current rate it's spending it amounts to about a billion pounds; is that correct? >> i'm not able to give the committee figures on that, although we will have discussions with the treasury, but i pointed out earlier there's a chance that gave the

promise that extra costs of this mission would be met from the reserve. >> we're learning valuable lessons from the current air operations with the ongoing libyan events and also the war and the hostile world. how many lessons caused you to recollect or reconsider the scrapping of the carriers and the carrier-based facilities? >> this gives us capability that carrier could not, and in addition to the way for laser or gps-guided bombs, it gives us the stand off, deep penetration capability with storm shadow,

the storm shadow missile and british missile, a low collateral weapon for use in urban areas. in addition, the carrier did not and tornado has a longer rate than carrier and needs to be refueled less frequently and tornado has a two-man crew helping with better mission control from the air and if i may just remind the committee of the logistics legacy, there were not enough value to do afghanistan and what we've been asked to do in libya had we taken the intensive decision, and asking had we had another three billion pounds, we would have kept more aircraft and the answer is yes, but you remember we were dealing with the 158 billion deficit. >> i won't get drawn into the

states and finding the money and what options need to be driven. defense should be -- you mentioned range and logistics. you probably won't correct me if i was to suggest that we're currently running at least one of our aircraft from norfolk to italy. do you not accept the effort the sole committee made that if you have others, you would not have to have a 2 twowrks-3,000 refueling tank? >> capability is what we wanted to have and the ability with storm shadow to achieve the military effect it does, the ability with brimstone as i said. they are flexible, precise, a collateral weapon fitting very neatly with our wish that i've stated on to minimize civilian

casualties. they are not options that would have been available to us. we have that. it is tempting i know for those who want the decision to have been something else to say that, well, this is all about the money. primarily, this is about the capabilities and general capewell might want to say something about why this is beneficial to us. >> i think the fact is first of all the italian nation has been generous providing us with a huge range of airfields to operate on, and i think in many ways the mounting of this operation from italy where the command control is also based is a very effective way of delivering the campaign from there. >> are you denying that you're currently flying out? >> i think at the early stage there's worth planning for tomorrow. there are some tornadoes flying,

they're in sicily. that's correct. that's a big assumption people make. >> they were flown -- >> but no longer. >> no longer. okay, on the issue of tornadoes themselves, there's different areas. secretary of state, i wonder if you would think that now might be a good time to pause whether or not we should cut the number of tornado and aerobases given both this operation and potential operations elsewhere? >> well, of course, the basic view which is likely to come to fruition some time in the summer and i imagine the city will want -- committee will want to ask questions about that. of course, the decision to reduce the tornado is not part

of the sdsr of the that was part of the previous government's planning, so it was a decision where which ones to get rid of led to the incoming government with the decision made by the previous government so it's not part of the agreement to reopen the csr as well as other elements, but there has been -- as far as i can tell an obviously we listen to the military advice, there is no operational restriction on the assumptions we're making for numbers at the present time. >> okay. my final question, mr. chairman, is how do you ask either or the royal navy and royal air force to work out what would be involved in spinning that up, the ability, either more tornadoes or brings planes

back up to their level or bringing back into carriers striking capability, and have you asked them what is the point of no return for making either of those decisions? >> what they asked us for specific capabilities which are provided by tornado and would not have been provided by air, and that is, i remember the very first time i came before this committee, i said we have to make decisions, hard-headed ones on the basis of the capabilities we required, not sentiments. >> have you asked them what is the point of no return for those capabilities? >> we made our decision that we were going to retire harriet. since that, there's the experience of what was required and more than capable by tornado, the aircraft, and, of

course, pilots in conjunction. there is no need to deal that sufficient, and we are not doing so. >> okay. thank you. >> in libya having a massive impact on our other operations, in particular, operations in afghanistan? >> no, and at all times we have been very clear that our main effort is against them. that is what the enemy does above and beyond all else, and in the department was asked to take what we have available for libya, looking as what we might require in terms of support which people see the fast jets and the front line capabilities, we are always very careful that nothing that we would offer or

commit to libya would interfere with our main effort in afghanistan. >> yeah, absolutely. the facts are that we have many in afghanistan today. >> what's the potential massive impact on personnel and extended residence in going to afghanistan? [inaudible] >> the potential impacts of the leave in afghanistan which is going very well, going very quickly, in fact, and we have not had an impact on afghanistan through what's happened in libya, and as i made clear, we are always assuming that we would be able to carry out a large enduring mission like afghanistan and an intervention

like libya as well as a smaller one. that is what is planned for and we've so far been able to achieve. i have to say thanks to the incredible commitment by the forces. >> but what has been the actual impact in terms of people for example that have leave canceled and some have been mentioned. >> i'm not aware of that. the general may well be. i'm unsure if that was the case, and i think that would have been brought to my attention. >> i think it would be quite helpful to decide not today, but if you could look into that, i think it's important that we understand if we are going to be

doing things like libya that we understand what the commitment is for the long haul. >> they haven't delivered any specific cases that are being sited to see whether or not that is happening because the areas that we should be able to endure in afghanistan and without having the ability has impacts on our personnel. >> how is that currently being monitored? i can give you evidence of that, the impact the traditional operations will be having on the forces, and how does that work? >> i think we got to have a specific and precise case, but i think the harmony rules is what you're getting to. some of them may have well been broken for all sorts of reason.

there's delays if you're talking about afghanistan. in libya, i can't state a specific example that supports your thesis. we'll be more than happy to look at the individual cases as there may be elements we're not aware of. we have to look at it. >> from the question the secretary said because we know you have to go. the national security counsel, how has this been operating in relation to all of this and in relation to the decision to support the no-fly zone cease fire and the united nations resolution? >> i think the nfc has been operating increasingly well, as well as the security counsel itself, the subcommittee, the nfcl which met on a very regular basis and the nfclo of officials that meets on an even more

regular basis, and i think that's some -- cbs was here, and i can speak for him too. the flow of information -- [siren] [laughter] that was a new one. [laughter] the flow of information that comes to us to help us understand what is happening on the ground and the decisions that we will have to take come to the table and the process now is getting into a rhythm where the meetings are in predictable time scale, and i think that's the nfc adopted quickly to what has been, let's face it, a major challenge, an area of significance. >> do you have the impression that the nsc is on top of and overall strategy for the whole of the region in case this

continues for a long time? >> that -- they have looked at the region as a whole. it would simply be untrue, chairman, to say that any policymaker in the western world has been on top of the speed at which events have happened in the middle east and north africa. nobody -- none of the self-professed experts i talk to predicted tunisia or egypt in the speed that happened in syria or libya. the talks i had in the united states yesterday, we speak of change of events is such that everybody is having to assess and reassess as we go on what the impacts are, what that means for security in the region, what it means for our national security has been eluded to during this session, and what

what it -- also what it means for our allies and interests abroad, and i think if there's one thing that politicians would be right to have in view of the speed of events, it's a little humility, but we are not always quite as able to understand what is about to happen next as sometimes we'd like to pretepid. >> indeed so, so therefore we have to be prepared for all events with a defense capability that is strong and always available. secretary of state, thank you very much indeed to all threw of you for giving evidence to us today. my personal assessment is you have fulfilled your mission in presenting a firm resolve to continue with this. our mission to gain clarity of exactly where we are going, i don't think we have fulfilled

quite successfully as i think you have fulfilled yours, but no doubt, there's further opportunities to do that during parliament in the next week. >> [inaudible] >> secretary of state, order, order. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> the white house says president obama will make personnel announcements this afternoon. we'll have live coverage starting at 3:10 eastern. the president with say cia leader replaces robert gates. mr. gates retires at the end of june, and general petraeus takes the position of the head of cia. they are appointed to senate confirmation. live coverage beginning here at 3:10 eastern on c span2.

>> i said semi-the bill in its present form, i will sign it. okay, any questions? [laughter] >> are you still here? spent almost every year the president and shoulders meet at the white house correspondents dinner to make fun of themselves at their own expense. president obama will head there again this saturday. watch live or go back and watch a pasadena. search, watch, clip and share online at the c-span video library. every program since 1987. watch what you want when you want. >> pictures from the national press club here in washington the second were former senator rick santorum is about to outline his vision for u.s. foreign policy.

in march fox news suspend his contract because of his attempt to run for the office. this week make it appears in the early primary states of iowa and new hampshire. the ethics and public policy center with which mr. santorum holds a fellowship is the host of this event. live coverage on c-span2. >> legislative accomplishment include working on debt relief from poverty nations come he was also later on u.s.-israeli relations and author both syria accountability act and the iran freedom and support act. which he successfully fought to pass in spite of initial opposition by president bush. he also fought to rid the scourge of aids him only from the continent of africa, and in 2006 he gave a speech at the national press club on the gathering storm of the threats that face america. sinter santorum's speech day will focus on where we have come since he left the senate in

2007. after the speech, senator santorum looks forward to your questions. i would just ask that you state your name and organization, prior to your succinct question. it's my pleasure to introduce senator rick santorum. [applause] >> thank you very much, randy, and thank you for your work. good afternoon, everybody. thank you all for coming out. i want to speak today about our country, and president obama's foreign policy. many americans have invested their hopes and dreams in this administration looking forward to a new day of respect, a new era of international relationships and ushering in a new peace in the world. so how are we doing? how is the world doing? are we closer to a more peaceful world that respects human freedom, protect human rights,

and promote human flourishing? the original title of my talk as you see from outside was america and the world. after working on this beach while i change it to americans and the world. because it's become clear to me that the rest of the citizens of the rest of the world look to us, the choices we make, the concerns we elevate, and the values and virtues we americans esteemed. why? do they because of our military might? our pop culture or strong economy, are star athletes? or because of our social welfare programs. unlike president obama i believe we were a great country even before the great society programs of the 1960s. they look to us because we were great from our birth and declaration of independence. it said we hold these truths to be self-evident. that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

when we founded our country, that proposition itself was not completely novel. it had historic and theological roots in western civilization. but no country until the american dedicated itself to that proposition. we cast off the doctrine of the divine right of teams. we cast off the notion that any man had a right to rule any other man. and held instead that all people have the right to fulfill their own not given potential. americans were not born to be servants of the state. the state existed to keep me in three. what does this have to -- keep men free. it took a long time for us to meet the goals and principles we set for ourselves. but led by people who did not ignore the moral issues of the day, like abraham lincoln. we extended those principles to

all americans. lincoln understood the global and eternal meaning of our founding principles. lincoln said of our founders, quote, they erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children's children. and the countless millions who should inhabit the earth in other ages. wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants so they established these great self-evident truths so that truth and justice and mercy, and all humane and christian virtues, my not be extinguished from the land so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built. in the quote. this has been our legacy. this has been our mission. it is who we are and for the most part, who we have been. a courageous people who speak

the truth, seek justice, and practice mercy. a people who stood against both the arbiters and realities of tyranny and oppression. the people of and committed to the very best principles of western civilization. america in a nutshell is all about you. and your freedom here so you can provide for yourself, and serve those who you love. your family, your god, and your neighbors. not to provide for the government. and that freedom belongs to each of us equally because we recognize that we are all created equal, not in the ability, not in wealth or character, but in the eyes of our creator. america is truly a moral enterprise. by establishing ourselves as a nation on this basis, we have inspired and actively aided those around the world who aspire to our ideals, and,

unfortunately, at times we've had to confront those who do not only reject those fundamental rights and freedoms, but threaten ours. sometimes we've done this through sacrifice, blood and might. and sometimes we have done this by simply living out our own creed, faithfully. tony blair who recently wrote about how we are examples of how our example, excuse me, impacts people all over the world. he said quote, for those people in that bleak wilderness, america does stand out. it does shine. it may not be a house in their land, they can aspire to, but it is a house they can see in the distance. and in seeing, knowing, that how they do live is not how they must live, and quote. so what are the unique features of the american experiment, the

soft power of example, the rest of the world has known us for? i would argue that there are four fundamentally un-american contributions to the world that define not only how we organize our government, but how we have organized our lives. first, free markets which are rooted in excellence, hard work and innovation. like bill gates is a which of creative capitalism, entrepreneurship and commerce that creates opportunity and rewards, success, and tolerates failure. it is not in itself immoral, but moral behavior is essential for its efficient operation. and, of course, it is faith which rightly informs our moral behavior. if we can nurture the combination of the untapped entrepreneurial genius of our age, with properly formed consciousness, our market economy can become the new frontier of freedom and

opportunity. which brings me to the second contribution, religious pluralism. this means that people of faith have the right to pursue their beliefs and not be accused either by government or by the majority. americans have the date graphically harsh secular cleansing of the public square and the establishment of the church by the state which, of course, has been europe's history, and it appears to be islam's future. this is the only ground upon which we can truly live in peace with our differences. and also advance the world teachings which are essential for freedom to thrive. third, generosity and humanitarianism. america has a uniquely robust civil society. as observed almost 200 years ago by -- this is how we primarily for love our neighbor. we are generous with our time and our treasure.

and, finally, a system of governance that promotes human flourishing, seeks the common good, and maximizes personal liberty. rule of law, checks and balances, separation of church and state, subsidy energy, and federalism. our founders understood that man's nature is inclined towards self and sin, and that no one person or institution should have the opportunity to consolidate power. less the freedom of others be taken away. nevertheless, we all know that sometimes the soft power of example in charity is simply not enough. not against our dictators who threaten to blow out all the world lights around us. even though our current leadership may have forgotten, i will never forget the open letter several world leaders, including spain's and the czech republic's, wrote in 2003, they wrote and i quote, thanks in large part to american bravery,

generosity and farsightedness, europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century. not season and communism. thanks also to the continued cooperation between europe and the u.s. we've managed to guarantee peace and freedom for our continent. that bravery and generosity has marked not only -- excuse me, has marked us not only in times of peace, but also in times of war. we have gone to war, we've done so not for riches or greed, or for national expansion. instead, we have done so to defend our freedoms and to make us safer by helping others be free or. freedom has been our watchword, our anchor, and our moral guide for nearly every cause both here and abroad. but today we have lost this nation because our president doesn't believe in it.

he has asked point blank whether he believed in american exceptionalism, and his answer was, people of every culture thing that they are exceptional. when he speaks of our greatness as a country, he ties it to our modern social welfare system. and when he confronts other countries on their human rights abuses, which he does only rarely i might add, he does so by pointing out that we, too, have problems to apologize for. as if on an equal playing, with countries like china. a president who doesn't understand the greatness of america and the american experiment cannot confidently advance our interests. if he will not or cannot lead, who around the world will follow? americans are worried about our current foreign policy, because it was reset in a series of apologies to the world.

for our past actions. when a president goes to the u.n. for speaks abroad and apologizes for our country, and her immediate past policies, which do not advance our security, we diminish our credibility. such behavior is also inconsistent with our values and our history. john kennedy never apologize to the world for dwight eisenhower. ronald reagan never apologized for jimmy carter. nor george bush for bill clinton. yes, each present set their own agenda, but they each did so based on a few that our power and our greatness was what was most important, not our own domestic political victories. each understood this because each understood the long-term virtue and value of america, both here at home and abroad. but now we have caused very dangerous thing from the world

stage, confusion and doubt. we now have a confused foreign policy in the hottest spots of the world. especially in the middle east. we have allies and freedom fighters all over the world who doubt our time-tested and time-honored commitments to them. over the past four years i focus my time and attention on national security matters, as randy making, the ethics of public policy centers, program to promote and protect americans freedom. a program i found it to write and talk about the threats that continue to face our country. and from the world around. my work has been particularly focus on two coaches, iran and venezuela. and perhaps nothing is illustrate the failure of president obama's foreign policy more than how we have dealt with iran. both its leadership and its people. iran's bureaucracy has been at war with us for over 30 years.

in 2009, there was a chance to end of that. there was a chance for freedom in iran. i've been a believer and an advocate for the possibility since my years in the senate. i offered the iran freedom support act which among other things provide millions of dollars for the pro-democracy movement in iran. at first my bill was opposed by both president bush and senator obama. both eventually relented your the bill was passed, but neither of them as president implemented their provisions. as a result we were not ready when the spark struck. so rather than supporting the dissidents there, dissidents asking for our help, the president continued his policy of engaging and effectively supporting the mullahs. the result, the dissidents were brutally crushed. now instead be able to face the leaders in iran who would be grateful for us today, we still

have the same leadership in iran that wants to destroy us and our allies in the region. let's make no mistake about what happened there. in 2009. be cited with evil because our president believes our enemies, our legitimate or greed, and we have no standing to intervene. in 2003 i offered and secure the passage of history and accountability act which was used as leverage to pressure iran's facile state serious, to get out of lebanon. yet to see a continued to stabilize, open hostility to israel and support for terrorism has been rewarded. by this president. after years of withholding diplomatic recognition, this administration restored it. and as our secretary of state was publicly broadcasting that it was -- that it was assad's regime was committed to reform,

it was at the same time cracking down even harder and killing its own people. yet in egypt this year we chose not to stand by another authoritarian leader. only this leader was not a longtime enemy, but an ally. it seems almost by definition that our allies are seen by this administration as complicit with our past sins. therefore, our policies have been to consistently turn our backs on them. in this case in favor of what now looks like a power vacuum, being filled by the muslim brotherhood. as for libya, it's a morass. if we were going to support the rebel forces, we should have acted swiftly and decisively in the early days of the benghazi uprising by recognizing an army, army, and he merely enforcing a no-fly zone, decisive action against gadhafi would have been the end of them. that is not what we did.

instead, the president delayed any comment for several days and announced his support for a dash of expelling gadhafi. even did it by doing nothing to effectuate that policy, and ultimately deferred to the arab league, the french and the u.n. but with the proviso that our policy was now different, not to overthrow gadhafi. and in the meantime because we abdicated our leadership, nato has been put in a state of disarray. what we are was -- is akin to other applications of moral authority that embarked the past several years in dealing with other authoritarian threats dealing in socialism. from acquiescence to china's saber rattling, does the south china sea to impotence in the face of venezuela's use of petrol dollars to expand its boulevard and revolution into our hemisphere, president obama has at best refused to defend

our interests. americans are more than familiar as a country with our long battle with secular ideologies, national socialism, fascism and marxism. with few exceptions our leaders from roosevelt to reagan were clear and defined them, and judging them, for the evil that they represented. today, our leaders have opted for political correctness, referring to are theologically motivated enemies as simply terrorists. but as i said here in 2006, terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. and you existential threat to america, sharia and its violent adoration jihadism, has yet to be adequately explained by our leaders, except using the term terror to describe its military profile. and its violent widespread and fanatical. but it is morecommon including

the nonviolent efforts to insinuate sharia law in western countries, including our own. however, according to this administration, our enemies theology and ideology doesn't matter. the administration has decoupled what fuels of the enemy their behavior. that's why the administration's review of the fort hood massacre inexplicably was not mentioned the word muslim, islam, sharia or jihad. yet the truth is, the enemy is motivated by an interpretation of islam, sharia, that is antithetical to american civilization. we were taught to render things which are caesar's, and unto god, the things which are got. to the jihadists, there is one religious and secular law, sharia. and all man-made laws are an affront to this perfect god-given code.

as bernard lewis has pointed out, quote the dichotomy of was crucial to western civilization, but has no equipment and political islam your the profit is the state, end quote. understand this conflict is crucial to understanding why jihadists are trying to kill us. they know what we stand for, freedom and equality. they have a worldview that opposes freedom of conscious, or as our worldview is built on it. they oppressed women and minorities, where as we view them as equals that we must respect. they abused and killed christians, jews and even of the muslim who affirmed that the freedom to believe is important as freedom itself. excuse me, the police itself. millions of such muslims here and abroad want no more to submit to the barbaric sharia laws than do the rest of us. they are our natural allies, this fight against this common

enemy. we should have no illusions about the extent of this threat. radical islam is extending its tentacles from africa to america. and at the heart of this threat is iran, which is aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapon, while at the same time it continues to fund jihadists organizations like hezbollah and hamas. in the past two years, has a good or appeasing this threat been successful? have offers of talks and negotiations deterred the threat? did our willful abandonment of the terms relating sharia law doctrine to violence produce a less virulent and less aggressive enemy? no, no, and absolutely no. finally, one of the point about state-sponsored jihadists. prior to their enrichment from all know, many such countries did not have the technology and resources to project power or

fund jihadists cells. our continued reliance on foreign oil will not only continue to cost us jobs, and as we seek growth, but it threatens our national security. the best way to start the state-sponsored jihadists of resources is to produce more liquid fuels here in america. as for the other main threat to the world, militant socialism, we see it in many guises and many places. there's a soft economic socialism that is turning much of europe into a toothless tiger, and an economic basket case that has begun to do here. there is the hard socialism in all its forms that we see in places like china or north korea. and then there's our very own hemisphere of latin america. i speak of our hemisphere on this day, today, the birthday of james monroe, the man who gave us the monroe doctrine. a doctrine that said it would

make no clonus claims a broad, but neither would we tolerate the crushing of sovereignty in our own hemisphere. can we honestly say that latin america is better off now than it was three years ago? the region thriving with prosperity, freedom, sovereignty and democracy. no, we cannot. as i mentioned, i focused also on venezuela, complaint for the very beginning, even under president bush's administration that we were ignoring hugo chavez's ambitions and threats. we have gone from bad to worse. two years ago when honduran democratic institutions, real democrats, were fighting a proxy battle with hugo chavez, we side with the chavez ally. in south america, the president has chosen domestic politics over perhaps our best ally in the continent, that knows how to fight the drug cartels and stand up to chavez, columbia.

without u.s. support, columbia has been isolated to the point where they have recently chosen to appease chavez and his drug trafficking friends over the interest of the united states. let's be clear. venezuela is growing in influence in latin america teeming with iran, russia and china are in supporting drug cartels and jihadists training camps. we have sat idly by as chavez has nationalized u.s. company investments, shut down the free press, harassed jews and christians and jailed opponents. and our response has been to ignore it. it was just report one of the most wanted jihadists criminals in the world came to brazil via iran, from tehran to caracas, a fly called arrow terror by the intelligence community. for most likely transporting terrorists, suspects to south

america. in fact, the venezuelan government shields passenger list from interpol on that flight. the point is this. he came to recruit brazilians to be trained in iran. for what? to build bridges of understanding to reciprocate, to present obama's naïve overtures? if you believe that i have another bridge to sell you. immediately to our south we despair over mexico. it's not a failed state, but it could be. and by several criteria is serving more value than the iraqis today. the violence and drug running is a real threat to our country. and critical to our border states. consider also the growing presence of jihadism south of the border. and the question must be asked, white house at president secured our borders? here's another case of putting domestic political objectives above the national security of our country. let me be clear again.

to negotiate with hard socialist states, or to whitewash and ignore the threats and actions, in this hemisphere or elsewhere, is to accommodate its leaders and its aggression, and that is surrender. i hovered remain an optimist about america's potential to again lead the world, and i don't mean that some in the white house have recently said, leading from behind. by reclaiming our legacy, we can make ourselves more secure and help the rest of the world become more stable and free. let me suggest a 10-point plan to reverse our course, restoring our greatness, and reestablishing america's standing in the world. first, we need to begin by seeing the world the way it truly is. we need to see evil for what it is, and confront it. and we need to see decency what it is, and nurture it. earlier this month the president suggested deep cuts in our

military. wrong signal, wrong effort, at the wrong time. now is not the time to not only be -- now is the time not only to the increasing our military preparedness, but to finish the task of comprehensive missile defense systems. nothing is so helpful to negotiations towards peace as ronald reagan showed, as overwhelming strength in defense. to ignore this lesson in the pursuit of utopian ideals of a nuclear-free world is both irresponsible, naïve, and dangerous. while we are at it we should resort our missile defense commitments to poland and the czech republic. another case of turning our backs on friends to appease a potential foe. what small country in need of friends will see any advantage to being our ally? if we do not reverse such decisions. second, we need to understand we are in a war, a hot war of

courts as well as a war of ideas. this year to define our foes less we be politically incorrect does not dissuade them from seeking our destruction. they know who they are. they tell us who they are. and they can -- as signs of weakness and the revolution. such behavior causes despair among our allies, and, of course, confusion here at home. we should begin reversing course by defining what animates them. sharia, and enlisting muslims who agree with us to help us defeat them. third, we need a reinvigorated human intelligence apparatus in the middle east so we can better understand the enemy and identify opportunities to counteract them. fourth, we need to change our information operations abroad to promote our core values of freedom, equality, democracy. just as we did with the soviet

empire in the 1980s. we are in a clash of civilizations. and we will ultimately win with ideas and ideals are not words of appeasement, and certainly not hollywood culture. fifth, we must seize our verbal, moral and diplomatic equivalent as between good and evil. syria does not deserve and ambassador. it's protesters deserve support. israeli housing starts should not be put on a level moral plane as hamas terror attacks. and china should be challenged on religious liberty, rather than be given a veto on human rights activists we wish to support. six, having supported popular sovereignty abroad, for this in the previous administration have aired in failing to sufficiently support the conditions of liberty and the institutions necessary for successful

democracy. too often we have aired in thinking that liberties first order of business is a vote. election should be a consummation and not a commencement to the democratic process. we have nightmares. we get that backwards from 1930s germany to hamas in the gaza strip. so it looks like to be the case in egypt. seven, we need to keep our commitment to humanitarian aid, specifically in africa. china and islam are competing for the hearts and minds of much of africa. we cannot turn our backs on the investment and the commitments we have made, we have made, excuse me. i help lead many of those efforts to address third world debt, and global aids. and that investment that it worked on what i was the united state senate has paid off. over 200,000 babies do not have aids today in africa who otherwise would have. and millions of people are alive

today due to american provided antiretrovirals drug. this is why i call -- this is what i called pro-life foreign policy. and it is one of our best international investments, especially considered less than 1% of our budget goes to such aid. eighth, we must stand by israel. especially at a time when it appears increasingly to be standing alone. the recent dislocation of the old order in the middle east will usher in a new one, and anti-israel elements are working overtime, all across the region to take advantage of this opportunity. the danger will grow exponentially if iran succeeds in its procurement of a nuclear weapon. ninth, the tradition of speaking up and out about prisoners of conscience and dissidents in prison. nevermind american hostages from the middle east to asia, needs to be restored. when president reagan instituted

the policy of remain in the world and america that there were others in jails because of their beliefs, it not only reminded us of our blessings, it gave dissidents a sense of hope and the knowledge that someone cared about them. and a great country was on their side. finally come we need of a national effort to restore the teaching of american history in our nation's schools. it's our children's worst subject. they simply don't know their own story, and thus when they are told ours is a history of aggression and immorality, they have no counter narrative. it's worth remember that ronald reagan's final wish in his final address was to ask americans to instill and argued a renewed quote informed patriotism, end quote. unfortunately, we ignored this lesson and we are reaping the consequences. this world will soon consider the life and contribution of ronald reagan's partner in

reshaping the world, pope john paul ii. he along with another polish year, but for less, helped to bring freedom back from poland. his faith inform his courageous stand against the south korean regime. john paul ii warned of the death of true freedom and absurd that freedom itself needs to be set free. will less last visit our nation laughter and the offer offered this observation. quote, the united states is the only superpower. today, they lead the world. nobody has doubts about it, momentarily. they also lead economically but they're getting week. but they don't lead morally and politically anymore. the world has no leadership. the united states has always, was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. there was the hope whenever something was going wrong, one

could count on the united states. today, we have lost that hope. but i have not. in my session traffic the country is neither have the american people here they are bursting at the seams to have a leader who believes in them, and in our country again. in his farewell address to the nation, president reagan reminded us of this when he told the story of the u.s. as midway as it was between the south china sea in the early 1980s. essays on the midway saw a tiny boat filled with refugees from indochina. and a rescue launch was sent. as the american came into view, one of the refugees smiled and stood up and shouted, hello, american sailor. hello, freedom man. that's who we are. freedom in, freedom women and children. let's not forget that privilege

or neglected that legacy. and thank you, and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. you mentioned -- [inaudible] which many people point out is becoming increasingly repressive with crackdowns on freedom of protest, with electoral fraud, et cetera, et cetera. how do you think u.s. should behave in this this situation, how the u.s. can help the pro-democracy movement inside russia which is becoming more active but at the same time deals with more oppression. >> i think i laid that out in the points that articulate. i will just reiterate them. i think we need to stand up for the principles that our country represents, and stand by dissidents who seek freedom.

we need to do so in countries that are not just run by governments that are friendly to the united states, but also in countries where governments are not necessarily so friendly. we've had a good record of doing the first, not such a good record of doing the second. and again, i believe that consistency, whether it is russia or china or iran or libya, whatever it is, we can stand up for those principles. that doesn't mean we need to get militarily engage or other things, but we can stand for those principles. >> i'm from pressure thank you very much for your interest in speech. i have two questions that are interlinked at the first one is about american exceptionalism which you have mentioned, but what is so wrong when other say their nations are exceptional, to? and second of all, aren't we

living in changing world? we have emerging powers, like china, brazil, turkey, south africa, others. so america is now in the midst of changing world, that would also change probably also america's role. would you see relation to china, growing into pendants. so do you really think that america can continue leading the world as it used to, or does it have to change maybe it's policy? >> i would say that we have an obligation to speak for what makes american exceptionalism or in what has in fact changed the world. when america has taken, the american century, the last century, we saw a transformation

of the world. not just the united states as becoming a global power, but the ideakes america exceptional. the concept of people not being servants of the state, but, in fact, being free. has infected in a good way the world. and we now have governments all over the world, the number of governments that practice principles, at least some level of freedom, have dramatically increased over that 100 year period of time. i think we have won the argument or when they are to become and we need to continue to make that argument. what you are talking about is our own economic situation and our ability to be able to be a dominant economic and military power. that is, that is different than having what i believe is the truth about what human condition should be. and what the role of government should be, vis-à-vis as people.

i think you can continue to advocate that, even though as i think i've mentioned very clearly, we have a government leadership in this country that don't necessarily practices as much in this country as we should. that will be worth two in the next election. and hopefully, to a desirable result. but it will be certainly a big issue in this election, which is what is the role of the government of this country. and so your observation that the change in nature of america as how we relate to our own citizens is going to have an impact on the world, i would agree with that. and that's what i think you are seeing the angst that you see in america to want to change back, as i said, to a president who believes in us as opposed to a president who believes in himself and people in power here in washington. >> high, center.

hi, senator. correct me if i'm wrong, you didn't even mention afghanistan. the first of all i am wondering why. and second of all, what's your sense of the mission there waste and, if you were president would you continued in 2014 timetable? are we winning? what is winning? all about. >> the narrative was sort of is looking for type of speech, not really bogged down, i did mention some of the current conflicts but i didn't try to thank sort of not get bogged down on that, just think more of a larger vision of our overall policy. you know, my believe is in afghanistan we need to conduct a war if we're going to conduct the war, and i believe we should, i supported it. we need to conduct a war in a way that we will be successful. we need to work in concert with all the people that do a sign the region, -- that you assigned

in the region that has a plan that has by and. and executed. i have concerns that that is not happening. we have conditions that were set by this administration, time limits, limits on resources, and that the people on the ground were not in favor of. i think we also have some other factors in play, but the bottom line is, they president should involve -- should not involve the american military and less it has a clear path to victory. and pursues that path aggressively. [inaudible] >> i do. yes. >> senator, john with trilogy advisors. defense secretary gates and incoming secretary and data support significant defense cuts in the u.s. military budget.

how concerned are you, senator, about america's ability to deal with china's naval buildup, and to ensure american dominance of disease and the ability to access for shipping through choke point to the pacific and indian ocean? >> that a certain one important point regarding others with respect to our military capability and the importance to our economy. i would say this, that if you look at, and what the president has suggested with respect to reducing the size of government, he has picked out the one area which is the only area that is the sole purview of the federal government. so, the once exclusive nation that no state, no group of individuals can do, defend the united states of america, is the only area the president believes that we should reduce spending. that is a man who has his priorities upside down.

i do not say that we cannot find substantial savings in the defense department to i served on the armed services committee, and if you look at my record we found lots of savings in the defense department. i was i procurement committee, and we made lots of defense cuts. most of which unfortunate not all of them, which we plowed back into reshaping our military. my argument is that we should, in fact, cut defense in places that need to be reduced. and we need to plow that money back in to the areas of importance. but my proposal would be that we would maintain the funding of the defense department, not cut it. and that we should improve, and you mentioned one area that this is not on the defense budget but certainly one area that have grave concerns about his our navy. and our ability to be able to

control commerce. and we're seeing that even with a bunch of somali pirates. imagine if it was a more systematic problem, which is this jovanovic talked about, as is begin to feel their oats and want to take, particularly stronger regional stances, this may be a bigger problem in the future. >> lindsay with the "national journal." you said here the president's suggestion to employ deeper military cuts is the wrong time. are there any defense cuts you would consider putting on the table, and what specific with those bestow? i'm not going to lay out any specific defense cuts today. i've got enough air for everybody to talk about. i promise you a somewhat in the future i will lay out a more comprehensive defense strategy. again, i know a little bit about the budget, served on the committee for a long time.

there certainly are things going on already and military were significant savings are coming about. that can be applied daughter has one example. but we will lay out a clear agenda as we move forward. if i end up particularly decide to jump into this presidential thing, you will have all sorts of details. >> yes, sir, over there. >> chrisman with the daily color. you mentioned that sharia law is an existential threat to the united states. there seems to be some confusion among general public on how to define sharia law. how do you define and can you point to some instances within the united states that it is taking over in a way, or -- >> if you're looking at instance where is taking over, you have already in the financial sector sharia compliant finance where funds and people are doing investments are deferring to people put up by groups, some of

which are, let's put it this way, suspect, as of the authority as to what these funds can be invested in an a sharia compliant way. and investment houses and others, banks, are paying some cases less than reputable people a lot of money to give their blessing for their types of investment. that's a problem. that's a way of, depending on what they're investing in and who they are paying to give their blessing, could be ways in which resources go to places that i'm not too sure are necessary in our national security interest. you also in situations where you have movement in this country to try to cordon off and create, you know, family courts or other types of laws where muslims are only held account to religious

law as opposed to the civil laws of this country. that has gone on as we know extensively in europe, but it is come here and his acts are being advocated in this country. so there are concrete examples of how that is occurring in america today. i would argue clearly, i'm not making the argument that america is by anyway a lead on this, the bigger problems and the more notable cases are clearly in places with a higher concentration of muslims exist. and that's primarily in western europe, not here. [inaudible] >> sharia is a code, a civil code of both how the government is to operate, things as mundane as personal hygiene, religious practices. i mean, it is, it is made up of all there is texts, not just the

koran, but if there is texts that is a code by which muslims have to live. yes, sir. >> senator, burning with the news. do you see a connected to this administration foreign policy in the middle east? if you do, what direction do you see them going in? do see a blanket policy or various theaters and various solutions? >> well, i think i laid out what i see, unfortunately, is a consistent policy of, as the white house said, leading from behind. i don't know if anybody who can successfully lead from behind. particularly if you're talking about deploying our military. if you're going to say to our men and women in uniform that you're going to go out there and

represent, and get in the line of fire, to defend this country, how dare you stand behind them. you stand in front of him. if it's worth their sacrifice is, it's worth you taking at least the political heat to be out in front of them. instead of hiding behind them. so it is clear to me that this president is trying to hide so he doesn't take political heat. it's also clear that, as i mentioned, i think very clearly in this speech, that this is a president who believes that our policies around the world were wrong and should be appalled i for. and anyone who was complicit with us in our policies by the very nature is suspicious.

and, therefore, not to be trusted and not to be supported. and if you're an ally of the united states can look at all our most important and traditional allies, are any of those relationships better today than they were when barack obama took office? any of them. pick one that is better today than it was hit and look at all of those who have lined up to oppose us. had any of them then confronted, have any of them not had some element of all the branches or almsgiving in order to appease their anti-american notion? we have a president who, as i said before, doesn't believe in america, didn't believe in american foreign policy. and i think he doesn't believe that america is exceptional and has anything to offer the world. and when you believe that, then there's no reason to advocate

for that. get some else and then i will come back to the second question. is there anybody else? okay. go here and we'll go here and wrap it up. >> thank you, senator. i'm with the american independent. i wanted to ask specifically what are your plans as far as aids and hiv prevention in africa speak with as you probably know i was one of the authors, worked with the president on that far. worked on -- pepfar, worked on securing funding, beyond what the administration requested for the. saw that as a first and foremost as i said at the time, a national security issue. that states that are dysfunctional, we have seen in the past, particularly in the area of the world which borders

and in many cases includes large islamic populations, is a breeding ground for the failed states, breeding grounds for terrorists and state sponsors of terrorists. and so, obviously when your population is being decimated by a disease, it's very hard to be a successful economic enterpri enterprise. and so i believe that it was in our security interest to do it. and as i mentioned before, given the enormity of our budget, it's a relatively small amount of money, and i think it has been a great investment. not just in keeping these states from becoming terrorist havens and terrorists in state sponsors of terrorism, but, in fact, promoting the very ideals that i talk about in his speech of the america is. and that as we have seen in other areas around the world,

when america makes that kind of commitment at a time of great need to a country, that has long-term value for our country, long-term buy with the people in that region and that country. and you know, those relationships that can be to our benefit from a national security perspective for a very long ti time. >> you spoke about worries about defense been cut too much, and you had the sort of congress question of where would you cut more. my question is, are there any particular areas that you worry have already been cut too much? >> look, i believe we should deploy the best defense system. i mean, that's first and foremost. we should be pursuing that. we have, you know, there's some real threats to our country that

nobody talks about that i believe are serious. electromagnetic pulses, and the ability for a -- the rogue nation to do something that could be debilitating to our country. and if we don't have the ability to respond to that, it would be devastating for the future of our country. and there's no reason not to pursue it. there's no reason not to protect us from such an obvious and consequential threat. and that's just one missile threat. there are certainly other types of missile threats, but that serve in my opinion the most consequential. >> okay, i'll come back to the i want to make sure -- go ahead. >> thank you, senator. in 2006 on the campaign trail you said that the united states was engaged in a war against islamic fascism. and largely perpetrated by iran. so now saying short of direct

military action, how do you intend to stand up against this islamic fascism, and both for democracy around the world? >> i think i laid that out here, but if you want to talk specifically about iran, i mean, i think i laid out that we need to be in gauging from an intelligence perspective as well as the other types of covert activities, to engage the pro-democracy elements in countries where we have tremendous strategic interests. and i think iran is one of those countries. and i think we overtly identify iran for what it is. the fact that we have been timid in identifying these murderous thugs, theocrat in iran, for now, three, two and half years, is unsure a depressing, has a

depressing effect on those in iran who would normally think they can count on us. it's certainly well known that when you do polling in the middle east, countries in which the united states is firmly to the governments tend to not be very, those people tend not to be very favorable towards the united states and the order but -- the arab world, personal. were as countries where we are truthful about the nature of the authoritarian regimes of which these people have to live under, we tend to be very popular. they tend to like americans. we have thrown that away in iran. we had strong support in the streets, not public of course because you can't publicly say that in iran, but privately with strong support in iran in the streets. and we have forfeited that with our turning our backs on their

strive for democracy and strive for freedom. okay, let's -- go ahead. either one you guys. [inaudible] >> bilateral talks, bilateral negotiations, we're not going to do that and the multilateral approach doesn't seem to work it. would you suggest we need to give? >> look, i mean, i think we have to continue to isolate north korea. we have to continue -- look, we've been put in a compromised position because of our own spending binge of being in a position to leverage the chinese more than, more now than we have been able to in the past. but clearly, it seems clear that it is in china's interest to have north korea as a buffer, and as a point of attention, a

distraction in the region. we have to get to the point where that's no longer to their advantage. and i think cleanup our house here would help, and renew and restoring our alliances in the region and showing that we will be good friends to our allies in the region. i think will also help in that regard. ..

if we comet on with this approach, we'll be a standoff for a long, long time, and we have a constant problem to the respect of the supply of oil and respect of markets to the supply of oil, and that keeps the gasoline prices high. ending that conflict would be a good thing to accomplish. who are we dealing with with the rebels, and whether these are folks that result in something better than we have in place than gadhafi. same in syria. many in israel say they want the devil they know than the devil they don't know. who are the people in the streets and who are they tied to? i find it harder to believe that

s -- assad and there's anybody worse than with assad in iran and hezbollah, but i know there's a sense of some folks, and i have to better understand that and make sense of what to do going forward. if we were going to get in involve, this is what we should have done. i didn't say we should get involved. i was not convinced throughout the time that we really did have a strategic interest there given the situation of gadhafi. again, maybe with more information i would have made -- been more comfortable making that decision. in the case of syria, we have a country that has sponsored terrorism, terrorists that have caused casualties to america, and certainly have done great

harm to, not just in their own country, but to lebanon and israel so i think replacing assad with a better group of folks, if that's possible, is certainly -- could be a national security interest of our country and something we should get involved in. i'm not in a position at this point to say that's what i would do. i would have to have more information. yes, ma'am? >> i want to ask you more. [inaudible] advocated it as a form of leadership. he talked about leading behind and parring the most able and strongest out front and only if there's danger, then you take the front. i was wondering that you think by always being the front, the united states might risk sort of losing power economically and militarily and being overstretched being engaged in three wars. >> i'm not suggests we have to

lead, but when we do engage, we should lead, and, you know, just the answer i just gave would give you an action that sometimes if it's not of a national security interest of the country to get involved in another country, then we shouldn't do it. we shouldn't get involved as the president got involved in libya with the human humanitarian reason. that is not sufficient reason. clearly, that is absolutely not sufficient reason to get involved in another country using military force. you get involved only if there is a national security interest with our country at stake. >> do we take economic interest into stake too? >> there's all things you can do to have leadership. you may have that out in front. i wouldn't term it that way, but certainly there are other ways that you can impact -- you know,

conditions in countries other than through military action. i'll give you a chance even though there's other questions. you've been patient. [laughter] >> thank you very much. you offered a ten-point plan, and win of the -- one of the points was we must stand by israel. well, the environment in israel is getting tougher due to the changing governments in its neighborhood. regardless what kind of government you're going to have, you know, how democratic they are, how open they are, they will be more critical when it comes to israel. there's people in your party and also democratic party say it was a mistake to support the democratic movement and to drop the more autocratic government and mubarak and others. what is your take? >> well, i think i said that in my talk that we were very quick to side with the rebels in egypt

and with an ally of the united states and refusing to side with the rebels in iran, with the sworn enemy of the united states. i find that inexplicable, and if we are going to side with -- with rebellion, then we better have a very good understanding of who the rebels are, so i called for better intelligence in the reason, so -- >> [inaudible] >> i think i made comments at the time that we should be standing by our ally before all this happened and be pushing for it as i mentioned in the speech, freedom. freedom, as i also said in the speech, doesn't mean democracy right away. it may not mean democracy for a long, long time. if you don't have the condition precedence in the country to support a democracy that will end up with freedom.

the object is freedom, not democracy, and that's what we have to be very clear about, and so we need to sometimes move our friends slowly just like, for example, our policy with china, it's one of which to influence the chinese to become more open, economically free, religiously free, culturally free, and we don't have real issues with that, but we should be doing that with our allies in the region in supporting them as they do that, and we did not. we decided that we were not going to -- that the president was going to reject involvement in other countries because, again, who are we to say we're better than anybody else? now we're living with the consequences of folks who are tired with living with what we would have never have lived

with. yes, ma'am? anybody else, so i can wrap up here. one more question? okay. go ahead. of course, the furthest away from the microphone. >> thank you very much. i'm from the japan tv and have a question about japan. as you know, one of the important allies, japan, is facing the largest disaster ever after world war ii, like the largest earthquake and the power plant crisis still going on. can you please give a comment on that and anything you would do if you were in power, something other than the administration, and one more question is what kind of impact do you see to the u.s. economy because of the decline in the japanese economy due to the earthquakes? >> on the last question, i'm not an economist, so i know there's

lots of economic reports about what the effect on gdp would be here and what global gdp is. i'll let economists figure that out. i don't know. i'm not going to comment specifically on the obama administration because i must admit i'm not 100% up to date to all the things they've done. what i would do is japan is one of our best and closest allies, and we should be working as closely with them as our best friends and neighbors that they are to help them through this difficult time, and that's what we policy would be, to try to be as helpful as possible to them through this difficult time, and that they're getting japan back on its feet is not only to the benefit of japan, but the region, to our country, and to the world, and we should be all hands on deck to help in that regard.

>> [inaudible] >> again, you know, i know this is going on, you know, both the public sector and private sector deployed resources to japan to help that situation. that sort of got off the front page again, so i'm not current on the things going on there, but i would say that, again, we should deploy whatever resources necessary to be helpful to be sure to contain that problem. thank you all very much. we appreciate you all coming out today. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the white house says that president obama will make personnel announcements this afternoon. we'll have live coverage at 3:10 eastern. the associated press reporting that the president will say cia director leon panetta will replace defense secretary robert gates who is planning to retire at the end of june, and general david petraeus takes mr. panetta's position as head of cia. they are subject to senate confirmation. the nation's first caucuses are ten months away, and c-span is heading to iowa. today, live coverage of the gym fisher show from woc radio in

davenport, iowa at 3 p.m. eastern. and recently republished. he joins new york university law professor richard epstein and bruce cadwell. you can see live coverage on booktv.org. >> in depth with your questions of tibor machan and the promise of liberty and man without a hobby. he'll take your phone calls and e-mails on sunday afternoon's booktv. >> if they send me the bill in its present form, i will sign it. okay, any questions?

[laughter] no one? >> are you still here? >> almost every year the president and journalists meet at dinner to make fun of themselves at their own expense. president obama will head there again this saturday. watch live or go back and watch a past dinner. search, watch, clip, and share online at the c-span video library, every program since 1987. watch what you want when you want. >> again, president obama is set to make personnel announcements at 3:10 eastern live for you here on c-span2. until then, a discussion on those changes from this morning's "washington journal." >> host: joining us is michael swetnam, a former cia official, navy official, and currently chairman of the patomic policies

institute. what does he get moving these men? >> guest: well, a couple things. first, he gets continuity because we're involved in several military actions around the world. it's a critical time. he's preparing to run for the office again. it's really the wrong time to have anything go wrong in the national security status, and so he's taking top players and shuffling them around. he has to. gates announced he's leaving so they have to fill one of the most critical roles. continue newty is the -- continuity is the number one word in this effort. >> host: what does leon panetta bring to dod? >> guest: i think he has a tremendous background in management. he managed some of the toughest things here in washington, d.c. from the white house staff to omb, and that's a very important thing during a time we're all talking about saving money,

downsizing, figuring out how tuesday the same or more with less money, and he's really shown he knows how to manage the really tough jobs here in washington, d.c.. remember, he went to the cia and a lot of people said he doesn't know anything about intelligence. there's a guy there who is a budget guy, he showed he knows how to manage tough organizations, and so his management style is probably one of the biggest things that recommends him for the job in the pentagon. >> host: so, what will be the reaction to what they are calling an outsider such as leon panetta going over to dod? >> guest: well, if you look back to the history of secretaries of defense, a large majority of them actually could have been considered outsiders. they are often former congressmen, more political appointees than anything else. very few of them were actually generals or 30-40 year background in the military, so

he's more the norm of the kind of person you pick for secretary of defense. you always want to have someone with a great management background and somebody who understands washington and operated inside the city, how things really happen in this city. that's panetta so i think he's probably a very typical selection at this point in time and really fits with the president's teams. i think that probably counts for as much as the white house for anything that he's part of the top team. >> host: general petraeus to cia. >> guest: this is harder, a little bit harder. there have been a few career military officers who have led the intelligence community and the head of the intelligence community, the most presee gas, the cia, but very few. it is an organization which is closed. it's an organization where the

meet ling of -- meaning of having a secret handshake and being part of the family means something. he will have an uphill battle if he walks into the place that it's broken and he's going to fix it. he'll have a hard time, but i don't think he'll do that. he's not that kind of a guy. he has been working very closely with the intelligence community and with cia in the last couple jobs he's had, at least the operational arm of the cia. it's going to be an interesting transition for him. the hardest thing i think for general personnel petraeus is he's going to a job where he's an operational commander, helps design the strategy, helps think through how to win the war, and then he's in charge of trying to implement it and make it happen. he's a policy guy, and he's an operational guy. at the cia, he's an adviser.

his job is to get -- find the secrets, find out what's going on around the world, advise the president on that. people like to talk about the cia and the intelligence community as part of the policy team. they really are not there to give policy. they are there to advise on what is the real facts? what's the situation? what's the information. they are nose supposed to be policy implementers, but policy as providers. that's a big change and transition. >> host: michael swetnam, what was leon panetta's relationship with intelligence? how will general petraeus navigate that well? >> guest: probably very well. the -- i'm sure you're referring to a very tough time over the last couple years between panetta, leon panetta, and the former dni, admiral dennis blair where they really did have a

prototypical brawl and wanted to assume more control as to who are the leaders in our stations overseas, who are the cia station chiefs, very, v. important jobs. the director of cia said, no, that's taking your control too far. they had a typical washington fight, and pa panetta demonstrated his tremendous ability around washington, d.c.. he totally won that battle. with the appointment and the confirmation of gym -- jim clapper, that battle went away. he's a different kind of a guy, he's not confrontational, and they found a working relationship. with general petraeus coming in, they will find a friend, and i think he'll find the type of battles we've seen totally

disappear. these are individuals with so much in common. i would look for a time of which we haven't had much since the creation of a dni, look for a period where the dni and director of cia are on the same page for awhile. this is good news for the intelligence community. i'm sure my friend, jim clapper, is happy about the appointment. >> host: has the dni structure worked in your view? >> guest: not very well. we -- and i was a real advocate for the creation of the dni. we had something called the director of central intelligence before that, a guy who was -- he was the director of the cia and he also had the hat of being in charge of all the other agencies, and it was personality led. there were people who came to the job and acted like they ran the agencies and exerted control and made that work. there were people who entered the job and only wanted to run the cia and just forgot about the other agencies and let them

do their own thing so it -- we really need part of our national security organization not to be personality drien. i was for this who managed other agencies. unfortunately, in the creation of the law, we watered down the authorities for the dni to the extent that there's enough loopholes and enough vagueness to the wording in the law that agencies can play the two master game. it's a washington, d.c. thing, a lot of people around the country don't have any idea what i'm talking about, but in washington, the most wonderful thing in the world is to have two bosses, and in industry, two boxes. in washington you want two bosses because when this boss is asking you to do something i want to do, great, but if there's something i don't want to do, well, you say i'm working for this boss over here, and

this isn't in line with my other boss, and you choose which boss to follow. half of the intelligence community works for the department of defense, and half of the intelligence community doesn't, all of them are supposed to work for the dni. many of the agencies get to play the two-boss game, and we didn't great the dni strong enough to fix that problem, and so there's a lot of talk around washington on how do we now fix the fix? creating the dni was to fix the problem, and people on the hill now are talking about changing legislation slightly to fix some of these problems. it will take quite awhile. >> host: okay, our guest is michael swetnam, former cia official, former navy seal, or u.s. navy active duty on reserve special duty person, he is currently chairman of the patomic institute for policy studies. we are talking about the

expected announcement by president obama this afternoon about personnel changes moving leon panetta to dod, david petraeus into cia, and our phone numbers are up on the screen, and before we go to calls, very quickly, there's some other changes coming. admiral mullen will be leaving. is there a short list or has president obama decided who is going to fill that position when he leaves joint chiefs of staff? >> guest: i don't think the decision is fully made. i think the list is very short. top of the list is the vice chairman, general cartwright, a tremendous permty, one of the most experienced marine corp. officers we've had back to general al gray in the first bush administration.

he's widely respected in the administration and around town. he's the odds-on favorite, but until the president actually makes the decision, we won't know. each of the services always try to put forward their top candidate and it's game of washington politics which is a little different than the other games of washington politics because the military doesn't play politics other than personnel matters. they will all push their candidate, but i think the list is probably dominated by general cartwright at the moment. >> host: ambassador is leaving afghanistan. >> guest: this has been a long time coming, and ambassador ichenberry has been a thorn in the policy and felt strongly what should happen there and debate between him and the military commander on how to handle things in afghanistan and

pakistan. his time has now come up and with a new commander in there, it's fitting that it helps the end game execution in afghanistan if you will to have a new ambassador and new commander come in together hopefully on the same page. >> host: first call for the guest coming from miemsz, wilson, republican line, thanks for holding, you're on the air. >> caller: good morning, sir. i appreciate you coming on c-span and taking questions. i just have one question. we're talking about changes, and i just want to know what do you think the kind of change will be if ron paul was to become president and change the foreign policy and all the things in discussion. thank you, sir. >> guest: i'm not sure i know what ron paul's position is some of these senior leadership positions. i know that he's -- he really advocates for a lot of change in the national security approach

in things like afghanistan, so i would expect if he was elected, he would change out most of this team, but beyond that, i mean, not sure i know the details of his positions on personnel. >> host: from your reading of the personnel move, what does that do to our policy in afghanistan? anything? >> guest: i think it probably speeds up the execution of the president's policy to start withdrawing this year, quickly find an end game for afghanistan, end all traces of our involvement in iraq. it is general petraeus' strategy that led us to where we are in iraq, and general petraeus' strategy we're executing today in afghanistan. i think if you kept general personnel petraeus in those positions, he would do his best to make sure the end goals were fully reached, reaching the end goals mean we need to stay and

stay more engaged than this white house acts like they want to stay the head game, so i think the president's publicly stated position that he wants an end game and executed quickly is more realizable with general petraeus moving. >> host: this tweet, how does his experience help our war situations? >> guest: he has some experience with the military. the biggest effect is going to be, i think, in the budget context. panetta has tremendous national security background, and he is a very solid experienced in implements national security and running the pentagon a running a big corporation where you understand national security. the military side of it is overseeing and protected by the joint chiefs of staff so it's

hard for a secretary of defense to really screw the military up if you will because the jcs is there to be an independent voice to the president, but the secretary of defense runs the organization. he's going to have a lot to say about what we buy, how fast we buy it, and during the next few years, he'll have a lot to say about what we don't buy, how we cut, and how we downsize. i think that's the big thing to keep your eye open for is how to we downsize the department of defense? this would could be the real story around washington, d.c. over the next year. >> host: connecticut, peter, democrat. >> caller: hello, yes, i'd like to know why didn't president obama pick hillary clinton to be secretary of defense? >> guest: i don't know to tell you the truth. that would have been a very interesting pick in lots of different ways. she's -- i understand that she's worked very hard and is very

tired and probably there's a lots of rumors she won't be around for the next term if there is one. she was a real student of intelligence in the military when she was on capitol hill as a senator. she would have been an interesting pick in the department of defense. once again, not a person with a tremendous military background, but she did study it when she was on capitol hill. i don't -- i really don't know the dynamics between the clintons and the obamas, but it certainly seems to have history that goes back before the last election. >> host: what about the relationship between hillary clinton and leon panetta? >> guest: oh, very, very close. you know, the clintons and the panettas have been extremely close for a long time. it was bill clinton who, if you will, pulled panetta out of congress in early 1990s and made him the directer of omb and bill clinton took him from omb making

him the chief of staff in the white house. i think the panettas and clintons are extremely close in ideology and publicly political disposition. panettas i would say not disparaging anybody, but he's quite a bit more of a washington operator and manager than i think the clintons are 6789 he's a hands-on guy. >> host: if he gets into dod and hillary clinton is state, is that an important relationship? >> guest: oh, yes, absolutely. i would exact that on most national security issues, they would be aligned, and whenever you have the top two cap innocent members, top two members of the national security counsel aligning on issues, that's hard for other people in the national security apparatus to contend with, so they certainly will form on issues they agree on, they will form a

block that will be formidable in a national security context and hard for the president to ignore their advice. >> host: what's the patomi institute for studies? >> guest: policy analysis for the agencies around town. we like to think that we come out of the ashes of something called the office of technology assessment, used to be a part of congress that did science and technology policy for the u.s. congress. it was abolished in 1994. we created the patomic institute in 1995 to assume some of that mention with the concept being good policy should be based upon hard science and academic study and so that's what we try to do at the institute in a very nonpartisan way. >> host: next call from chris in richmond, virginia. >> caller: hi, c-span, thank

you for taking my call. my question is about afghanistan. aren't we really in afghanistan so rockefeller-run companies like exxo and chevron can route natural gas to afghanistan? this is the objective of unical and the pipeline and transam pipeline. isn't this the real reason america went against th taliban and met george bush in the 80s on american soil? suspect it because -- isn't it because they couldn't complete the pipeline in the right time? >> guest: that's an interesting comment. i would say that certainly protecting lines of commerce and delivery of natural resources like oil and natural gas are really important in the united states and a part of our consideration. our relationship with th taliban

though has i think a little bit of a different background, and i know this because i was involved in years and years ago. the taliban was created by the isi, the pakistani intelligence service helped create the taliban to be a political force in afghanistan so it was created by the intelligence service, and in the early days, the national security of the united states was deeply involved in afghanistan. we helped the afghanis throw the soviets out, and for that reason, we were close to a lot what was going on in afghanistan. it all femme apart -- fell apart when the taliban embraced bin laden, radical islam for political discourse, and started plotting and attacking people like the united states. i wouldn't say we were ever supportive of the taliban. the taliban was an intelligence covert action organization created by the pakistani

intelligence people. we were supportive of what the afghans were doing to throw the soviets out, and then the taliban took over and embraced radical islam, and it's gone to the pot then. they became our enemy, and we are trying to get rid of them ever since. unfortunately, the pakistani intelligence organizations still are very supportive of this political movement they created in afghanistan, and a lot of people have commented, and i think they are right, the real war in afghanistan is in pakistan. pakistan support for things like the taliban are standing in the way of afghanistan becoming a free nation because the taliban doesn't. a free nation. the taliban wants an islamic perfect rooted in the 6th century and made of women and all that type of stuff. in answer to your question, yes, there's economic concerns like pipelines that do -- that do

hinge on this. there's other concerns too. there's a big drug trade in that part of the world we want to stop. the opium comes from there, and we want to stop that from happening and encourage things likepipe lines, but i think -- pipelines, but i think all those economic concerns take a backseat to organizations like the taliban and al-qaeda and the al-qaeda organizations who preach a very radical form of islam, not the true islam, but a radical form, and the core of the belief is that they should attack people in the west. that's what that war is really about. >> host: who will president obama nominate to succeed general petraeus? >> guest: well, he's going to no , ma'am in this -- nominate the deputy from central command i believe, and this is part of -- >> host: general john allen. >> guest: general john allen.

this is part of the continuing execution -- the way it was explained to me last night when i called there to friends to see if i could get more of a firsthand reading on the president's intent was that the idea was that the president has made these decisions. he has embraced the strategy for afghanistan, believes we're executing it, and wants to make sure as the changes happen, that the person who is in charge of afghanistan is a person who understands the strategy and will explicitly execute it. i understand that is exactly the reason for the appointment or the potential appointment of allen and believed that he's not just one of the authors of the strategy, but totally committed to executing it in the way the president wants it executed, so that's one the main reasons for his appointment because they believe he'll carry it through without coming forward -- there are people who are afraid

petraeus would say, no, we can't pull out yet. we haven't melt these objectives. they want a commander who won't do that. >> host: is there a concern in the community or any related communities about the moves at this point? >> guest: yes, there are. there's some legitimate concerns that i think bear very close watching. the biggest is i think that we're going into a time of downturn budget wise. we're going to start trying to save money everywhere and certainly try to cut the defense department and a lot of people talked about it. secretary gates embarked upon what he called a son of efficiency issues last year taking $70 billion out of the department of defense over the five-year plan, but a lot of people think that's not enough, we need more. we did do a number of that and panetta was the directer of omb

the last time we took the department of defense down in the 1990s, last time we called it a peace dividend then, the end of the cold war, and we started to downsize the department of defense in the 1990s. the director of omb who helped set many of the goals was panetta, and then he went to the white house to help manage from the white house how we took the department of defense down. many people think we took it down too far, and then after 9/11, had to build it back up. today, the department of defense is double the size that it was in 1993. it's twice as many dollars in dod today than when panetta was in omb, and the pressure to downsize dod is tremendous. i think the real thing to watch around town is whether panetta is the instrument of reducing dod once again, and what role he plays in bringing dod's budget

down in a significant way over the next couple years is what you need to watch around town. this has defense industry concerned, a lot of people around town concerned. he's a thoughtful guy, and we'll see how it plays out. >> host: next call for michael swetnam comes from pennsylvania. hi, jeanie. >> caller: hi. i would really love to have general petraeus be cast to run for president as we did general eisenhower. he would unit our country to stand up for freedom and truth which we don't have now. i look at the tea party people would support him like i do. i think it would be a waste to put all his good qualities on the cia. >> host: thank you, thank you. is there a political calculation to moving general petraeus to

the cia? >> guest: it leaves that option open. is absolutely does particularly since general personnel petraeus decided, i understand to retire from the military and go to the cia as a civilian. you could view that as a steppingstone to more civilian jobs or to a political future after that. this is not unheard of. we had a president who was director of cia, george w. bush, and in fact the cia center in virginia is the george w. bush -- >> host: george hw bush. >> guest: yeah, the first one, so it can happen. it could be a steppingstone for him to a political career. he claims he has no political agenda or aspirations, but, you know, over time that changes with people. >> host: you made a comment that he is -- the word is that he's planning on stepping down

from the military before he takes this position. >> guest: that's what i heard. >> host: okay. has that been reported yet? is there a little inside information? >> guest: it's around washington. i don't know if it's in the papers yet, but it's -- >> host: when should these take place? i mean, how quickly will leon panetta be confirmed by the senate and moved over to dod? >> guest: i think the timelines, we'll hear more this afternoon when the president makes the announcement, but what i understand the time line is around late june, early july. i understand that secretary gates has been anxious to leave for awhile. he paid his dues. his wife wants him back to texas, so i think his date is july, so if that's the first move, i think the panetta move might be later, and that we might have an acting directer of

the cia for a couple months while general petraeus finishes up in afghanistan, turns things over, and by the time he gets to the cia, maybe later in the summer, there might be an acting cia director while panetta in the june timeframe moves to the department of defense, but that timing is subject to what happens on capitol hill, but i think that's what is expected at the moment. >> host: what's the -- what's the thought about secretary gates leaving washington or leaving dod? >> guest: well, as asaid, he's had the desire to leave. >> host: considered a loss? >> guest: oh, absolutely. he's one of those people that from time to time you hear people talk about we don't have public servants like we used to have, people -- didn't matter republican or democrat, they would serve the president and do a good job. that's bob gates.

he's a public server. his number one aspiration in life was to serve his country regardless of others as democrats or republicans. >> you can see "washington journal" every morning. live now at the white house where president obama is set to announce the personnel changes to his national security team. the associated press revealing he'll take leon panetta to move to the cia to replace secretary gates. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> everybody please have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. i want to begin by saying a few words about the devastating storms that have ripped through the south in the united states. the loss of life has been heart breaking, especially in

alabama. in a matter of hours, these deadly tornadoes, some of the worst that we've seen in decades, took mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors, even entire communities. others are injured and some are still missing, and in many places, the damage to homes and businesses is nothing short of catastrophic. we can't control when or where a terrible storm may strike, but we can control how we respond to it, and i want every american affected by this disaster to know that the federal government will do everything we can to help you recover, and we will stand with you as you rebuild. i've already spoken to the governors of alabama, virginia, mississippi, tennessee, and georgia, and i've let them know that we are ready to help in any possible way. i've declared a state of emergency in alabama so we can make all necessary resources

available to that state. i've dispatched federal emergency management agency administrator craig fugate to alabama to work with state and local officials, and i'll travel christ to alabama -- travel myself to alabama to work with the families who are reeling from this disaster. i want to commend all the men and women working around the clock for the last few days to save the lives of their friends and neighbors and to begin the long work of rebuilding these communities. these police officers, firefighters, emts and other emergency responders are heros, and they have the thanks of a grateful nation, and we pray for their success, and we stand with every american affected by this disaster in the days and weeks to come. now, as we meet our obligations to these americans, we're mindful of our obligation to the safety of all americans, and

that's why we're here today. as commander in chief, i have no greater responsibility than the security of the american people and the well being of our courageous men and women in uniform and their families. over the past two years, my administration has done whatever it takes to meet these responsibilities. we've been releaptless against -- relentless against al-qaeda and preventing terrorist attacks and saving lives. we brought nearly 100,000 troops out of iraq if an orderly way, ended the combat mission, and focused on afghanistan breaking the taliban's momentum and training afghan forces, and from europe to asia we forged new partnerships and restored american leadership in the world. still, we confront urgent challenges. in iraq, we're working to bring the rest of our troops home as

iraqis secure their democracy. in afghanistan, we're moving into a new phase, transferring responsibility for security to afghan forces, starting to reduce american forces this summer, and building a long-term partnership with the afghan people. there's people across the middle east and north africa who seek to determine their own destiny. we must ensure america stands with those who seek their universal rights and that's supporting the international effort to protect the libyan people, and here at home making the hard decisions that are needed to reduce america's debt, we cannot compromise our ability to defend our nation or our interests around the world. these are some of the pressing challenges that we must meet in the pivotal days ahead, and today i'm proud to announce key members of any national security team with vice president biden and secretary clinton, will help us meet them. i've worked closely with most of

the individuals on this stage and all of them have my complete confidence. they are leaders of enormous integrity and talent who devoted their lives to keeping our nation strong and secure, and i'm personally very, very grateful to each of them for accepting these new assignments. given the pivotal period we're entering, i felt it was absolutely critical that we had this team in place to stay focused on our mageses, maintain momentum, and keep our nation secure. when i took office, bob gates already served under seven presidents, and he carried a clock that counted down the days, hours, and minutes until he could return to washington state with his wife, becky. [laughter] i was able to convince him to stay one more year where i was able to convince him to talk to becky about staying one more year. [laughter]

at some point along the way, bob threw out the clock. he's one of the longest serving defense secretaries in american history, and as a grateful nation, we can agree that bob has more than earned the right to return to private life which he decided to do at the end of june. i'll have more to say about secretary gate's exemplary service in the days to come. every american must know because he helped to wind down the war in iraq, we're in a better position to support the troops and manage the transition in afghanistan. because he challenged conventional thinking, our troops have the life-saving equipment they needed, and our military is better prepared for today's wars, and because he courageously cut unnecessary spending, we'll save hundreds of billions of dollars to be invested in the 21 socialst century. he's one the finest secretaries

in american history, and i'll always be grateful for his service. i'm equally confident that bob's agenda is carried out by another great servant of our time, learn -- leon panetta. he appreciates the military families because he served in the army himself and because he and his wife are proud parents of a son who served in afghanistan, and just as leon earned the trust and respect of our intelligence officials at the cia by listening to them and fighting fiercely on their behalf, i know he'll do the same for our armed forces and their families. the patriotism and management skills defining his four decades of service is exactly what we need in the next secretary of defense. as a former congressman and white house chief of staff, he knows how to lead which is why he's held in high esteem in this

city and around the world and played a decisive role against vint extremism and understands beginning the transitions in afghanistan, we have to be unwaivers against al-qaeda, and as a former omb director, eel ensure as we make tough budget decisions, we'll keep our military the very best in the world. leon, i know you've been looking forward to returning home to your wife, so i thank you for taking on yet another assignment for our country, and i hope you don't have a clock. [laughter] >> i'm also pleased that leon's work at the cia will be carried on by one of our leading strategic thinkers and one of the finest military officers of our time, general david petraeus. this is the second time in a year that i've asked general petraeus to take on a demanding

assignment, and i know this carries a special sacrifice for he and his wife, holy. after 40 years in uniform leading american and coalition forces in the most challenging military missions since 9/11, he's retiring from the army that he loves to become the next cia director. effective early september pending senate confirmation. as a lifelong consumer of intelligence, he knows that intelligence must be timely, accurate, and acted upon quickly. he understands that staying a step ahead of nimble adversaries includes sharing information with my commander of national intelligence, jim clapper, and as he and the cia confront a full range of threats, david's extraordinary knowledge of the middle east and afghanistan uniquely positions him to lead the agency in its effort to defeat al-qaeda. in short, just as general petraeus changed the way our

military fights and wins wars in the 21st century, i have no doubt he'll guide the intelligence professionals as they continue to adapt and innovate in an ever-changing world. i'm pleased to announce my choice for the civilian military team to lead the efforts in afghanistan in this year of transition. i'm nominating a superb commander, lieutenant general john allen to succeed general petraeus as commander of the international security assistance force or isaf. he helped turn the tide in the prosince, deputy commander of central command, respected in the region, and has been deeply involved in planning and executing our strategy in afghanistan. as the troops continue to sacrifice for our constitute as we tragically saw yesterday, general allen is the right commander for this vital

mission. as coalition forces transfer responsibility to afghans, we're redoubling efforts to promote political and economic progress in afghanistan as well. our tireless ambassador helped us increase our civilian presence, and never before have the civilians and troops worked together so closely and so successfully. i personally relied on karl's advice on this mission. after two years in one of the world's most challenging post, ambassador eikenberry's time is coming to a close today. i want to thank karl and his wife for outstanding service. to build on karl's great work, i'm grateful one of our nation's most respected dip my mats, ryan crocker is returning to afghanistan. this is a five-time ambassador.

ryan is no stranger to tough aassignments. few americans know this region and its challenges better than ambassador crocker. he was the first enjoy to afghanistan after the fall of the taliban. he reopened our embraced embassy there. as a former ambassador to pakistan, he realizes the strategy has to succeed on both sides of the border. as ambassador to iraq, his remarkable partnership with general personnel announcements dreys pro-- general petraeus created a political effort in a long term partnership between the two countries. this is exactly what is needed now in afghanistan where ambassador works with our new special representative to afghanistan and pakistan, mark grossman, and i want to thank ryan and his wife christine, a decorated foreign officer herself, for agreeing to serve our nation once more.

so, leon panetta, the defense department, david petraeus at the cia, ambassador crocker and general john allen in afghanistan. these are the leaders that i've chosen to help guide us through the difficult days ahead. i will look to them and my entire national security team for council, continuity, and the effort this time demands, and the people on the front lines, the brave troops, outstanding intelligence personnel, our dedicated diplomats will look to them for the leadership that success requires. i urge our friends in the senate to confirm the individuals as swiftly as possible so they can assume their duties and help me meet the urgent challenges we confront as a nation. we are a nation still at war, and joined by the leaders alongside me today, i will continue to do everything in my power as commander in chief to keep our nation strong and the american people safe. with that, i'd like to invite

each of the leaders to say a few words. i'll actually start with bob gates. >> thank you, mr. president, for your kind words. i want to thank president bush for first asking me to take this position, and you, mr. president, for inviting me to stay on and on and on. [laughter] i also thank my wife, becky, for 44 years of extraordinary patience, but especially the last four and a half years of patience. every single day i've been secretary, our military has been engaged in two major wars and multiple other missions. it's been the greatest honor of my life to serve and to lead our men and women in uniform and our defense civilians. they are the best america has to offer. i will continue to give my all to them and to the president

right through june 30th because obviously there is much left to do. my highest priority from my first day in office has been to do everything i could for our uniformed men and women in harm's way, to help them accomplish their mission, to come home safely, and if wounded, to get them the best possible care from battlefield to home front. i've done my best to care for them as though they were my own sons and daughters. i will miss them deeply. there will be other occasions to speak over the next two months, so for now i'll congratulate leon panetta and thank him. [laughter] leon i believe is the best possible choice to succeed me, and i also congratulate general david petraeus, ambassador crocker, and general allen. i thank you too, mr. president,

for the opportunity to serve and work with you. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to thank you and the vice president and your entire national security team for the trust and confidence that you placed in me. i especially want to thank my good friend bob gates, the guy with the big smile next to me. [laughter] he's a public servant without equal, whose tenure as secretary of defense will go down as one of the most consequential and important examples of leadership in the history of the american government. since he, too, was a former cia director, i'm hopeful that that experience can serve me as well as it served bob as secretary. speaking of the cia, i also want

to deeply thank the good men and women of the cia for all they do without recognition or credit to safe gourd this nation and protect it. they welcomed me to their ranks, and it has been the highest honor of my professional career to be able to lead them. to be able to lead them. ..

>> in my 40 years of public life, they have been tolerant beyond measure and very loving, and because8ññi of that, i lovem all very much. é spent 40 years in public served in the army as an intelligence officer in the 1960s. i was proud to wear the uniform of our country s and my respect -- and my respect and admiration for our nation's armed forces has only grown in the decades since. this is a, a time of historic change both at home and abroad. as the son of immigrants, i was raised to believe that we cannot be free unless we are secure. today we are a nation at war, and job one will be to insure

that we remain the strongest military power in the world. to protect that security that is so important to this country. yet this is also a time for hard choices. it's about insuring that we are able to prevail this conflicts in which we are now engaged. but it's also about being able to be strong and disciplined in applying our nation's limited resources to defending america. none of this will be easy, but i am confident, mr. president, that you can be assured that i will give you the nation's commander in chief my best and most candid advice about these issues. and that i will be a faithful

advocate for the brave men and women at the department of defense who put their lives on the line every day. to insure that we achieve that great american dream. of giving our children a better life and a more secure america. thank you. >> well, mr. president, thank you very much. i feel deeply honored to be nominated to become the 20th director of the central intelligence agency, and i feel deeply grateful for the opportunity, if confirmed, to continue to contribute to the important endeavors to which so many have given so much over the past decade in particular. during that time i've had the privilege of working very closely with the quiet professionals of the central

intelligence agency. i have seen firsthand their expertise, their commitment to our nation and their courage in dangerous circumstances. their service to our country is of vital importance, indeed, it is all the more vital as it is all the more unheralded. in short, i have enormous respect for the men and women of the agency, and if confirmed, i will do my utmost to serve, to represent and to lead those great intelligence professionals as well as to work closely with the dni and the other intel community leaders as director panetta has done so superbly over the past two and a half years. as i return to afghanistan tomorrow, i will do so with a sense of guarded optimism about the trajectory of the mission and the exceptional civil-military team the president will nominate to lead that effort. indeed, i can think of no two individuals better suited than general allen and ambassador crocker to build on the

hard-fought gains that isaf and afghan troopers and their civilian colleagues have achieved over the past year. during the flight back to afghanistan, i will also reflect on the extraordinary leadership that secretary gates has provided over the past four and a half years at the helm of the department of defense. i believe that all in uniform are deeply grateful to him, but none can be more grateful to him than i am. again, mr. president, thank you very much for the opportunity, if confirmed, to continue to serve our nation. >> mr. president, thank you. i'm deeply honored by this selection. and i'm grateful for the support and the leadership of secretary and the leadership of secretary gates and chairman mullen. sir, i am mindful of the significance of this

responsibility, and i am deeply committed to the leadership of the magnificent young men and women of our armed forces and those of the armed forces of this great and historic coalition of nations. i understand well the demands of this mission. and, mr. president, if confirmed by the senate, i will dedicate my full measure to the successful accomplishment of the tasks and the objectives now set before us. mr. president, thank you for your confidence. >> mr. president, i am deeply honored to have your confidence, that of the vice president, that of the secretary of state, that of the national security adviser of the national security adviser for this important mission.

the challenges are formidable, and the stakes are high. 9/11 came to us out of afghanistan. our enemy must never again have that opportunity. i thought i had found a permanent home as dean of the bush school at texas a&m as the secretary of defense had done before me. but the bush school is a school of public service, and, mr. president, i am very proud to answer this call to serve. over nine years ago, i had the privilege of reopening our embassy in kabul after the fall of the taliban. if confirmed, i look forward to returning to build on the progress that has been achieved in recent months working with the courageous men and women at our embassy, with our military, with our nato allies and the united nations and especially

with the people of afghanistan. i also look forward to rejoining my old battle buddy, general dave petraeus, however briefly, and i am delighted that i will have the opportunity to carry forward with another good friend and comrade from iraq, general john allen. thank you, mr. president. >> i cannot think of a group of individuals better suited to lead our national security team during this difficult time. while i'm up here, i think it's important to acknowledge the extraordinary work that my vice president, my secretary of state and my national security adviser have done as well. this is going to be an outstanding team. i'm grateful for the service that they've already provided, and i'm confident that they will continue to do everything that they can to insure america's safety and security not just today, but tomorrow. let me also just briefly thank

their teams, some of whom are going to be shuffling their own lives whether it's at the cia or in afghanistan. all of you have done outstanding work, and be i'm grateful for your service to our nation. and once again, let me thank the families of the individuals here. all of them make extraordinary sacrifices. michelle can attest to that. [laughter] and we know that none of us could be successful were it not for your extraordinary support. so thank you very much. >> president obama this afternoon announcing a reshuffling of his national security team, cia director leon panetta is his pick to replace defense secretary robert gates who is retiring in june. general david petraeus,

currently the commander in the afghanistan, would take over the cia job. mr. petraeus' job would be filled by marine corps general john allen, the deputy commander of u.s. central command, and diplomat ryan crocker is being installed as u.s. ambassador in afghanistan. the statement by former president george bush on the appointment of bush school dean ryan crocker, president obama has chosen wisely in nominating a diplomat of ryan crocker's experience and consummate skill. as ambassador to afghanistan. barr rah and i -- barbara and i salute the call. we look forward to his return as dean when his tour of duty is completed. completed. by the way, if you missed any of the president's announcement, you can see it again tonight on our companion network, c span, starting at 8 p.m. eastern. >> you're watching c-span2, with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage

of the u.s. senate. every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and can books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> george soros joins a conversation this afternoon on the book, "the constitution of liberty," by economist f.a. hayek which was recently republished. with mr. soros, richard epstein and bruce caldwell, editor of the collective works of f.a. hayek. you can see live coverage at 4 p.m. eastern at booktv.org. and this week while the senate is on a break, c-span2 presents booktv prime time. tonight, "after words" with george friedman on his book, "the next decade," focusing on america's relationship with china and the middle east. and then wendy kopp and biographer frank brady on his

book "end game." booktv prime time starts tonight at 8 eastern. this weekend on booktv on c-span2, panels on science, american history, climate change and the constitution. and call-ins with larry flynt, sally pipes and walter mosley, just a few of the highlights from our live coverage of the los angeles times' festival of books. get the entire schedule online at booktv.org and get our schedule sent directly to your inbox. sign up for booktv alert. and now to new york university law school in the new york city for a symposium on public corruption. you'll hear from former new jersey attorney general anne milgram. she stepped down when current governor chris christie was elected. in her speech she asks if new jersey is the most corrupt state in the country, and if not, which state is. her address is just over 30 minutes.

>> now, i was so pleased to have here today in our two keynote speakers anne milgram and neil barofsky, two of the leading public servants in their generation and both nyu graduates of the school of law. i have the privilege now of introducing our first keynote speaker, ann mill gram. anne has been in her current post as a senior fellow at the center on the administration of criminal law. before that she had an incredibly long and distinguished career in public service. after she graduated from this law school in 1996, she immediately went into public service and has never left. she clerked first for the honorable ann thompson on the district court in new jersey. she went then to the district attorney's office in manhattan where she was an assistant district attorney, and from there she moved on to another prosecuting position in the civil rights division of the department of justice where she handled civil rights cases and

eventually rose to the position of supervising and overseeing all human trafficking cases in the united states. after that she moved to the senate where she was counsel to then-u.s. senator john corzine, and in 1996 she returned home to new jersey to be the deputy for the first assistant attorney general of the state of new jersey. she quickly became the attorney general of the state of new jersey and served in that position from 2007 until 2010. and in that role she headed the 9,000-person department of law and public safety, supervised eight divisions in the state and multiple commissions and boards including the department of criminal justice, the department of law, the department of securities, the bureau of securities, the division of consumer affairs and the division of civil rights. as the chief law enforcement officer in the state of new jersey, she held a power that's rare for an attorney general. she oversaw and directed criminal cases throughout the entire state, and she oversaw

the 21 prosecutors of the county prosecutors in the state of new jersey and the 30,000 state and local law enforcement officers in the state. and in this role she spearheaded criminal and civil investigations into a whole variety of matters including street gang violence, gun violence and trafficking, securities fraud, mortgage fraud and, of course, public corruption. and as a former top law enforcement officer in the state of new jersey, i'm sure we'll all agree that she is uniquely qualified in many respects to talk about the subject of public corruption, and we look forward to hearing what she has to say about it. [laughter] now, just to give one example of one of the significant matters she oversaw, working with the federal government and directed the investigation and prosecution of sharp james who was, at the time, the mayor of newark and for some time simultaneously a state senator in new jersey and certainly throughout one of the most powerful and prominent political actors in the state of new jersey. but it's no surprise that anne would spearhead such a

sensitive, high-profile and high-stakes information that requires courage and judgment and integrity. because anne is a public servant with great courage, has the highest integrity and has impeccable judgment. in anne's year here at the center, i've regularly seen her exercise her judgment firsthand, and i've benefited from it personally. she's a person of the utmost fairness and honesty, she has the strongest ethical and moral compass, and she is absolutely committed to public service and doing the right thing and is a person of the deepest and unquestionable integrity. and as a testament to those characteristics, the roster of people who regularly seek her counsel and advice reads like a who's who of the most powerful and influential lawyers and policymakers in the united states. it is my great pleasure and privilege to introduce my friend and colleague who we will miss tremendously when she leaves here to go on to whatever amazing thing she does next. let me, please, join me in welcoming anne milgram. [applause]

>> thank you so much, tony. good morning, everyone. it's a great pleasure to be here with you today and to talk to you about corruption in the united states of america. i want to talk today about corruption in the broadest sense, and i'll talk about cases, but let me tell you up front that i think it is not enough for us to just talk about cases when we talk about public corruption. i will start with some state cases that we did in new jersey because, as tony has said, i think new jersey provides a terrific example of what type of public corruption we see nationally today. to talk about corruption is to talk about money. and every single case or instance of corruption that i talk about today will come back, ultimately, to that. now, as you might know, most states don't handle public corruption cases, and a lot of da's offices, local offices don't handle the cases either. most states don't handle them

because they simply don't have the jurisdiction to do so. new jersey and a few other states, like rhode island, are unique in that the attorney general's offices have full criminal jurisdiction. some states have limited criminal jurisdiction, but most of the states that you can think about in our country lack statewide jurisdiction. the local prosecutors, the local das are, obviously, elected, and in many instances are very close to the other elected politicians in the state be it in their town, city or state, and that's one reason, i think, that we don't see more local political corruption cases happening. now, as tony mentioned, in new jersey we had full criminal jurisdiction, and we did political corruption cases. we made it one of our three main priorities in the office. we did every type of political corruption case that you could imagine; kickbacks, bribery, bid rigging, personal services, household improvements and theft. we brought cases against many sitting and former elected officials as well as government employees and private businesses.

and when you think about private businesses, you should think about contractors, vendors and developers as well as lobbyists. when i started in the ag's office, new jersey was doing about 40 political corruption cases a year, mostly small cases, mostly state and local government employee theft cases. sometimes we'd see a stolen computer, sometimes they were doing one employee stealing a wallet from another employee, and there was also a scrap metal case where people were stealing scrap metal from one of the local departments. we spent a lot of time and effort over four years building up the political corruption unit, and by the time i left we were charging more than 70 defendants every year, and we were charging major cases including elected officials and multiple defendants and private businesses. some examples of the work that we did in new jersey, and i'll start with the sharp james case because i think it's illustrative of some of the political corruption issues that we see today. now, the james case, and i tell you this importantly, sharp james was the mayor of the city

of newark for over 20 years. the case, the information that helped us to make this case did not come out until sharp james had stepped down as mayor, and that's a theme you'll hear me talk a lot about today which is that people are very reluctant in the public or in government to come forward against people who are still in power. there are two parts to the sharp james case. the first part, which many of you saw publicly because it's the part we went to trial on, was that sharp gave his girlfriend the ability to buy nine parcels of land in newark for $46,000. tameka immediately flipped those properties without improving them in any way and sold them for $665,000. she then gave thousands of dollars to sharp for campaign contributions. the second part of the case which did not go to trial because it was severed by the court related to credit card theft. not credit card theft, stealing money through use of a credit card. the police department held a credit card for the mayor, for sharp james, and they did this

because the security detail who was with him, obviously, traveled with him wherever he went. after sharp left office, we received information that sharp had stolen about $58,000 in city funds for his personal use. he bought numerous trips including trips -- for himself and for others, including trips to the dominican republic, to rio de janeiro, to maryland to look at a yacht he was interested in purchasing, to test drive a rolls royce he was interested in be purchasing and also to eat at a local applebee's and go to a movie theater in a town just outside of newark, new jersey. that's the sharp james case. we also tried and convicted -- i'm sorry, we also prosecuted and convicted mims hackett who was a state assemblyman who went to conferences every year much like this one. he got all of his meals paid for, and when he went back to his office in orange, new jersey, he submitted fake meal expenses. he stole $5700 by doing that 16

separate times. he was actually right-handed, and what he would do with the receipts is fill them out with his left hand thinking that no one would then recognize it was his handwriting. of course, that didn't work, and he was successfully prosecuted. we did a case against joe vos that was, also, i think, an important case. he was a sitting state assemblyman, and he had recently indicated he would step down as the mayor of a town in new jersey. again, this is members of the public coming forward only after a long-sitting mayor had indicated that they would no longer be in power. what we found about vos initially when we started was that he had charged $5,000 to the city for his personal use. over $1400 charged for basketball camps for his son, hundreds of dollars charged for beach clothes for himself, and there was $289 that vos had charged for refreshments at his

own father's funeral. he also raided an affordable housing lottery, and you should see the theme here of housing fraud as a personal driver. we later found out more. we found out he had accepted $58,000 in free catering for a city event from a city contractor and that he'd also accepted the paving and creation of a free driveway at his own home in new jersey. finally, we found out that he had accepted and sought illegal campaign contributions. vos ultimately pleaded guilty as did the two private contractors who we charged. we prosecuted a sitting assemblyman in a simple theft case. every legislator has a certain amount of money that they can pay staff each year. what this man did was get state checks for about $8,000 for work of staffers, but instead of turning those checks over to the staffers, he personally -- he pocketed them, and he used the money for himself and for his political campaign. the staffers did actually do the

work, however, they were always volunteers, so they never saw a single dime of the money. we prosecuted former irvington mayor michael steel who went on to become the business administrator for the board of administration. these were kickback and bid-rigging schemes with two contractors who were supposed to provide school supplies to the school district. the schemes involved a total of $1.4 million in contracts. ultimately, steel pled guilty and so did the contractors, but i point out to you that in addition to the money what steel was constantly doing was shorting the kids of irvington and giving them fewer supplies and pocketing the extra money for himself. the last major public case that we did involved the essex county board of elections, and there were multiple individuals, over ten individuals who we charged including the head of the board of elections for essex county and the husband of state senator teresa ruiz, sammy gonzales. we charged them for falsely

voting absentee ballots and also assorted official corruption crimes. this case always reminds me of the former governor of new jersey who used to say that he wanted to be buried in hudson county so that after he was dead he could continue to vote. [laughter] what's interesting is that burn is actually from essex county, so i think this case teaches us is that he can also be buried in his home county and do just fine. so the question you should all be asking is, is new jersey the most corrupt state in the country? and if it's not new jersey, who is it? the short answer is, i don't know. and i truly don't think that anyone knows. my home state of new jersey would no doubt argue that it was up there in the numbers of who's the most corrupt, but so would residents of many other states. think for a minute about the major corruption scandals in the past decade. in 2006 we saw jack abramoff and 20 others charged and convicted with bribing public officials with meals and gifts related to lobbying they were doing on behalf of american tribes and

casinos. the individuals convicted included two white house officials and representative bob nay. or in january of this year former house speaker tom delay who was convicted of illegal, funneling illegal corporate contributions to state legislative candidates. or october of 2010 in alabama where 11 people were charged for political corruption related to the state legislature including four sitting alabama state legislators. or the city of bell, california, where there are eight people who have been charged, former and present city officials charged with stealing over $5 million, and the people who are charged include the mayor, the city manager and various members of the city council. and, of course, no conversation nationally about political corruption is complete without talking about illinois. former governors george ryan and rod blagojevich or louisiana, former governor eddie edwards who just got out of prison after serving ten years and, of course, in 2009 the case of william jefferson from louisiana

who had $90,000 in marked bills that the fbi found in his freezer. or, finally, new jersey in 2009, the 44th defending case involving informants and a number of political officials. but these examples, none of the examples i've given you so far really tell us who is the most corrupt. we need a better measure than high-profile scandals or anecdotal cases. but the problem is there simply is no good measure out there. who is most corrupt depends on what measure you use. so the first measure i looked at was the better government association, bga. what they do is they measure campaign finance laws, whistleblower protections, conflicts of interest laws, freedom of information and open meetings in all 50 states, and then they create a matrix, and they list the states -- number one being the state with the most integrity in our country. now, remarkably, can anyone guess what the state with the most integrity is under the bga guidelines?

exactly, it's the state of new jersey. and it's shocking, i think -- [laughter] not only is new jersey number one, but louisiana and rhode island also are in the top five. [laughter] now, these are things, these types of reforms are things that we've spent a lot of time over the past two decades working on, and i'll talk a little bit more about it later, but what i think this means is that a lot of the transparency measures and good government measures are simply not the magic bullet we hoped they would be. a second measure we could use is the center for public integrity, and they do a report almost every other year or so, at least twice a decade, on financial disclosure rankings. and, again, they go state by state by state to look at financial disclosure laws and rules. the top five best states, the states that do the best in terms of financial disclosure rankings, are louisiana, washington, hawaii, alaska and texas. new jersey is the number 11th, the 11th pest, and new york is number 16. another measure we could use to talk about who is the most corrupt -- and this is the

measure that i'm most comfortable with although there are, obviously, a lot of issues -- is the number of public corruption convictions. i've looked at this number between the years 2000 and 2009, so for an entire decade. now, there are questions about this measure because just because you have the most cases doesn't necessarily mean you have the greatest problem. you can think of factors that could play into this like an aggressive u.s. attorney, a great fbi agent or a terrific informant that helps you make multiple cases. or even in some instances multiple defendants. also think about the fact that i just told you the state of new jersey did about 70 cases a year. no state or local cases are included in this number, and there just really isn't good tracking of those cases. so the total number of federal convictions in that decade from 2000 to 2009 on political corruption was 20,000. of those, over 9,000 for federal officials and about 1700 were state officials. by their numbers florida leads

the pack with 729 corruption prosecutions. c's second -- california's second, texas has 670, new york comes in fourth with 633. pennsylvania's fifth with 5 39. six is illinois, 489. seven is ohio with 486. eight, my home state, the great state of new jersey with 410. nine, virginia with 380. and tenth, louisiana, with 352. yet another measure which may be a little less scientific is what americans think about corruption and their government. "usa today" and gallup conducted a poll in 2009, and they asked americans, quote, if someone asked you to describe the federal government in one word or phrase, what would it be? now, i'll give you just a second to think about what you would pick before i tell you the answers. the answers are not that surprising. seven in the ten people had a negative reaction to the federal government.

the top three responses to this question were, number one, too big. number two, corrupt. number three -- which is my personal favorite -- confused. [laughter] now, for all of you who might have used more colorful language, i would tell you to look up the study because some of the other answers are colorful, but they come in fourth and fifth and sixth and below that. so where does this leave all of us, and what can we do about what we all know is a significant problem in our country today at all levels of government? if first of all, let me summarize for you what i think are some of the problems. the first relates to the structure of government in many states. new jersey has 566 towns and municipalities in addition to having 21 counties and, obviously, a state government. and every single local government in town has the ability to do everything, so they all have school districts, they all have police departments, they all have fire departments. and critically, they all even

have the ability to bond for something like a parking garage. and they also have the ability to give out affordable housing. so think about what this means for a minute. think about the amount of money and the number of people who can put their hands on that money each and every single day. and then contrast that in your mind with how few cops and prosecutors and government watchdogs are currently on the beat, and you can see how political corruption happens. in terms of the structure of government, new jersey's a another example where the legislature is not full time. it's sort of semi full time, they call it. it's about 70% of someone's time. this, to me, is also a problem which i'll talk about later. there's also a structural issue in terms of the ability of state and federal legislatures -- legislators to block political appointments. generally without saying why and in some states without even saying who is blocking. i call this friends and family program because what you end up seeing are not people being blocked or held up based on merit or issues related to that

particular political appointment. what you often see are people who are held up because a certain legislator would like a family member or friend to be hired, or they'd like family members or friends who have already been hired to get raises. you also, of course, see pension padding which i think is a structural problem not only in new jersey, but in other states whereby people are allowed to have multiple jobs and, ultimately, get absurdly high pension payouts at the end of their careers. a second problem is our historical reliance on criminal cases to change the system. they don't. a friend of mine -- and keep in mind i'm a long-term criminal prosecutor. a friend of mine put it this way: structural problems need structural solutions, and there are a lot of difficulties with political corruption cases. first of all, they usually don't take out full-scale organizations like a case against a blood street gang or the mafia might do. we don't always succeed in eliminating all problems, right? there are issues of displacement and leadership often rises up

after we've taken out a major organization. nevertheless, this is even harder to do when you start talking about something like political corruption. one of the main reasons is that politicians don't work together. they work alone. and so generally the only way to do a multiple defendant case with public officials is to take a contractor with multiple public officials, is to take a contractor or developer or vendor or lobbyist as an informant and work your way from one elected official to the next. the days of divvying up the proceeds of money are long gone. keep in mind with cases, also, that it's tough with one case to make a significant impact. a lot of times it's easy for the public to see these cases as isolated incidents and often, remember, that this is just a slice in time that the criminal prosecution documents, so you might have quite a small amount of money like $5,000 that it's easy for your average citizen to discount as being important. they're time intensive and people often, as i said earlier, only cooperate after someone is

leaving power or is out of power. and, of course, the difficulty we face, often, with all criminal cases is that they're reactive. money may have been stolenner if years -- stolen for years, but it's only in the end when we've charged and convicted someone that we can bring that conduct to an end. when it comes to cases, we also have to be realistic. think about the prosecution of boss tweed. the conviction and, you know, boss tweed was convicted, and he died in jail, but that didn't stop tamny hall which went on strong for another good 50 or 60 years and was ultimately stopped for other reasons. or think about ab scam, the political corruption scandal in 1981 in new jersey. did that stop corruption in new jersey or the other states where there were legislators involved or any of the other cases done in the past decade in jersey, louisiana, d.c. or illinois. did any of that stop or reduce public corruption? and, of course, even though i think cases are not the sole

answer, this bottom line is that we just don't do enough of them as it is. even if cases can't reform the system, they do hold people accountable which is critically important, and there are simply not enough agents, not enough prosecutors and not enough police officers on the beat. another structural problem or another major issue is that legislatures and legislators won't reform themselves. and remember that they, ultimately, get to decide what is and what is not a crime. there are countless towns and businesses and states that put legislators on retainer just because. and those same legislators vote regularly on matters that affect those towns and communities without making public disclosures. you've also got towns and businesses that hire legislators who are lawyers even though most of these lawyers have never practiced in a courtroom for a single day in their lives, and you should ask yourself the question of whether these lawyers are being hired for legal skill or for their contacts and political savvy. there are members of the budget committee who regularly ask government officials testifying

both before them about private business issues that relate to their own personal employment. and yet no one knows about any of this or even who the legislators work for. new jersey is one of 25 states, including new york, that does not require disclosure of who legislators work for. so think about that. you've got 50 legislators in the united states -- 50 legislatures in the united states. even the 25 that right now require disclosure of whose clients the legislators have often have dollar amounts. so the disclosure isn't required, for example, under something like 10,000 or $20,000. this is seriously problematic. we simply cannot leave it to legislators to monitor conflicts of interest in votes and disclosure to ores. -- others. related to these issues are what impact the reforms -- foia, good government measures -- have had on stopping corruption. it's not entirely clear, and i would suggest to you that these are good measures and that they

certainly can't be bad. they promote open government, and they promote traction parent si. but perhaps they're not the magic bullet we once thought they were. if you think about it for a moment, they put a lot of responsibility on the citizenry to promote good government. there are thousands and thousands and thousands of public disclosures that are done in the united states of america every day. it's voluminous. and who reads them? maybe you have one good government watchdog, maybe here and there you have a state ethics committee. but generally, they're not watched, and they're certainly not policed. the last problem is that the system generally permits corruption. and a lot of government is inside baseball and behind closed doors. one good example is something i saw in new jersey related to outside legal counsel. when i got to the ag's office, i was surprised in 2006 to find out how much money the state of new jersey was spending both in the attorney general's office and in the authorities which is in the governor's office for outside counsel. and so i looked at who was being hired, how lawyers were being

selected and really what was going on. i found two shocking things. first, simply the amount of money that was being spent on outside counsel which was millions and millions and millions of dollars. second, the fact was that it was almost all politically connected firms. we were inheriting a democratic administration, and almost all the firms that were on that list were politically-connected democratic firms. there were also a select few prettily- politically-connected republican firms, and you would find that exact equation flips depending on who was in power. you would see that the democratic political firms were the most number of firms on the list, and there were few remoneys, and then the exact reverse would happen when the other party was in power. and i should say here briefly that i don't believe political corruption is an issue particular to either political party. the question is always who is in power and who has the money. it is nothing to do with who's a democrat or a republican. back to the law firms. no offense to them, but

generally they weren't the best lawyers in the state of new jersey. and i'll tell you that in most instances they weren't the law firms that i would want to have handle 100-plus employment cases a year. so i found out about these lists. and i also found out that if you wanted to work as lawyer in a lot of prior administrations, you had to contribute money to the political powers that be. so we changed the system. we changed the system to make it merit-based, we put together an application process with panels to review the applications and to conduct interviews of the law firms if necessary, and we set up an entire structure designed to get the best lawyers from the state. we ended up reducing outside counsel costs by almost half, by millions and millions and millions of dollars. and we also cut in half the amount of money that the state was paying out on a yearly basis. two lawyers -- and in dispositions of cases. better lawyering meant less money paid to the lawyers, but also less money paid out in the disposition of cases whether it was through settlements or

trials or other things, and i believe one year we cut that number from 150 million to about $75 million. the question we should be asking is what's happening today for outside counsel in places like new jersey and in other states. so now we get to the question of what needs to happen. i'll give you my laundry list of suggestions but, obviously, there may be many more ideas out there, and i look to all of you for those types of ideas of what we can do together. the first thing is that structural problems need structural solutions. for example, in the state of new jersey the state must regionalize. you will never eliminate or significantly reduce corruption if you have 566 towns and municipalities. the state must have 21 counties and one state government. the second thing is that we have to eliminate or significantly change legislative holds on political appointments. it is seriously problematic, and it happens at the state, the federal and the local level. the third is client disclosure. this one should be easy, but only half of the states do it now, and it is critically important.

the fourth is that we need to really consider full-time legislators -- legislatures where we prohibit legislators from any outside employment. and if we're not willing to do that, then we knead to go to -- need to go to truly part-time legislatures. there's an obvious conflict that exists in someone doing 60 or 70 or 80% of their work for a legislature and trying to have a private business that isn't connected in some way to their political job. and so i think we need to change what exists currently in pretty much almost all 50 states which is somewhere between 60 and 80% of their time. cases. we need to look at cases. and even though they're not the answer for systematic reform, we need them to hold people accountable. we do way too few of them, and we don't put enough resources into these cases on any level. we also need to look at doing more false claims act cases in both state and federal government. we should also think creatively together about ways in which the federal government can incentivize real reform at the

state and local level. remember when enthe federal government want -- when the federal government wanted to raise the drinking age nationally to 21 and state transportation funding depended on that. in my view, where there's a will, there's a way. we should all do more about political corruption. i want to say one other thing to all of you because you're about to spend a very long day talking about a really important subject that is far from uplifting, and i can't tell you what you should think or believe at the end of the day, but i will tell you what i believe which is that as much of a problem as political corruption is in our country today, i still believe that the overwhelming majority of people go into government and into politics for the right reasons and want to do the right things. and so i believe that these problems are very much fixable. having said that, let me tell you why we should all care more about political corruption, and why we should all do more. there is a corruption tax. we all pay more every single day because of political corruption,

and it's not just your property taxes. it's your driver's license fees, it's the school funding fees that you pay, it's state taxes, it's federal taxes. truly, it's in be every single bill -- it's in every single bill that you pay. but beyond the money that we lose, youal have to think about the fact that we also are not getting the benefit of public officials working to benefit the public good. what we get instead are them looking out for themselves, their families, their friends, cronies and personal pocketbooks, and that happens day in and day out when they vote on important legislative matters. in the end, what we end up with are bad decisions not based on the honest judgment of people we elect to be in government. these are decisions that are made on every aspect of our lives on countless issues. it impacts us on all things from mortgage fraud to financial reform to the environment to even what becomes a crime. this is a devastatingly high price to pay, and we simply cannot afford to continue to pay it. thank you very much.

have a wonderful day. [applause] >> this week while the senate is on a break, c-span2 presents booktv prime time. tonight, "afterwords" with george friedman on his book, "the next decade," focusing on america's relationship with china and the middle east. then wendy kopp, founder of teach for america. and biographer frank brady on his book "end game: bobby fisher's remarkable rise and fall." booktv prime time begins tonight at 8 ian. >> this weekend on booktv on c-span2, panels on science, american history, climate change and the constitution. and call-ins with larry flynt, sally pipes and walter mosley. just a few of the highlights from our live coverage of the los angeles times' festival of books. get the entire schedule online

at booktv.org, and get our schedule sent directly to your inbox. sign up for booktv alert. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, university of scranton professor katherine mayer on medical science during the civil war and the advancements made by the north and south. former senator and presidential candidate bob dole looks back at his political career during the nixon administration. and an examination of the disputed presidential election of 1876 between rutherford b. hayes and samuel j. tilden. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history where you can also press the c-span alert button and have our schedules e-mailed to you. >> prime minister's question time returned this week after a three-week easter recess. prime minister david cameron and ed miliband debated the results of a new government report indicating the british economy grew by half a percent in the

first few months o of the year. there were also questions about health care reform, patient waiting times, next week's vote on an alternative electoral system and support for the british nuclear industry. this is a half hour. >> the questions to the prime minister, jim shannon.quee >> question one, mr. speaker? >> thank you, mr. speaker.the i know the whole house will wish to join me in paying tribute to colorer sergeant alan cameron wo died on thursday the 31st of march as a result of injuries he suffered while serving in the afghanistan last april. and captain lisa head from 11 explosive ordnance regiment who died on tuesday, the 19th of april. color sergeant cameron was an inspirational figure to his regiment providing support to injured colleagues and their families even while he was being treated in hospital for his own injuries. captain head demonstrated great bravery in her work making safes

ieds to protect her colleagues and the local population. they will not be forgotten, and our wishes and best condolences should be with their families and friends. i'm sure you'll join me in sending condolences to rolandmiy cur. those who murdered him must not be allowed to deter thely, overwhelming wishes of people who want a peaceful and shared p future for northern ireland. people across the country and, indeed, across the world are getting excited about the events on friday, and i'm sure the whole house would wish to join me in sending our best wishes to prince william and to katherineg middleton ahead of their weddin this friday and to wish them a long and happy life together. [cheers and applause] mr. speaker, this morning i had meeting with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings today. >> jim shannon. >> thank you, mr. speaker. m i'd like to associate myself with the comments of the prime

minister and also welcome homeim the is rangers and guards back t from their tour of duty in afghanistan.or on easter monday -- [inaudible] law-abiding citizens. the murderers threatened to kill officers. they threatened the churches, both protestant and roman catholic, they threaten politicians, they threaten members of the ordinary assembly and mps in this house. can the prime minister today assure the attack upon a democratic process will be forcefully met and those republican terrorists must be brought to justice? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i can give that assurances. i'm sure everyone in this house and, indeed, this country would agree that scenes of the people in londonderry are completelys unacceptable. we have fundedou the nsi appropriately, and i would urge them to do everything they cantt to hunt down these people.cept but above all, the words that

should ring in our ears are the words of the mother of police constable raymond cur who said that she hoped this would not stop more roman catholics joining the psni and doing as of great job policing northern ireland. >> mr. brian finley. >> thank you, mr. speaker. who does the prime minister recognize that lending toman business by banks was down 3.4 billion last month in march and that the construction industry was down in productive terms byr 4.7%?nks does the prime minister see a connection, and if he does, what will he do about it? >> well, the honorable gentleman is right that in the figures today what's happening in the construction industry is disappointing. to get britain building again, and that's why we're into douse deucing the in new -- introducing the new homes bonus. what is encouraging is the british economy is growing once again. manufacturing is up, exports are up, and we're seeing a rebalancing of the economy. so we're not overreliant on e private consumption.

that's good news.ain. and on the banks we have an agreement with them they must increase their lending to the businesses large and small, andt that needs to happen. >> ed milliband. >> mr. speaker, can i join the minister in paying tribute to color sergeant alan cameron and captain lisa head, both demonstrated enormous courage and bravery, and our thoughts are with their family and friends.eron i also pay tribute to roland cur whote was senselessly murdered w simply for doing his job, and w should all be encouraged by the expressions of outrage we have seen across all communities in northern ireland in response to this act. i also join the prime minister in sending best wishes to prince william and katherine middleton on their happy day on friday, and i'm sure i also speak for him and the deputy prime minister to say we will all do d our best to be suitably attired for the occasion. [laughter] mr. speaker -- no, mr. speaker,

turning to the economy. does the prime minister think it is a mark of success or failure that the economy has flatlined over the last six months? >> well, it's clearly a successt the economy is growing. [cheers and applause]st the figures out this morning wel show the economy growing in thec fist quarter of the year --cces first quarter of the year. they show manufacturing up,ye exports up, ans,d we've got work inmore people in the private sector than we had a year ago. but the honorable gentleman predicted a double dip. he said we were going to get two course quarters of negative growth. when he gets to his feet, perhaps this time to apologize for talking the economy down. >> ed miliband!o >> mr. speaker, what world is he living in? [cheers and applause] -- what extraordinary come play seo si -- complacency. his honorable friend askedo what's happeningrl to small business lending. what terrible complacency from

this prime minister. six months ago what did he tella us? that we were out of the danger zone. since then there's been no growth at all in the british economy.o, and then yesterday theat w chancellor was reported to have told the cabinet that the economy was on track, but it'srs not even forecast to meet the figures published by the office of budget reform stability last month. the figures last month by the chancellor.ot isn't it the case that it's his cups that are too far and too fast that are squeezing living standards, undermining consumer confidence and holding back growth in our economy?cu >> the right honorable gentleman was desperate for the economy to shrink today, yes?mini he had written his question, he had come to the house. the only problem was the economa was growing, not shrinking! he said there'd be a double dip recession. was, the economy was growing, not shrinking. he said, and the shadow

chancellor said, there would be a double-dip recession and now the economy is growing. why can't they find it in themselves to welcome the growth in the economy? we should be talking up the fact that manufacturing is increasing. we're exporting more. 390,000 more in private sector jobs than a year ago. these are welcome developments. now he talks about the danger zone. i'll tell him what the danger zone is. the danger zone is countries like portugal, greece, ireland who didn't deal with their debts and as a result, have got interest rates rocketing and real problems. we've got debts tragically because of what we inherited, a deficit, the same size as greece and we got interest rates like germany. so it's time for him to admit he was wrong about the deficit and wrong about the economy. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, first of all, it's not me who's talking down the economy. it's his austerity rhetoric in

the country. and mr. speaker, he's been prime minister for a year. he can't -- he can't blame the greeks. he can't blame the bank of england. he could blame the last government. he can't even blame the snow. why didn't -- why doesn't he admit -- why doesn't he admit the six months of no growth is because of his decisions, his chancellor's decisions and his government's decisions? >> the economy has grown by 1.8% by last year. let me tell you i did a little research. all the time -- all the time the right honorable gentleman was in the cabinet, there wasn't one single quarter when the economy grow more than 9.8%. one. so that is his great record. so let me tell him -- let me tell him something about the need to make public spending cuts. we are now in a new financial year, the year in which the darling plan was going to cut the deficit and start the process of cutting it by half.

so for every 8 pounds we are proposing to cut this year, they would be cutting 7 pounds. have we heard a single sensible proposal for making any cut? or have we just heard blatant opportunism and talking the economy down? i think we know. >> would the prime minister join me in examining this appalling, disgraceful, untruthful misleading leaflet which is being distributed by the yes to fairer votes campaign, which has been shared by the electoral reform survey. it seeks to diminish parliament and, therefore, damaged democracy which given the content of the lever could be the only objective of the electoral reforms society. >> well, i think what matters in this week that we have left before we vote in this vital referendum is to get back to the real argument about competing electoral systems.

i'm very clear that first past the post is simple, is fair, is effective, has worked for our country. and i have to say it's not often i like to look out on a sea of red badges but today it looks quite good. >> evan brenham. >> is the -- is the health secretary's job still guaranteed? he's over there, by the way. [laughter] >> the secretary does a great job. and let me -- and let me -- let me draw -- let me draw a little contrast. >> order! order! it's very unfair. it's unfair on the prime minister. it's unfair on me. i want to hear the answer. the prime minister. >> let me draw a little contrast between what the health secretary is delivering here, real term health increases in spending and what is happening in wales. because what is happening in wales is the labour-led administration is cutting the nhs in real terms. everyone in wales needs to know if they get another

labour-dominated assembly, she will get cuts in the nhs, whereas in england we'll see increases of the nhs because of the work of my right honorable friend. >> thank you, people have been shot to the extent of phone hacks allegations against some of our most popular newspapers. in order to uncover the truth, will the prime minister instigate a full judicial inquiry, and in particular, look at the relationship between the metropolitan police and news international? >> what's absolutely clear is phone hacking is not only unacceptable. it is against the law. it is illegal and a criminal offense and i would urge the police and the prosecuting authorities to follow the evidence wherever it leads. that must happen first. and we musn't let anything get in the way of criminal investigations. >> could the prime minister explain why if there's a genuine cause in the enactment of the

health and social care bill while the exception cluster pct's which are preceding the greater manchester has been brought forward to the first -- from the first of june to the third of may. isn't this pause nothing more than window dressing? it's political maneuvering before next week's elections? >> no, i think the honorable lady is wrong. this is a genuine exercise in trying to make sure that we get the very best out of these reforms. and this is looking specifically at areas like public accountability, like choice and competition, education and training, the patient involvement aspects of the reforms. of course, we've got to go ahead with driving out the bureaucracy and the additional costs from the nhs. we inherited, i think, rightly, frankly, from labour a 20 billion pound efficiency program. we've got to take that through. but there's a genuine opportunity to make these reforms better still. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

>> the commonly cited final furtive premises beyond the reach of commercial broadband deployment is more like a final with one-third of those receiving sped less than 2 megabytes per second did the prime minister agree with me with investing in broadband will help the general economy. >> we must put this in. we are spending, i think, 530 million pounds investing in broadband. and particularly in rural areas, broadband is going to be absolutely vital in driving the creation of small businesses and growing businesses. they will be so important of keeping the growth of employment in our country. >> can the prime minister tell us why 98.7% of nurses have no confidence in his health reorganization. >> whenever you make changes in public services, when you make

changes in public services as challenge taking people with you. but that is the whole point of pausing the reforms and then trying to get them going again with greater support from doctors and nurses. >> what i say to the honorable gentleman, if he wants to make constructive decisions, why not have a try. >> that wasn't a good answer, mr. speaker, was it? i asked him why 98.% have none of the policy because it's a bad policy. it's a policy nobody voted for and was not in miss manifesto either as the regime elect. maybe one the reasons why they had no competence in his policy is because two years ago he said there's no more pointless top-down reorganizations. this is it. next question. why is it the hospital waging time fell year on year after the

last labour government, but has risen months and months with this government? >> that's actually not the case. if you look at outpatient rates, that's fell in the last month. he should be wrong about that as he usually is. i have to say i looked at the opportunity to study his representations about the reforms. i had a good look. he says that we are introducing e.u. competition for the first time, it doesn't. he says we're allowing dp's to charge. we're not. he says that patients are left without services. they won't. why doesn't he realize instead of frightening people, offer a constructive contribution. >> another totally hopeless answer. i was asking about waiting time. the department of health figures these waiting times are 20% up for those waiting more than 18 weeks.

it's a record level. years ago, now, mr. speaker, one of the reason waiting times went up is because he's diverting millions of pounds away from patient care into this costly reorganization. a suggestion, just for once just listen to the doctors, the patient, and the nurses and scrap his reorganization? he asked me to listen to doctors, here's one doctor i'll definitely listen to. i hope the honorable members remember the member of parliament, yes, he's no longer -- he's no longer an md because he lost the election because of a conservative candidate, but he's now a gp. calm down, dear, calm down. [laughter] listen to the doctor. [laughter] calm down, and listen to the doctor. our gp says this. my discussions with fellow gp's

reveal overwhelming enthusiasm for the -- i said calm down. calm down, dear. i mean, -- >> order, order. let me answer briefly and we'll move on to ventures. >> a very brief quote from a labor who is now a gp says my discussions with fellow gps reveal overemming enthusiasm to help state services for the patients they see daily. that's what they think of the reforms. that's what that means. i'm not going to apologize. you two need to calm down. what i say to the honorable gentleman in the weeks -- in the weeks -- >> order, order. there's far too much noise in this chamber. order! this makes a very bad impression

on the public as a whole and the other people waiting to contribute. i think the prim minister is finished. mr. william taft. >> a number of issues have arisen and the portuguese bailout and proposals for corporation taxes at european level. will the prime minister recoil the phrase and say to the meaters, no, no, no? >> that's an important point about the european budget. the io dear of a 5% increase when member states make reductions in public programs at home is completely unacceptable, and we'll make sure it doesn't happen. >> phil wilson. >> proposing to build the largest wind farm in england with 45 wind turbines. just less than a mile away from two big corporations on beautiful landscape of the area. can the prime minister inform us

what influence will allow us on the planning decision that this is on the landscape and ask the minister to make a delegation? >> i'm happy to arrange that meeting, and i think it is important that local people have a greater say in planning decisions, and that's what we're putting into place, but also i believe when farms go ahead, local people should see a greater benefit in terms of the phone conference that goes into the -- finance that goes into the local area, and that's what i would achieve. >> the labour government implemented the medical training information service and junior doctors remember what a disaster that was. anyway, there's an untest the system with disastrous consequences for junior doctors in training, but is the prime minister aware there's current

proposals to offer medical training and work force planning to have similar unforeseen consequences? >> i have to say to the lady, she's better at getting them to shut up than i am. [laughter] it's a future speaker in the making. i can guarantee we are not going to make the mistake that the last government made about medical training where they created an utter shamble. >> phil? >> mr. speaker, ad kay had excellent treatment in the hospital lately and recovering well, but while in hospital, his operation was canceled four times and told also about the closure of beds and redundancies of nurses on his ward. to mr. kay's experience shows the prime minister was wrong claims he would not cut the nhs. >> i point i make is of course there's things that go wrong in the national health service and

that's why we need to reform and modernize it, but the fact it there was one party in the last election saying we're increasing the nhs in real terms, and that's what we're doing. he should have words with his colleagues in wales proposing to cut the national health service, not in cash terms, but real terms, and he should help us put a stop to it. >> great work, mr. speaker. across the country, 2 million families are on waiting lists for social housing and a million homes are empty and the average age for the first home buyer is 37. does the government acknowledge the housing crisis in britain and have a strategy to tackle it? >> we acknowledge the difficult situation. the house building was at a 60-70 year low and introduce ways to make sure local communities want to see more houses built. the old top-down system didn't

work and the new homes bonus and incentives begin to local authorities means extra housing goes ahead. >> thank you, mr. speaker. rather than lose the argument can you explain why waiting times go up in my constituency and in the country? >> he's not right. i quoted the figures. i quoted the figures, they are broadly stable over the last couple of years, that is the fact. he's meant to be a modernizer is if you want to see waiting times come down and stay down, then a system with greater choice and patients choose where to get treated, that's the answer. there's still time to get on board. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm engaged in a consultation process with my constituents and i issue great concern to them that the commercialization of

children. as a parent, does my right honorable friend agree with my constituents that to be taken to find real solutions for the challenging issue to give every child the chance that they deserve? >> i completely agree with my honorable friend, and as father of three little ones, it's worrying when you see what's available in some shops in some places and asking our children to grow up too early, and i do think there's more we can do. that's why we asked the chief executives of the mother's union to carry out an independent review into the vital area and there's a whole range of specific issues that include television, video, and other pressures put on people, and we're expecting the report in a few weeks time. >> the prime minister described hospices as one of the great successes of the big society. why is it then that they're the result of the government's increases and cuts in gifts paid

that the hospice in my constituency pays an extra 20,000 pounds this year to the -- will he give them the money back? >> the point i make, the hospice movement is a fantastic example of the big society and it should expand. what the chancellor has done is increase aid so more people can give more money. i have to say there's another welsh member of parliament. here's this point, why supporting an nhs cut in wales that hits not just hospices, but hospitals, gdps, and community services. labour are cutting the nhs. you cannot trust labour with our national health service. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the whole house will be aware that younger women drivers face a massive hike in their insurance premiums next year and

as a direct result of a european call to judgment. in that con text, does my friend share my disappointment this judgment is welcomed by london's union who indicated that they are to be add admirable? >> i have to say that some of the loonie leftists are still alive and well in the country because insurance premiums ought to reflect risks. i think it's done that. insurance premiums ought to reflect risk. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's almost 12 months into my hospital in the shooting of the

hostages that took place there. they have chosen to do nothing, but there's actions and other providers facing their services being removed. we need this over and do the con stish wents a -- con stitch wents a favor? >> i remember visiting and they did brilliant work, and he does not need to worry about the future of the west hospital and discussed concerns that in agreement issues need to be resolved swiftly and working with the nhs to produce proposals to reproduce the hospital. that's what's going to happen because the commitments we made. we're sad that -- luckily he's not in wales where they cut the nrk hs, but i suspect they'll do

that in england as well. >> this country lost 1 #.7 million manufacturing jobs under the last government. what plans does the government have to make sure this decline is reversed? >> what we're seeing over the last year already is an increase in manufacturing, output, an increase in manufacturing exports. i was in bedford last week, the gm plant, where they are massively expanding, creating more jobs, bringing 150 million pounds of offshore contracts back into the u.k.. we're backing that with low tax rates, deregulation, more apprentices. this is a government who is proenterprise, projobs, promanufacturing to tig us out of the mess the last one left. >> doesn't the nightmare of fukushima mean that the planned nuclear power will be stillborn? shouldn't we be planning for a

future that will be free of the cost, fear, an sighty of nuclear power and rich in renewables that are brittish, green, inexhaustible, and safe? >> well, what i say to the honorable gentleman is we have to learn actions from fukushima, but as i said before, it's a different reactor design in a different part of the world with disircht pressures. this industry has a good safety record, but clearly, they got to p go on proving that in the light of the new evidence such as that comes out of japan. that's what must happen, and the head of the nuclear inspector will do exactly that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime ministers of the opponents of the alternative vote system and reserve. [inaudible] there's special disstain for the idea someone win early in the second round. will he step aside for the right

honorable member? >> i seem to remember in my leadership it ended up with the two of us touring the country. i'm pleased to say unlike some parties around here, the person who won actually won. [laughter] >> given -- the power recovery stores, does he stand by what he said to the house after the first budget last june, and i quote "unemployment will fall every year in this parliament." >> what i was quoting the budget office. the fact is since 12 months ago, there are 390,000 more people in private sector jobs than there was a year ago. i would have thought with the economy growing, exports up, manufacturing up, with more

people in work, he should be welcoming that instead of joining the doomers on the front bench who talk the economy down. >> will the prime minister join me in an international review after the u.n. report of the crime government? >> my honorable friend raises an an important point and there's unanswered questions from that period. i'll look at what he says and write to him. >> mr. speaker, the forces deserved to be recognized at the highest level and all the time the prime minister said why on earth therefore of the royal irish guards denied a homecoming parade in belfast? will the prime minister intervene and talk to colleagues to ensure this process of recognition for our troops and the appreciation by the citizens of northern ireland can rightly take place as soon as possible? >> well, first of all, i thank the honorable gentleman for

raising this issue because the bravery of the irish guard has been outstanding and suffered loss of life. there's a number of homecoming events taking place in northern ireland and we're discussing with about how to give recognition to their tremendous bravery. no decision has been made. i'll make sure he's fully involved in the decisions, but it is also worth noting because there's sanctioned and stationed in north north yorkshire. i'm sure there'll have many other parades beside. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister join with me con gratelating the council on freezing its taxes? can he say how many other local authorities across the country have frozen their council tax against the advise of the party opposite that described that whole thing as a gimmick? >> well, i'm pleased to announce every single council in the

country despite the fact they dismissed it as a gimmick and despite the fact the leaders said they should be able to charge more, every council gave their hard pressed taxpayers a council tax freeze. we remember what happened over the last 10 years where council tax doubled, the tax of choice of the party opposite taking money out of people's pockets. we'll freezing that tax to give people a break, and they deserve it. >> on c-span2 book tv prime time tonight, the next decade focusing on america's relationship with china and the middle east. then wendy kopp, founder of teach for america, and then end game, bobby fishers remarkablize and fall and that begins tonight at 8 eastern.

>> if they send me the bill in its present form, i will sign it. okay. any questions? [laughter] no one? >> are you still here? >> almost every year the president and journalists meet at the white house cor spots dinner to make a little fun of themselves at their own expense. president obama heads there again this saturday. watch live or go back and watch a past dinner. search, watch, clip, and share online at the c-span video library. every program since 1987. watch what you want when you

want. >> the new america foundation led a discussion wednesday assessing the al-qaeda threat ten years after 9/11. a former bush administration counterterrorist adviser says they see the spring uprisings as an opportunity. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. [inaudible conversations] >> we're very -- we're going to start a little early. can you hear me? no? [inaudible conversations] i gave the audio folks a two minute warning, but apparently i didn't calibrate my watch. i'll wait for a signal from patrick. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

is it good to go? can you hear me adequately out there? yeah, okay good. well, good morning, everybody, i'm the president of the new america foundation and it's my pleasure to welcome you to this conference that is really a production of the national security studies program here at new america led by my colleague peter peterbergman who you'll hear from shortly. we're talking about al-qaeda and its affiliates and its impact ten years after 9/11. i'll offer my theory and what we're talking about to the. as you look at the agenda, it's a special lineup talking about the global network and al-qaeda as well as some of its regional settings and affiliates, and in the audience there's extraordinary by invitation expertise, and i'm looking forward to your participation as

well as to the remarks by the panelists. just a couple of housekeeping and sort of ore yen dation comments. first of all, not only are we on the record, but we're on c-span, so please be aware of that as the day goes along. if you ask a question, do so deliberately and knowing that you're on the record, and also please do identify yourself and be conscious of the time that you take in any remarks that you make. we are also -- because we're micked up and so forth, it's grateful for you to turn off your noise making devices or silence them in any event, and this is more or less a nonstop flight today. we're going to have one break just before lunch, but we're going to count on you to take care of yourselves as the day goes along. if you need the facilities, they are just outside. if you need a phone break, there's space behind you, and the staff can direct you toward

a private place if you need it. there's a couple of them available for you. just a couple of sort of thanks to people who made this possible. first, to peter and his staff, pat trick who is moderating a panel, stephanie and others outside working very, very hard to bring this extraordinary group together. i promised peter i would give a plug to his -- two of his important endeavors. one is, i assume all of you are subscribers to the daily brief. you'll love the costs, it's a pretty attractive cost pointen and there's now 13,000 subscribers across the world and as well as washington. katharine has been the intelligence comiewl architect of that product with peter's mentoring. there's also another similar e-mail product for free that i

wanted to mention to you which is the legal war on terror that andrew puts out biweekly with 6500 subscribers, and i recommend it to you. i want to thank smith richardson foundation and the president particularly. their support made the gathering possible today and important partners of ours in the continuing research we do about south asia and counterterrorism over the last couple of years and going forward, and they are just in the world of foundation partners that think tanks learned to work with. they are really the best. they have a really high degree of interest in evidence-based research and very light touch and they are outstanding leaders of the organization. we are glad to be working with them here today. we've called this ten years after 9/11, of course, it's not quite, an i was thinking about that as i was trying to frame a

couple introductory remarks, and i was reflecting on exactly 10 years ago in the last week of april 2001, it was a very different moment than ten years ago will feel like in september, and i was reminded that at that time, there was a trial underway at folley square in the southern district of new york. the case was captioned "united states vs. bin laden" and it was a case in the white courthouse that some of you know. a number of defendants who participated in the 1998 africa embassy bombings were present at the trial and convicted by a jury verdict, but bin laden, of course, was not present in the courtroom, and nonetheless, he and al-qaeda were essentially the subject of the trial, and i have like some of you i'm sure

who have conducted similar research spent time with those trial transscraipts because they are a rich source of information, and they are available. i looked at the trial day from exactly ten years ago, randomly selected, it was day 35 of the trial, and that morning at ten o'clock, the case resumed and judge sans's courtroom and began with an argument with patrick fitzgerald who was prosecuting the case and the defense lawyers and judge sand over essentially the admissibility of evidence against al-qaeda concerning a fatal raid by u.n. troops in somalia in 1993 and how that evidence would be presented and how it might characterize, and essentially the question they debated in the transcript was whether or not certain armed

islamists somalia militia men for al-qaeda or just lose affiliated violence militias and also what kind of threat they proposed to the united states, and fitzgerald argued, and i'll quote his argument to the judge that "the islamist shooters in somalia in 1993 should be understood as up spired by al-qaeda, and he said, "the united states is coming to somalia to take over the country to colonize it and invade sudan. the point suspect how people get shot or killed, but what the mind set is. that's the argument we're going to make, but not say this soldier was killed by al-qaeda people." so i think in many ways analytically and otherwise, we're still litigating this case, the united states vs. bin

laden. it's been ten years. the public understandably seeks clear definitions about the enemy that so effected the united states and influenced the country's defense in foreign policies since 9/11, and yesterday, the reliable facts about al-qaeda remain very complex, sometimes opaque and difficult to discover, and they are certainly subject to vigorous honest argument. of course, the context in which we search for clarity and reliable perspective about al-qaeda changed a great deal in the last ten years. the american military has waged extensive ground and air campaigns in afghanistan and iraq in wars that were partially recognized by al-qaeda and intelligence officers and police in the united states in europe and nhs other countries have extended enormous amount of time